|
ms
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Development machine recommendations...This is a little off topic, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask...
I am about to purchase a new development laptop computer. Before I do, I thought I might ask the C# development community if there are any recommendations for a good Visual Studio development machine. Is there any machine or brand out there that has come to be preferred within the development community??? Thanks! craig wrote:
> This is a little off topic, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask... I'd never recommend a laptop for development, the harddisks in a laptop > > I am about to purchase a new development laptop computer. Before I do, I > thought I might ask the C# development community if there are any > recommendations for a good Visual Studio development machine. Is there any > machine or brand out there that has come to be preferred within the > development community??? are simply too slow. And harddiskspeed is what matters most after ram. So first, grab the fastest harddisk solution you can find, and second grab that solution with as much ram you can find. To get that on a laptop will be very hard. So I'd recommend to you a workstation with RAID 0 striped scsi harddisks on a 66mhz pci bus together with at least 1GB of ram. Frans -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma Microsoft MVP (C#) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Frans Bouma [C# MVP] <perseus.usenetNOSPAM@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> craig wrote: While laptop hard disks are indeed slow, developing on a laptop doesn't > > This is a little off topic, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask... > > > > I am about to purchase a new development laptop computer. Before I do, I > > thought I might ask the C# development community if there are any > > recommendations for a good Visual Studio development machine. Is there any > > machine or brand out there that has come to be preferred within the > > development community??? > > I'd never recommend a laptop for development, the harddisks in a laptop > are simply too slow. And harddiskspeed is what matters most after ram. have to be particularly painful. You need to put more memory into the machine so that Windows can use a lot as cache, but I have no problems developing on my laptop (1GB memory, 3GHz P4 processor, 1600x1200 screen, the last being *very* important to devlopment, IME). If I didn't have a laptop, I'd get a lot less personal development done at home, because I'd have to do it in a particular room, rather than wherever I happen to want to do it. I've written quite a lot of code in bed when ill :) If you only want to develop in one place, a desktop would be a better solution, but don't write off the possibility of using a laptop. I spend most of my development time writing or designing code, and very little of that time requires a fast disk - it's only when either starting up VS.NET or doing a build of a really big solution that the disk speed becomes a significant factor. -- Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too What are the pros/cons of going with a laptop that has a fast, 3 GHz, P4
processor with HT technology for development vs., say, a 1.5 GHz Centrino? Wouldn't a laptop with the P4 run very hot and have a very short battery life? Would a Centrino really slow down development that much? I agree completely about the screen resolution. The new widescreen formats are perfect for writing code with Visual Studio. It would be great to have the Server Explorer open on the left side of the screen, and the Solution Explorer open on the right side of the screen, yet still not have to scroll horizontally to see an entire line of code. Show quote "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1cb116366735162a98beee@msnews.microsoft.com... > Frans Bouma [C# MVP] <perseus.usenetNOSPAM@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> craig wrote: >> > This is a little off topic, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask... >> > >> > I am about to purchase a new development laptop computer. Before I do, >> > I >> > thought I might ask the C# development community if there are any >> > recommendations for a good Visual Studio development machine. Is there >> > any >> > machine or brand out there that has come to be preferred within the >> > development community??? >> >> I'd never recommend a laptop for development, the harddisks in a laptop >> are simply too slow. And harddiskspeed is what matters most after ram. > > While laptop hard disks are indeed slow, developing on a laptop doesn't > have to be particularly painful. You need to put more memory into the > machine so that Windows can use a lot as cache, but I have no problems > developing on my laptop (1GB memory, 3GHz P4 processor, 1600x1200 > screen, the last being *very* important to devlopment, IME). > > If I didn't have a laptop, I'd get a lot less personal development done > at home, because I'd have to do it in a particular room, rather than > wherever I happen to want to do it. I've written quite a lot of code in > bed when ill :) > > If you only want to develop in one place, a desktop would be a better > solution, but don't write off the possibility of using a laptop. I > spend most of my development time writing or designing code, and very > little of that time requires a fast disk - it's only when either > starting up VS.NET or doing a build of a really big solution that the > disk speed becomes a significant factor. > > -- > Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet > If replying to the group, please do not mail me too craig <e@mail.com> wrote:
> What are the pros/cons of going with a laptop that has a fast, 3 GHz, P4 I wouldn't know, not having used a Centrino. I almost always use my > processor with HT technology for development vs., say, a 1.5 GHz Centrino? > Wouldn't a laptop with the P4 run very hot and have a very short battery > life? Would a Centrino really slow down development that much? laptop on power, but it's okay for a few hours of development. > I agree completely about the screen resolution. The new widescreen formats Unfortunately I don't have a widescreen laptop, but with a high > are perfect for writing code with Visual Studio. It would be great to have > the Server Explorer open on the left side of the screen, and the Solution > Explorer open on the right side of the screen, yet still not have to scroll > horizontally to see an entire line of code. resolution it doesn't matter too much :) -- Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Show quote
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message Also....have you notice the screen coating that most new widescreen laptops news:MPG.1cb2428ecac2c83f98bef7@msnews.microsoft.com... > craig <e@mail.com> wrote: >> What are the pros/cons of going with a laptop that has a fast, 3 GHz, P4 >> processor with HT technology for development vs., say, a 1.5 GHz >> Centrino? >> Wouldn't a laptop with the P4 run very hot and have a very short battery >> life? Would a Centrino really slow down development that much? > > I wouldn't know, not having used a Centrino. I almost always use my > laptop on power, but it's okay for a few hours of development. > >> I agree completely about the screen resolution. The new widescreen >> formats >> are perfect for writing code with Visual Studio. It would be great to >> have >> the Server Explorer open on the left side of the screen, and the Solution >> Explorer open on the right side of the screen, yet still not have to >> scroll >> horizontally to see an entire line of code. > > Unfortunately I don't have a widescreen laptop, but with a high > resolution it doesn't matter too much :) seem to have? It creates alot of glare. I am not sure what the benefit is. Show quote > > -- > Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet > If replying to the group, please do not mail me too "craig" <e@mail.com> wrote in message <snip>news:OxqlZy6MFHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > I agree completely about the screen resolution. The new widescreen I'd go further and say that (assuming you are using a desktop machine) aformats > are perfect for writing code with Visual Studio. It would be great to have > the Server Explorer open on the left side of the screen, and the Solution > Explorer open on the right side of the screen, yet still not have to scroll > horizontally to see an entire line of code. dual monitor configuration is the way to go. Particularly if you have any paint methods to debug, having the IDE on one screen and the debuggee on the other is a godsend. I run two displays at 1280x1024, and still wish I had more room. From my experience (depending on what you are developing) you will want to
concentrate on items which increase you machine speed. Seems like most developers always have loads of applications running (IDE, email ...). I would recommend just a few items: at least 1 Gig of RAM (Which makes everything run faster) Any HyperThreaded CPU (Because all future machines will be multi-core, and you need to get used to programming for it) DanB Show quote "craig" <e@mail.com> wrote in message news:uqLbnKVMFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > This is a little off topic, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask... > > I am about to purchase a new development laptop computer. Before I do, I > thought I might ask the C# development community if there are any > recommendations for a good Visual Studio development machine. Is there > any machine or brand out there that has come to be preferred within the > development community??? > > Thanks!
Show quote
"Dan Baker" <dbmail> wrote in message I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor machine. It's all news:OFQsYXVMFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > From my experience (depending on what you are developing) you will want to > concentrate on items which increase you machine speed. Seems like most > developers always have loads of applications running (IDE, email ...). > > I would recommend just a few items: > at least 1 Gig of RAM (Which makes everything run faster) > Any HyperThreaded CPU (Because all future machines will be multi-core, and you > need to get used to programming for it) > > DanB > > to easy to write poor code that runs fine because you've got a super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write something that runs well on a poor machine you've propbably got it right and it can only get better if the users have top quality work stations and/or high quality servers. Stirring it up :) -- Joe (MVP) https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message But if my machine slows my productivity down by 10%, then I'm wasting my news:uBTchbVMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... [Snip] > I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor machine. > It's all to easy to write poor code that runs fine because you've got a > super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write something that runs > well on a poor machine you've propbably got it right and it can only get > better if the users have top quality work stations and/or high quality > servers. > > Stirring it up :) clients money. I always prefer having a UAT machine available from the start which is representative of the lower end of the target machine specifications. Then I can code at my happy high speed, and the testing quickly shows performance problems. Oh yeah, goes without saying that you test all your stuff on the UAT machine, often. Show quote > -- > > Joe (MVP) > > https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 > I agree: Develop on the best you can get, using the best practice coding, if
the target machine is below average, they should upgrade it. Show quote "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message news:d21em4$jb8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... > "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message > news:uBTchbVMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > [Snip] >> I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor machine. >> It's all to easy to write poor code that runs fine because you've got a >> super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write something that runs >> well on a poor machine you've propbably got it right and it can only get >> better if the users have top quality work stations and/or high quality >> servers. >> >> Stirring it up :) > > But if my machine slows my productivity down by 10%, then I'm wasting my > clients money. I always prefer having a UAT machine available from the > start which is representative of the lower end of the target machine > specifications. Then I can code at my happy high speed, and the testing > quickly shows performance problems. Oh yeah, goes without saying that you > test all your stuff on the UAT machine, often. > >> -- >> >> Joe (MVP) >> >> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 >> > > Or you could run a Virtual PC image within your good machine and hobble it
by only allocating 128MB RAM.. also set resolution within that VPC to be 640x480 or something sick like that Show quote "OHM ( Terry Burns )" <m*@mine.com> wrote in message news:OuCGP%23VMFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >I agree: Develop on the best you can get, using the best practice coding, >if the target machine is below average, they should upgrade it. > > -- > OHM ( Terry Burns ) > > http://TrainingOn.net > > > > > > > > > "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message > news:d21em4$jb8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... >> "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message >> news:uBTchbVMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> [Snip] >>> I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor machine. >>> It's all to easy to write poor code that runs fine because you've got a >>> super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write something that runs >>> well on a poor machine you've propbably got it right and it can only get >>> better if the users have top quality work stations and/or high quality >>> servers. >>> >>> Stirring it up :) >> >> But if my machine slows my productivity down by 10%, then I'm wasting my >> clients money. I always prefer having a UAT machine available from the >> start which is representative of the lower end of the target machine >> specifications. Then I can code at my happy high speed, and the testing >> quickly shows performance problems. Oh yeah, goes without saying that you >> test all your stuff on the UAT machine, often. >> >>> -- >>> >>> Joe (MVP) >>> >>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 >>> >> >> > > "JiangZemin" <fourpill***@example.com> wrote in message True, but this won't give you an idea of running on a slower processor, all news:uSbjudaMFHA.3852@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > Or you could run a Virtual PC image within your good machine and hobble it > by only allocating 128MB RAM.. also set resolution within that VPC to be > 640x480 or something sick like that you'll get is massive paging. Wouldn't it be nice if VPC had an option to "virtualise" the CPU speed (obviously to some factor below your current CPU). Show quote > "OHM ( Terry Burns )" <m*@mine.com> wrote in message > news:OuCGP%23VMFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>I agree: Develop on the best you can get, using the best practice coding, >>if the target machine is below average, they should upgrade it. >> >> -- >> OHM ( Terry Burns ) >> >> http://TrainingOn.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message >> news:d21em4$jb8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... >>> "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message >>> news:uBTchbVMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>> [Snip] >>>> I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor machine. >>>> It's all to easy to write poor code that runs fine because you've got a >>>> super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write something that >>>> runs well on a poor machine you've propbably got it right and it can >>>> only get better if the users have top quality work stations and/or high >>>> quality servers. >>>> >>>> Stirring it up :) >>> >>> But if my machine slows my productivity down by 10%, then I'm wasting my >>> clients money. I always prefer having a UAT machine available from the >>> start which is representative of the lower end of the target machine >>> specifications. Then I can code at my happy high speed, and the testing >>> quickly shows performance problems. Oh yeah, goes without saying that >>> you test all your stuff on the UAT machine, often. >>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joe (MVP) >>>> >>>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Harware is no longer a barrier to software development really unless your
application specifics require something pretty incredible to be able to run it. Im sure Microsoft simply codes in the most efficient way ( most of the time ) and lets you pay a few hundred dollars for the latest HW upgrade. All you do is tell the target audience what the minimum spec is. If they want the software enough to run it they will make sure their hardware can support it. Show quote "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message news:d232qo$2kj$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... > "JiangZemin" <fourpill***@example.com> wrote in message > news:uSbjudaMFHA.3852@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> Or you could run a Virtual PC image within your good machine and hobble >> it by only allocating 128MB RAM.. also set resolution within that VPC >> to be 640x480 or something sick like that > > True, but this won't give you an idea of running on a slower processor, > all you'll get is massive paging. Wouldn't it be nice if VPC had an option > to "virtualise" the CPU speed (obviously to some factor below your current > CPU). > >> "OHM ( Terry Burns )" <m*@mine.com> wrote in message >> news:OuCGP%23VMFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>>I agree: Develop on the best you can get, using the best practice coding, >>>if the target machine is below average, they should upgrade it. >>> >>> -- >>> OHM ( Terry Burns ) >>> >>> http://TrainingOn.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message >>> news:d21em4$jb8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... >>>> "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message >>>> news:uBTchbVMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>> [Snip] >>>>> I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor machine. >>>>> It's all to easy to write poor code that runs fine because you've got >>>>> a super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write something that >>>>> runs well on a poor machine you've propbably got it right and it can >>>>> only get better if the users have top quality work stations and/or >>>>> high quality servers. >>>>> >>>>> Stirring it up :) >>>> >>>> But if my machine slows my productivity down by 10%, then I'm wasting >>>> my clients money. I always prefer having a UAT machine available from >>>> the start which is representative of the lower end of the target >>>> machine specifications. Then I can code at my happy high speed, and the >>>> testing quickly shows performance problems. Oh yeah, goes without >>>> saying that you test all your stuff on the UAT machine, often. >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joe (MVP) >>>>> >>>>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > "OHM ( Terry Burns )" <m*@mine.com> wrote in message Not always feasible, but generally you're right. However, given that a dev news:u5OcTfeMFHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Harware is no longer a barrier to software development really unless your > application specifics require something pretty incredible to be able to > run it. Im sure Microsoft simply codes in the most efficient way ( most > of the time ) and lets you pay a few hundred dollars for the latest HW > upgrade. > > All you do is tell the target audience what the minimum spec is. If they > want the software enough to run it they will make sure their hardware can > support it. machine is generally a lot more powerful than the target machine, it is always a good idea to do some performance testing on the minimum target specs. In some cases you can do some profiling and a little bit of optimization, in other cases you can do "user optimisations". Show quote > -- > OHM ( Terry Burns ) > > http://TrainingOn.net > > > > > "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message > news:d232qo$2kj$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... >> "JiangZemin" <fourpill***@example.com> wrote in message >> news:uSbjudaMFHA.3852@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>> Or you could run a Virtual PC image within your good machine and hobble >>> it by only allocating 128MB RAM.. also set resolution within that VPC >>> to be 640x480 or something sick like that >> >> True, but this won't give you an idea of running on a slower processor, >> all you'll get is massive paging. Wouldn't it be nice if VPC had an >> option to "virtualise" the CPU speed (obviously to some factor below your >> current CPU). >> >>> "OHM ( Terry Burns )" <m*@mine.com> wrote in message >>> news:OuCGP%23VMFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>>>I agree: Develop on the best you can get, using the best practice >>>>coding, if the target machine is below average, they should upgrade it. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> OHM ( Terry Burns ) >>>> >>>> http://TrainingOn.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message >>>> news:d21em4$jb8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... >>>>> "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message >>>>> news:uBTchbVMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>>> [Snip] >>>>>> I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor >>>>>> machine. It's all to easy to write poor code that runs fine because >>>>>> you've got a super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write >>>>>> something that runs well on a poor machine you've propbably got it >>>>>> right and it can only get better if the users have top quality work >>>>>> stations and/or high quality servers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stirring it up :) >>>>> >>>>> But if my machine slows my productivity down by 10%, then I'm wasting >>>>> my clients money. I always prefer having a UAT machine available from >>>>> the start which is representative of the lower end of the target >>>>> machine specifications. Then I can code at my happy high speed, and >>>>> the testing quickly shows performance problems. Oh yeah, goes without >>>>> saying that you test all your stuff on the UAT machine, often. >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe (MVP) >>>>>> >>>>>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Yes, I agree with you, there would be no point in developing a product which
could not run in 95% on your target sales group. Best to aim for moderate performance on your quoted entry spec. Show quote "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message news:d24lam$eh8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... > "OHM ( Terry Burns )" <m*@mine.com> wrote in message > news:u5OcTfeMFHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> Harware is no longer a barrier to software development really unless your >> application specifics require something pretty incredible to be able to >> run it. Im sure Microsoft simply codes in the most efficient way ( most >> of the time ) and lets you pay a few hundred dollars for the latest HW >> upgrade. >> >> All you do is tell the target audience what the minimum spec is. If they >> want the software enough to run it they will make sure their hardware can >> support it. > > Not always feasible, but generally you're right. However, given that a dev > machine is generally a lot more powerful than the target machine, it is > always a good idea to do some performance testing on the minimum target > specs. In some cases you can do some profiling and a little bit of > optimization, in other cases you can do "user optimisations". > >> -- >> OHM ( Terry Burns ) >> >> http://TrainingOn.net >> >> >> >> >> "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message >> news:d232qo$2kj$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... >>> "JiangZemin" <fourpill***@example.com> wrote in message >>> news:uSbjudaMFHA.3852@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>>> Or you could run a Virtual PC image within your good machine and hobble >>>> it by only allocating 128MB RAM.. also set resolution within that VPC >>>> to be 640x480 or something sick like that >>> >>> True, but this won't give you an idea of running on a slower processor, >>> all you'll get is massive paging. Wouldn't it be nice if VPC had an >>> option to "virtualise" the CPU speed (obviously to some factor below >>> your current CPU). >>> >>>> "OHM ( Terry Burns )" <m*@mine.com> wrote in message >>>> news:OuCGP%23VMFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>>>>I agree: Develop on the best you can get, using the best practice >>>>>coding, if the target machine is below average, they should upgrade it. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> OHM ( Terry Burns ) >>>>> >>>>> http://TrainingOn.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:d21em4$jb8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net... >>>>>> "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message >>>>>> news:uBTchbVMFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>>>> [Snip] >>>>>>> I have a different point of view, I like to develop on a poor >>>>>>> machine. It's all to easy to write poor code that runs fine because >>>>>>> you've got a super fast machine with lots of memory. If you write >>>>>>> something that runs well on a poor machine you've propbably got it >>>>>>> right and it can only get better if the users have top quality work >>>>>>> stations and/or high quality servers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stirring it up :) >>>>>> >>>>>> But if my machine slows my productivity down by 10%, then I'm wasting >>>>>> my clients money. I always prefer having a UAT machine available from >>>>>> the start which is representative of the lower end of the target >>>>>> machine specifications. Then I can code at my happy high speed, and >>>>>> the testing quickly shows performance problems. Oh yeah, goes without >>>>>> saying that you test all your stuff on the UAT machine, often. >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe (MVP) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=8AA9D5F5-E1C2-44C7-BCE8-8741D22D17A5 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > As another posted stated, get the fastest CPU (hyperthreading), the fastest
disk, and at least 1 GIG of RAM. Aside from that, notebook prices are so low now you can get this from many reliable discounters for $1000 US or less. Peter Show quote "craig" <e@mail.com> wrote in message news:uqLbnKVMFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > This is a little off topic, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask... > > I am about to purchase a new development laptop computer. Before I do, I > thought I might ask the C# development community if there are any > recommendations for a good Visual Studio development machine. Is there > any machine or brand out there that has come to be preferred within the > development community??? > > Thanks! >  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics