12 Jun
2013
12 Jun
'13
4:14 p.m.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Peter Corlett wrote:
me to write Unix software for you, insisting that I
must only use a ratty old
Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM running a locked-down Windows XP that won't even
let me install PuTTY or an editor is not acceptable.
Absolutely.
BUT, until you DO, you don't have any idea how your code performs for
those who are forced to USE it in such an environment.
A developer who "requires" better than a ratty old Pentium 4 with 512M of
RAM running a locked-down copy of Windows XP" writes software that does
not perform acceptably for those conditions.
If I am in a position of having to use such a machine, then how satisfied
am I likely to be with software written on a better machine, and NEVER
REALLY TESTED on a machine like mine?
Microsoft Windoze 3.0/3.1 worked nicely in 800x600 with ATI video cards.
Most other video display configurations were marginal at best.
In those days, you could tell what hardware their programmers used by
comparing how well systems worked right!
You have gotta have more than one machine. There must be testing done on
all levels of the target platform, and even enough not-explicitly-testing
work done using them for the developer to have a feel for what it is like
to be using one.
By all means, do your work on a state of the art machine. But, if that's
ALL that you will ever use, then the official "testing" will be
inadequate. Have a complete assortment, and find SOME components of your
work that can be done on the crap.
(The machine used by your bookkeeper does NOT need to be statew of the
art)
Elitist assholes who refuse to EVER use machines like what their customers
have, need to be canned. In well whale oil.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com