Development PC's - What Spec

[LeBodge]

Hi All,

I've been asked by a client to supply 10 "Development" machines, they are using .NET and their PC's are said to be too slow, they currently use AMD Duron 1600 on a MSI KM2M M/B's.

I've never been asked to supply machines for developer's and wanted to know what sort of requirements you thought they may need to run .NET - is it processor or drive intensive? I guess the graphics is not a priorty and should there be plenty of RAM?

Any help?

LeBodge.

"I know what I like and I like what I know"

 

[njwcad]

The simple answer to this is the best they can afford!

Pete

 

[cdogg]

If it's visual basic, try this .NET forum:

forum796


You can also browse the list of forums from a link in the upper-left that says "Forum List".

~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Crowley16]

well, I'd have thought that since they aren't running any heavy graphics stuff, they could probably do with a low end graphics card, in favour of more memory and faster cpu

 

[Nelviticus]

It depends why they're too slow and what they're working on. If it just takes too long to compile things and too long to carry out calculations then they need faster processors. If they're working with enormous amounts of data and their machines are having to rely on virtual memory a lot then they need more RAM.

However, you may as well give them both. Compare the cost of a good PC with a moderate amount of RAM and a decent processor to the cost of a monster PC with bags of RAM and a fast processor - the difference is trivial to most businesses. Give them the fastest Pentiums you can get and the most RAM you can fit on the motherboards.

Unless they're gamers they're unlikely to notice any significant benefit from a fancy motherboard or a speedy hard drive so just go for something reliable.

Nelviticus

 

[cdogg]

I'm not a .NET guru, but for most languages Crowley is right. Top priority is CPU and RAM, making sure you have at least 512MB of memory and then going with the fastest CPU that falls within your price range. An AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 333MHz FSB or Pentium 4 2.8GHz 533MHz FSB should be the minimum.

 

[Crowley16]

well, if they are working with a LOT of data, then getting a fast HDD would be helpful... but it would have to be a LOT of data to make significant difference...

 

[jrbarnett]

It may be worth finding out what the system spec that will be used for the deployment of the completed systems are, because if they develop on P4 2.8's and find its runs OK but deploy the final version on 1GHz servers and 1.6GHz clients, then the application is going to run very slowly, and it is more than likely there will be complaints from those using the software. (In fact, if possible, I try and develop/test on a system slower than what clients use for this reason).

If you can't find this specification out, then go with what others have said. Only other thing I would say is use Windows 2000 Professional or XP Professional as the operating system, unless they have specified otherwise.

John

 

[Nelviticus]

You can have large amounts of data in memory without reading it all off a hard drive. Just declaring an array takes up memory in most languages. I had to re-code someone's mathematical modelling software where I work, and although the file containing the input data was only half a meg in size it was giving me 'out of memory' errors on my 512MB machine by the time it had done half its calculations.

It won't hurt getting a fast hard drive though!

Every component will impact performance to some degree, even the graphics card, but I'd argue that for most development work the processor and memory will account for 95% of the performance.

LeBodge, if money's no object then just buy the best of everything. If you need to cut some corners then I'd put components in the following order of importance: memory size, processor speed, hard drive speed, graphics card 2D performance, memory speed, motherboard, hard drive space.

Don't go for anything too cutting-edge as they won't want unstable machines.

Nelviticus

 

[Crowley16]

jrbarnett made a very good point...

consider your end user, or get them to consider it...

 

[nlm9802]

recommended specs:
p4 3.0e 800fsb prescott (1MB L2 cache)
2x 512 (or 2x 1GB) PC3200 DDR
1x 40 GB 7200 rpm hdd IDE
2x 120 GB 7200 rpm hdd SATA
cdr/rw, floppy, etc..

amd durons (like intel celerons) are dogs when it comes to processor intensive applications, I'd imagine this is why they are complaining. If I recall correctly the duron had 128KB L1 cache, and a pitiful 64KB L2..
If you can find a motherboard with onboard network, sound, and graphics you can save some $$$ on those components. Also onboard RAID would allow redundancy, so if (I mean when) a hard drive fails, you can simply break the mirror, install a new hard drive, and re-establish the array.
The 40GB would be for the operating system, and the 2 120's RAID1 over SATA. This also provides protection for when Windows 2000/XP crashes, simply reimage the 40GB drive, and leave the RAID array untouched.

 

[jrbarnett]

nlm9802

When I worked as a programmer for a small software house a few years ago:
My PC: P133, 64Mb RAM, 1Gb HDD, CD-ROM, 10Mbit ethernet, ISA card. Win95 original. 15" monitor, 2Nb PCI graphics.
Client A's PC: P3 700, 128Mb RAM, 15Gb HDD, CD-ROM, 10Mbit ethernet, PCI card, Win98 SE. 17" monitor, 32Mb graphics.
Client B's PC: P3 550, 256Mb RAM, 10Gb HDD, CD-ROM, 100Mbit Ethernet (motherboard), Win98 SE. No idea about the graphics, but it was onboard, and 17" CRT screen.

My machine's only fancy feature was a SCSI card with Panasonic PD drive (650Mb optical) and Iomega Jaz hooked off it, so was often used for backing up the servers.

John