3 ms·
I'd like to extend that principle to computer hardware in general. Unless money really isn't a priority, or you're doing something which absolutely relies on t
by halo 19y ago
I'd like to extend that principle to computer hardware in general.
Unless money really isn't a priority, or you're doing something which absolutely relies on top-end performance, buying high-end hardware is unnecessary and the cost will outweigh the surprisingly slight real-world advantage.
Buying mid-range is the sweet spot in terms of build quality, performance and price and even if it means upgrading 6 months earlier the savings are considerable.
- neilc 19y agoIf you're a professional developer, I think a slight improvement in productivity can be surprisingly valuable. When it comes to monitors, for example, I'm quite willing to pay the extra for a 30" monitor or for dual 24", as opposed to just buying mid-range (say, a single 22"). Of course, not all high-end equipment is worth the premium, but IMHO if you're spending a significant amount of time on the computer and using it to make your living, it's a false economy to not buy the best equipment.
- whalliburton 19y agoEh, I'm currently running with a $25 craigslisted sony trinitron 21" and an IBM thinkpad that I think I paid $200. Plus some old dell keyboard. Don't forget about the used market. The key is that I'm really only using it as a terminal into servers out there somewhere. I consider myself a professional developer.