Laptop for development

boobar

Folks,

I haven't done any programming for many years, I'm in a business analyst/project manager role now but would like to get back to basics with java and SQL and pl/SQL in the coming months.

So just for trying to learn and revisit these languages, what spec laptop would be needed. My current laptop is almost 8 years old.

Didn't want to post in Laptops forum as this query is aimed at developers.

Any suggestions on what to buy?

ChRoMe

boobar wrote: »

Folks,

I haven't done any programming for many years, I'm in a business analyst/project manager role now but would like to get back to basics with java and SQL and pl/SQL in the coming months.

So just for trying to learn and revisit these languages, what spec laptop would be needed. My current laptop is almost 8 years old.

Didn't want to post in Laptops forum as this query is aimed at developers.

Any suggestions on what to buy?

Lenovo thinkpad, spend as much as you can possibly afford, they give value.

jimmycrackcorm

Something with an i7 core, 8gb ram, an ssd drive and a wide screen

KonFusion

For basic java and SQL you don't need much in the way of grunt.

While I'd agree with Chrome and buy the best you can afford, an i7 with 8gb of ram is overkill for your needs.

I could recommend some specific laptops if you give me a budget, and whether you'll be bringing it around places (into work etc) or just using it at home, and what kind of work you expect to be doing on the laptop in the short and long run?

boobar

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Something with an i7 core, 8gb ram, an ssd drive and a wide screen

Was thinking of this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lenovo-Ideapad-Z580-15-6-laptop/dp/B009RGBD2C/ref=sr_1_1?m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1362958142&sr=1-1

As Chrome mentioned Lenovo, specifically ThinkPad, I know this is an IdeaPad....the ThinkPads seemed to be much more expensive, so I thought this might help with the budget.

jimmycrackcorm, you suggested a ssd drive, again this pushes the cost up significantly.

Given my budget is 500 pushed to 650 for a very good spec, do you think this is worth pursuing.

Or is there something specific about the sad that makes it more appropriate?

boobar

KonFusion wrote: »

For basic java and SQL you don't need much in the way of grunt.

While I'd agree with Chrome and buy the best you can afford, an i7 with 8gb of ram is overkill for your needs.

I could recommend some specific laptops if you give me a budget, and whether you'll be bringing it around places (into work etc) or just using it at home, and what kind of work you expect to be doing on the laptop in the short and long run?

Thanks KonFusion,

I'd like to get something for around 500 to 650 Mark...

It doesn't need to be ultra portable, will use it at home mostly.

Just want it for general stuff, browsing, word, excel, watch the odd movie...

But also want to revisit programming, learning Java and revisiting SQL. Just basic stuff, as I'm a long time away from programming

Sparks

Love the thinkpads myself, but I think this idea that you need to spend as much as you can is an idea that stopped being right about five to ten years ago - our laptops are just enormously more capable than we need. My work laptop is a W500 and frankly, it's got more oomph than anyone who isn't trying to simulate protein folding is going to need.

If you want to have a gaming laptop, yes, spend like a sailor. Or if you're doing massive amounts of data work. But honestly, if you just want to do some LAMP stack programming or mucking about with python or whatever, then save your cash. Buy something a generation or two back. If you have the cash to spend and want a treat, first buy RAM, then buy an SSD -- but if you just want a platform to work off, go to a second-hand dealership online (I use this crowd in germany but there are others) and get something like a T61 (for €230) or a W500 (for €440) and away you go (or an X61 or X200 if you want something smaller and more portable).

Seriously, if you're only getting back into programming, you are not going to get anywhere near the limits of those machines, so why pay six times the price for a new one? Save the money, buy good books on programming instead

Sparks

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Something with an i7 core, 8gb ram, an ssd drive and a wide screen

...are you kidding me? What are you planning on doing, running all of seti@home?

Look, I'm writing this on bob, my bug-out box (it's meant to be the machine I carry around with me on any trips abroad and which does all my comms), which is a lenovo S205 ideapad. My work machine is a W500 thinkpad, my home office box is an R61 thinkpad, and none of them is in any way a speed demon, and I code for a living and I have never had code that reached the limits of those machines when working properly. Seriously. Modern machines are <bleep>-off fast. The thing that uses the most cycles on most developer's machines isn't the code they write - it's that big heavy IDE they're so fond of, and the web browser searching through stackoverflow.com for a "how do I do this with that" question

The machines you want to be speed demons are your gaming rigs, and yes, there you should spend like a sailor if you like the latest bells-n-whistles and playing FPS games on massively high resolution and high framerates. For coding, not so much.

Trojan

Sparks wrote: »

...are you kidding me? What are you planning on doing, running all of seti@home?

+1000

Besides, if your rig is too quick, how can you ever...



(Although, if you do any video rendering whatsoever, go big and fast)

SalteeDog

Your existing laptop is probably fine.

I have an old Dell laptop about the same age and have had no problem running Eclipse off a 4GB Puppylinux USB key - which also has a LAMP stack on it (for PHP and MySQL).

It's fine for learning.

awec

Personally I hate big laptops, I like the smaller form factors with higher resolution screens. You can get 1920x1080 resolutions on 13 inch screens nowadays.

To be honest, with laptops unless you are going to spend a clean fortune you are going to have to sacrifice on something. Whether that's processor, RAM, battery, screen or portability is up to you.

I think my new laptop will be either one of these (with i5 instead of i7 though): http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/31/asus-zenbook-prime-ux31a-touch-review/

Or this: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/17/3883544/lenovo-thinkpad-x1-carbon-touch-review

That said I don't do a massive amount of dev on a laptop, certainly nothing massive.

Anima

Try https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/. I got mine there and it's a beast. Worked out at about a grand with i7, 8 gigs ram, decent gfx card, SSD and decent SATA drive also. I think it's the Optimus IV or something like that.

Really all you need is a somewhat decent CPU (i5 would be perfect), a good bit of RAM (no less than 4 gig) and whatever storage requirements. An SSD is a very nice luxury also. Your laptop will boot quickly, compile speeds will be better, applications will open much faster. It's good from a productivity point of view so I'd say it's worth the investment!

Sparks

Technically true awec, but saying you have to sacrifice on processor speed with a modern laptop when talking about doing development work is like saying that you were only able to jump off the hundredth floor of the Empire State building instead of the hundred-and-second...

Sparks

Anima wrote: »

Your laptop will boot quickly

....not worth the cash. An old s205 takes less than a minute to boot.

compile speeds will be better

Unless you're compiling something the size of the linux kernel, you won't notice the difference...

applications will open much faster

And unless you measure the time in microseconds, you won't notice the difference.

Seriously, over a grand for a new laptop, or €250 (inc. vat and delivery) for one that does the job perfectly well.

Hell, buy two second-hand laptops and learn network programming

awec

Sparks wrote: »

Technically true awec, but saying you have to sacrifice on processor speed with a modern laptop when talking about doing development work is like saying that you were only able to jump off the hundredth floor of the Empire State building instead of the hundred-and-second...

Depends what sort of development you do I guess.

Sparks

Yes - if you're doing image manipulation, or video work, or developing the next FPS shooter, or whatever, then yes you need a lot of horsepower.

If you're just looking to get back into programming after a break, you just don't, and half these recommendations are "what I want for xmas" lists

GreenWolfe

I bought a Thinkpad X200 just for college work last year off eBay. The keyboard is great, and it's hauled around in my backpack all day so it's fairly tough. The downsides are that the screen is somewhat dull, and the trackpoint-only pointer may not suit some people. I find it's much easier to use if you set the trackpoint sensitivity to the highest setting.

It's fine for office tasks, and Eclipse and MySQL runs reasonably well. However, I don't run big databases or projects so YMMV. It isn't much of an entertainment machine - the screen along with the speakers just aren't geared up for that. It's a fine workhorse though.

OP, a few pointers if you decide to buy second hand:

1. Read the description very carefully. If the listing lists dents or damage apart from normal wear and tear that you're not sure of, don't take the risk.
   For example, the Thinkpad I got has a small crack near the bottom lip of the right hand side of the wrist rest. That being said, it doesn't affect the operation or integrity of the laptop in any way.
   
2. Also, the laptop may not have any software supplied or all parts provided. For instance, if you had to purchase a HDD caddy/charger or an OS licence, it may wipe out any savings you may have made by buying second hand.
   
3. Thinkpad-specific - if the ad mentions that the BIOS is password locked, don't under any circumstances buy it.
   
4. Don't expect any decent life out of the battery pack.
   
5. Install the maximum amount of RAM the computer will take.

stevenmu

Tbh I'd go a little further than Sparks and suggest even sticking with the laptop that you have at the moment, at least for a little while. If you're just doing the basics then you should be fine. Then in the future when you want to run heavier stuff you can look at upgrading and get better bang for your buck then, you'll also have a better idea of what specific things you'll need.

stevenmu

FWIW I have a Thinkpad with an older Core i5 and 8GB ram. Typically when developing I would be running multiple VMs and one or more instances of Visual Studio and MS SQL Server, along with having Outlook, Word etc open.

Even with all that running, I'm still generally not stressing the laptop in any way. I love my Thinkpad, but it would be severe overkill if it was just for messing around with at home.

Ludo

If you plan on using ad IDE such as Eclipse, I would say a large screen is essential. I find nothing more annoying than trying to use eclipse on a 15 inch screen. The larger the better. If possible, the more the better in fact.

KonFusion

FYI, I use this when I'm away from my main rig. In work I have it on a laptop stand hooked up to an (sometimes 2) external display, as the screen size is small.

Decent price, 2nd gen i3, and yes overkill for what you need, but if you can get it VAT free through your job, it's a total bargain, and should last you another 8 years

Alternatively I can also recommend this

Chances are though the laptop you have at the moment should suit you fine for what you need, which is very basic.

If not, pick up some old laptop on ebay/adverts with the old gen dual core processors. I've a core 2 duo inspiron 1525, that I've run into the ground, that's almost 6 years old, and apart from the sound and video no longer working, and the screen now being a separate component to the rest of the laptop, she runs like a beauty. Seriously :pac:

Trojan

Sparks wrote: »

Your laptop will boot quickly

....not worth the cash. An old s205 takes less than a minute to boot.

I disagree with this - it might not be essential, but an SSD upgrade is the best thing ever.

I'll never use a non-SSD for system disk again. 18 seconds from power-on to desktop-ready is just so useful.

irishdude11

Ludo wrote: »

If you plan on using ad IDE such as Eclipse, I would say a large screen is essential. I find nothing more annoying than trying to use eclipse on a 15 inch screen. The larger the better. If possible, the more the better in fact.

+1. Nothing worse than developing with tight screen space.

As many others have already said, any modern laptop that costs a few hundred euro is more than powerful enough to handle 99% of development needs. My priority in buying a laptop for development would be a 17" good quality screen. Development is really a two screen task, its bad enough when you are limited to one screen, at least make that screen as big you can.

markpb

I'm just echoing what others have said but I'd buy a cheap laptop (I still use my 6 year old Thinkpad T60 when I'm at home) but for me, my two priorities are screen size and books. Small screens are a curse to develop on and a good book or ten will serve you much better than an SSD or gaming rig.

lemon_remon

irishdude11 wrote: »

+1. Nothing worse than developing with tight screen space.

As many others have already said, any modern laptop that costs a few hundred euro is more than powerful enough to handle 99% of development needs. My priority in buying a laptop for development would be a 17" good quality screen. Development is really a two screen task, its bad enough when you are limited to one screen, at least make that screen as big you can.

Resolution is more important than screen size imo.

irishdude11

lemon_remon wrote: »

Resolution is more important than screen size imo.

Bigger screen size implicitly means higher resolution. I have 1600 x 900 on my 17in which is the standard for 17in laptops. You hardly ever find this resolution on 15in laptops which have 1366 x 768 resolution as standard.

If you want a higher resolution (1920 x 1080) 15in you are looking at buying a gaming laptop which is going to set you back over a grand whereas a1600 x 900 17 can be bought for around €450.

15in are an utter pain in the whole for development once you've got used to 17in. You are always scrolling and resizing panel splitters with 15in because of the lack of space. I'd take a 17in with 4GB RAM and average processor over a 12 GB RAM 15in with an animal of a processor any day of the week!

Sparks

irishdude11 wrote: »

Bigger screen size implicitly means higher resolution.

Er, no, it doesn't.
It should, but marketing has a hand in selling laptops, so "should" isn't something you can rely on.

Also, unless we're talking the new macbook or the pixel or anything with a resolution that high and drivers to match, you don't necessarily just want higher resolution without any regard to screen size, or it'll feel like you're trying to look at a 21-inch desktop on a 15-inch screen.

IRLConor

Anima wrote: »

Your laptop will boot quickly

Trojan wrote: »

18 seconds from power-on to desktop-ready is just so useful.

Do you find yourselves powering off your laptops often? Mine just gets suspended/resumed all the time (2-3 secs to resume if I exclude typing time for my password). Usually the uptime is measured in weeks, so I don't really care about boot time.

Unlike Sparks, I do pretty regularly max out either RAM or CPU or both on my development machine (a MacBook Air) but I admit that some of the loads are atypical (e.g. frequent startup/teardown of multiple virtual machines). For regular Java development, this laptop is more than enough.

Anima

The restart speed is only a nice perk. The real benefit is application load times and moving all your development onto the SSD.

For any reasonably large C++ project, you have hundreds/thousands of relatively small files. If you've ever tried to move thousands of tiny files in Windows, you'll know it takes ages compared to moving a couple of large files because of the overhead. This is negated by the SSD's low latency random access speed which means it'll tear through the compilation much better than a SATA drive. The same could be said for Java probably.

But as Sparks pointed out, if you're doing DB / web development then this might not be as important.

However, SSDs are much cheaper now anyway. You can nearly get 1gig per euro these days so I think it will become standard soon enough. They're also better for wear and tear as there are no moving parts.

Sparks

Anima wrote: »

For any reasonably large C++ project, you have hundreds/thousands of relatively small files. If you've ever tried to move thousands of tiny files in Windows, you'll know it takes ages compared to moving a couple of large files because of the overhead. This is negated by the SSD's low latency random access speed which means it'll tear through the compilation much better than a SATA drive. The same could be said for Java probably.

Ugh. Use Linux and a proper filesystem and it'll be damn near instant because you're altering metadata and not actually moving anything.

However, SSDs are much cheaper now anyway. You can nearly get 1gig per euro these days so I think it will become standard soon enough.

For €215 in (say) Komplett, I can get 240Gb of SSD or 4000Gb of HDD.
SSDs definitely have a use, but I wouldn't call them cheap just yet.

They're also better for wear and tear as there are no moving parts.

What about the legendary one-year-and-then-total-failure problem?

(note: Yes, it's atwood, but no, it's actually a real problem this time, his post was just a good summary of existing work)

ChRoMe

Sparks wrote: »

Ugh. Use Linux and a proper filesystem and it'll be damn near instant because you're altering metadata and not actually moving anything.

For €215 in (say) Komplett, I can get 240Gb of SSD or 4000Gb of HDD.
SSDs definitely have a use, but I wouldn't call them cheap just yet.


What about the legendary one-year-and-then-total-failure problem?

(note: Yes, it's atwood, but no, it's actually a real problem this time, his post was just a good summary of existing work)

We have over 100 crucial SSDs running happily here for over a year. Also any stories I've heard of failures (well within reasonable rates) have had the drives stop writing, they still read.

YMMV etc.

deconduo

ChRoMe wrote: »

We have over 100 crucial SSDs running happily here for over a year. Also any stories I've heard of failures (well within reasonable rates) have had the drives stop writing, they still read.

YMMV etc.

Yep its mainly the OCZ drives you want to avoid if reliability is important. Intel and Samsung SSDs have very low fail rates, with Corsair and Crucial being quite good as well.

croo

Is there any software that can evaluate the status of an SSD?
I have a couple in my laptop - OZC & Crucial. I have them about a year and have had no issues. I've been using SSD for years now - slowly upgrading as they get cheaper and so far I've had no issues. During the same time I lost a HDD (when I dropped the laptop).

As for the general discussion on the joys of the frugal developers...
I have a i7 thinkpad and love the speed that it compiles & deploys a fairly large open source ERP I've worked on. When I started on the project in 2006 it could take 15 minutes to compile & deploy a new version - today it takes a couple of mins.

As for memory - I went a little crazy a while back and got 32GB - yeah crazy I know, it was an impulse buy
BUT, it's bloody great! I have lots of fully functional VirtualBox VMs to test different environments & builds! Even so I've not come close to running out of memory! Not on linux anyway. Alas I'm mostly working on the dreaded windows at the moment and I have had programs run out of memory!? I'm guessing that while windows 7 is a lot more stable than I remembered windows it must have new MS design limitations that is not allowing it to access all required memory... or maybe just old 32 bit software??

stevenmu

croo wrote: »

I'm guessing that while windows 7 is a lot more stable than I remembered windows it must have new MS design limitations that is not allowing it to access all required memory... or maybe just old 32 bit software??

Yep, IIRC 32-bit Windows will only address 3.5GB of RAM, although I think some editions could address up to 4GB. From Windows 7 (possibly Vista?) 64-bit Windows is the norm, is very stable and will see all your memory.

(64-bit Windows XP worked fine, but driver support was a little slow in coming, especially for more obscure devices)

Trojan

OCZ... *shiver*

Like most threads I read in Development these days, either it inspires me to write a new blog post, or I've already written one that's somewhat relevant

amdsoft: Solid State Drives Thoughts & Recommendations

ChRoMe

stevenmu wrote: »

Yep, IIRC 32-bit Windows will only address 3.5GB of RAM, although I think some editions could address up to 4GB. From Windows 7 (possibly Vista?) 64-bit Windows is the norm, is very stable and will see all your memory.

(64-bit Windows XP worked fine, but driver support was a little slow in coming, especially for more obscure devices)

I think the 4 gig restriction even on 32bit doesn't exist in Win7

awec

irishdude11 wrote: »

Bigger screen size implicitly means higher resolution. I have 1600 x 900 on my 17in which is the standard for 17in laptops. You hardly ever find this resolution on 15in laptops which have 1366 x 768 resolution as standard.

If you want a higher resolution (1920 x 1080) 15in you are looking at buying a gaming laptop which is going to set you back over a grand whereas a1600 x 900 17 can be bought for around €450.

15in are an utter pain in the whole for development once you've got used to 17in. You are always scrolling and resizing panel splitters with 15in because of the lack of space. I'd take a 17in with 4GB RAM and average processor over a 12 GB RAM 15in with an animal of a processor any day of the week!

Not really. 17 inch laptop is a total nightmare, who the hell wants to be carting 17 inches around with them?

You can get full 1080 resolutions in 13 inches now I'm pretty sure. Give me that over a big 17 inch beast any day of the week.

GreenWolfe

ChRoMe wrote: »

I think the 4 gig restriction even on 32bit doesn't exist in Win7

Last time I was running Windows 7 32-bit it was still there, there are PAE hacks out there though. According to Microsoft, it's still 4GB max.

Sparks

[/normalService]
[oldMansGripe]

awec wrote: »

Not really. 17 inch laptop is a total nightmare, who the hell wants to be carting 17 inches around with them?

Is it just me, or are there any other old fogies out there who think it's funny that we started with "portables" (hint; with a big enough forklift, anything is portable), then "luggables" (hint; sell one to Arnold Schwarzenegger and you can legitimately say a customer can lug it around), then "laptops" (you didn't need your knees to work again today, did you?), then "thinbooks", "ultraportables" and netbooks*... and now for some reason in at least a portion of the market, we're climbing our way back up towards luggables again?



*and what the frak happened with netbooks? Eee got it right on the first day with small, light and cheap with great battery life at the expense of not being able to simulate protein folding on the thing; and then every Tom, Dick and Harry started adding heavier and more expensive and more power-hungry stuff to them until what you had wasn't a netbook anymore, and now they're talking of abandoning the form factor alltogether? What a stupid idea in the middle of an economic depression - the perfect time for a netbook and they're chucking them! /headdesk


[/oldMansGripe]
[normalService]

croo

stevenmu wrote: »

Yep, IIRC 32-bit Windows will only address 3.5GB of RAM, although I think some editions could address up to 4GB. From Windows 7 (possibly Vista?) 64-bit Windows is the norm, is very stable and will see all your memory.

(64-bit Windows XP worked fine, but driver support was a little slow in coming, especially for more obscure devices)

Trojan wrote: »

OCZ... *shiver*

Like most threads I read in Development these days, either it inspires me to write a new blog post, or I've already written one that's somewhat relevant

amdsoft: Solid State Drives Thoughts & Recommendations

EarthlyPangaea wrote: »

Last time I was running Windows 7 32-bit it was still there, there are PAE hacks out there though. According to Microsoft, it's still 4GB max.

I'm using 64bit win7 - I can see all the ram when in win7 but some apps are reporting that they are out of memory/resources. There is rarely more than 6-7GB used in windows. Mostly that used when using VM in linux. When I mentioned 32bit I meant that some of the apps might be 32bit!

As for the SSD... One is an OCZ Agility 3! I'd better start being more consistent with my backups. Speedwise I haven't noticed any issues, though these drives are so fast if it did loose a significant % of its performance I probably wouldn't notice.

croo

Sparks wrote: »

are there any other old fogies out there who think it's funny that we started with "portables" (hint; with a big enough forklift, anything is portable), then "luggables" (hint; sell one to Arnold Schwarzenegger and you can legitimately say a customer can lug it around), then "laptops" (you didn't need your knees to work again today, did you?), then "thinbooks", "ultraportables" and netbooks*... and now for some reason in at least a portion of the market, we're climbing our way back up towards luggables again?

... And we spent decades moving away from the mainframe only to return to it under the guise of "the Cloud"!

Sparks wrote: »

*and what the frak happened with netbooks?

Too much BSG for you!

Sparks wrote: »

Eee got it right on the first day with small, light and cheap with great battery life at the expense of not being able to simulate protein folding on the thing;

yeah but after their initial success they shifted toselling only windows versions and so needed more and more oomph!

Sparks wrote: »

and now they're talking of abandoning the form factor alltogether? What a stupid idea in the middle of an economic depression - the perfect time for a netbook and they're chucking them!

I'd guess they're seeing a more return selling tablets!

deconduo

ChRoMe wrote: »

I think the 4 gig restriction even on 32bit doesn't exist in Win7

Nope, the 4GB of RAM is a restriction built into how memory addressing works, 32-bit = 2^32 ~ 4GB. This 4GB is the memory limit for the whole system, so it includes RAM and whatever memory the graphics card has. If you have a 2GB GPU, then you are limited to only 2GB of RAM. There are workarounds if you have a 64-bit CPU (most modern processors are.)

Similarly a 64-bit OS is limited to 2^64, or about 18,000,000 TB of memory. (In practice its much less than this due to practical limitations)

Sparks

croo wrote: »

Too much BSG for you!

./boards.o:
In function `read':
./boards.o(.text+0x9): undefined reference to `Too much BSG'

yeah but after their initial success they shifted toselling only windows versions and so needed more and more oomph!

Daft! Why not just keep selling what created an entire market demographic?

I'd guess they're seeing a more return selling tablets!

[mutter]stupid iPad users and their stupid walled gardens[/mutter]

jimmycrackcorm

Sparks wrote: »

...are you kidding me? What are you planning on doing, running all of seti@home?

Look, I'm writing this on bob, my bug-out box (it's meant to be the machine I carry around with me on any trips abroad and which does all my comms), which is a lenovo S205 ideapad. My work machine is a W500 thinkpad, my home office box is an R61 thinkpad, and none of them is in any way a speed demon, and I code for a living and I have never had code that reached the limits of those machines when working properly. Seriously. Modern machines are <bleep>-off fast. The thing that uses the most cycles on most developer's machines isn't the code they write - it's that big heavy IDE they're so fond of, and the web browser searching through stackoverflow.com for a "how do I do this with that" question

The machines you want to be speed demons are your gaming rigs, and yes, there you should spend like a sailor if you like the latest bells-n-whistles and playing FPS games on massively high resolution and high framerates. For coding, not so much.

When I first began as a software developer I coded C and assembler on an original IBM 8088 running @ 4kHz. Now I can't believe how at times I sit and Wait for visual studio and sometimes eclipse to respond.

I do development day in day out and all those seconds waiting On hardware add up substantially.

Sparks

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

When I first began as a software developer I coded C and assembler on an original IBM 8088 running @ 4kHz. Now I can't believe how at times I sit and Wait for visual studio and sometimes eclipse to respond.

I do development day in day out and all those seconds waiting On hardware add up substantially.

Yup, that's why I don't like IDEs
Seems like no matter how fast we increase the number of cycles these boxes churn through per second, we increase the number we waste use on poorly coded bloated tools and the like even faster.

Me, I'm running linux, with awesome to manage an X11 session, gvim and urxvt (well, I like fancypants fonts) are my most commonly used tools, and I just try to keep everything small and simple (though the web browser always seems to defeat that ).

End result, less crap, faster performance (seriously, try awesome, you'll be ruined on bloatware for a long time afterwards), and I don't need four i7s with 32Gb of RAM just to fire up the editor

youcancallmeal

Just asked this question myself here and was recommended the PCS UltraNote which looks pretty good for the money

Trojan

Sparks wrote: »

and I don't need four i7s with 32Gb of RAM just to fire up the editor

Ah now, let's not get into this one again

BostonB

awec wrote: »

Not really. 17 inch laptop is a total nightmare, who the hell wants to be carting 17 inches around with them?

You can get full 1080 resolutions in 13 inches now I'm pretty sure. Give me that over a big 17 inch beast any day of the week.

That probably depends on your eyesight. I've never liked tiny high res on small screens. I have an old 17" laptop with 1920x1200. Love the space when coding. But its not used for carrying around. Just so i can move it around at home and put it away.

At work I have a dual Xeon, but with 19" 1280 screen and the really miss the hi res of the laptop. With Visual Studio and MS SQL I find you need a bit of horse power, otherwise it all gets sluggish.

ChRoMe

BostonB wrote: »

.

At work I have a dual Xeon, but with 19" 1280 screen and the really miss the hi res of the laptop. With Visual Studio and MS SQL I find you need a bit of horse power, otherwise it all gets sluggish.

You brave brave soul, there is no way I could work on 19" 1280 :eek:

Trojan

Sparks wrote: »

gvim and urxvt (well, I like fancypants fonts)

What fixed width font do you use for code?

BostonB

ChRoMe wrote: »

You brave brave soul, there is no way I could work on 19" 1280 :eek:

Well dual monitors but its a bit of pain alight. Then again when I started out we had 640x480 and even low with 10, 12 and 14" screen as normal. I kinda like the retro feel of 1280.