Linked by David Adams on Fri 27th Jun 2008 05:10 UTC, submitted by Ager Ignis
Windows For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Intel's IT department "found no compelling case" for upgrading to Windows Vista.
Thread beginning with comment 320506
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I wouldn't call VS I/O intensive - unless you're building huge projects 24x7 (And if you are, you should consider switching to a GNU Makefile instead of using project files - distributing the builds to multiple concurrent jobs.)
Try testing the same application on 6 different VM guests on the same host and you'll see what I/O intensive means... ;)


Not gonna respond to the other stuff, since we seem to sort of be going in circles, but I have to call you on this. VS is constantly doing partial compilation of classes, almost after every line. I also use a plugin from jetbrains called Resharper, which only adds to the problem since it makes the whole thing more aggressive.

Fire up procmon and look at what studio does some time, even when it is just idling. It is right up there in resource usage.

Reply Parent Score: 3

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Not gonna respond to the other stuff, since we seem to sort of be going in circles, but I have to call you on this. VS is constantly doing partial compilation of classes, almost after every line. I also use a plugin from jetbrains called Resharper, which only adds to the problem since it makes the whole thing more aggressive.

Fire up procmon and look at what studio does some time, even when it is just idling. It is right up there in resource usage.


I'm writing C code on VS 2K3, and I usually disable browse information (and the rest of the junk) - so at least in my case, VS is far from being a resource hog. (Though I still prefer using VIM with ctags)
You might be using newer versions the behave differently. (I see no reason to upgrade - especially given the changes to the CRT in VS 2K5 and 2K8)

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Not gonna respond to the other stuff, since we seem to sort of be going in circles


Yes, we are running around in circles: I keep asking the same question while you keep claiming that the question is irrelevant. (Hardware is now cheap; Future machines will be Vista compatible to begin with; etc)

Never the less, it does not change the basic fact that I have yet to hear a simple answer to the following question:
What are we, as clients, are getting in return to the insane hardware requirements (let alone DRM and friends), that cannot be achieved on alternative platforms (XP/Linux/MAC) with minimal (if any) effort?

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What are we, as clients, are getting in return to the insane hardware requirements (let alone DRM and friends), that cannot be achieved on alternative platforms (XP/Linux/MAC) with minimal (if any) effort?


Not enough to justify hardware upgrades. I'll admit that easily, as I said before, whenever people ask for my opinion, I tell them to wait till they would normally buy a new machine.

I also contest that the hardware requirements are insane. A year ago you needed a 1000$ machine to run vista properly, which is the beginning of high end. Nowadays, a 400$ machine will run it just as well, which is the beginning of mid range.

As a side note, I would never recommend anybody get a computer for any reason other then a toy for their children that is under 600$, and something they actually want to do work on for under 800$. Cheap parts will come back to plague you again and again, and chances are something is going to die in a 400$ machine in a year or two. If you are not a gamer, an 800$ machine will get you something very nice that will last you at least five years.

Reply Parent Score: 3