6 ms·

Quite a few of my start-up friends use laptops exclusively and I've never understood how they can be very productive on them. Besides the resource issue, they'r

by tdavis 18y ago

Quite a few of my start-up friends use laptops exclusively and I've never understood how they can be very productive on them. Besides the resource issue, they're only working with a single screen, usually a 15" one at that! I have a Macbook that I will occasionally use for work (though mostly just for reading HN after I wake up, as I am now), but a mere 17" of screen real state and 2GB of RAM is just not enough for the long-term. Compare this to the 48" of screen and 6GB of RAM I get from my Mac Pro and there is no comparison. Still, even on that machine I routinely use 4 Spaces because there's just too much crap to keep on one desktop. Another advantage is never having to think about what to keep open; everything I use on a daily basis is always open and accessible in a Space without any waiting. There's no way I could do this on my laptop. I think mobile working is a possibility, but I simply don't believe that laptops can replace desktops when it comes to software development.

unalone 18y ago
Some of us can't afford Mac Pros. For me, Macbook Pro is about the limit of what I can afford.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- tdavis 18y ago
  The 17" MBP is very nearly the same price as a Mac Pro, and nothing says you need to buy one of those. You could build an impressive Linux desktop for far less than either of those machines.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Really? What's the entry price for the Mac Pro?
    - tdavis 18y ago
      $2799, same as 17" MBP.
carterschonwald 18y ago
the current generation of macbook/macbook pro's unofficially can handle up to 6 gb's of memory and i think that a pretty nice desktop setup is just to use your laptop but have 1-2 additional screens and a nice keyboard and mouse pair. Though honestly, as far as I can tell, the main utility of having multiple screens is to physically separate your work from you fun visually and hence make it easier to focus.
Anon84 18y ago
I have a 15" MBP with 4GB of RAM. Whenever I'm in the office I connect it to a 22" LCD, time machine backup, external mouse, keyboard and storage, etc... I think of it more as a moveable desktop than a laptop but I like being able to carry all of my files, settings and apps around with me when I travel (and still have everything properly backed up). Give me a decent network connection anywhere in the world and I'm almost as productive as if I was sitting in my office.
gravitycop 18y ago
a mere 17" of screen real state and 2GB of RAM is just not enough for the long-term. Compare this to the 48" of screen and 6GB of RAM I get from my Mac Pro You run four 24" monitors?
- tdavis 18y ago
  No, two. I just meant as a total area. Unless 24 + 24 != 48... you've confused me.
  - xenophanes 18y ago
    Two 24 inch screens is not the same size as one screen with a 48 inch diagonal.
    - tdavis 18y ago
      Okay, I figured that was the misunderstanding.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    The combined area of two 24" monitors is equal to the area of one 33.94" monitor of the same aspect ratio. ((24^2)*2)^-2 = 33.941125496954281171240529381033 A combined area equal to the area of a single 48" monitor would imply that your two monitors each have a diagonal measurement of 33.94". Since modern widescreen laptop displays tend to have 16:10 aspect ratios, one might reasonably guess that you meant to imply that you have two desktop monitors and that they are 16:9 37" flatscreen televisions (which would have a combined area roughly equal to that of one 16:10 48" monitor or, more likely, flatscreen-television).
    - sketerpot 18y ago
      Nitpick: I think you meant ((24^2)*2)^(1/2).
      - gravitycop 18y ago
tsuraan 18y ago
Screen real estate isn't reasonably measured in inches; resolution makes a ton more sense. My laptop's display is 1600x900, which is plenty of room for three terminals side-by-side. The screen itself is only 13.3" though. On the other hand, I know plenty of people with 20" displays that run them at really low resolutions, such as 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Why couldn't you use Spaces on a laptop? My old powerbook G4 ran spaces just fine; I used 6 of them; one for email, one for a browser, and the rest for terminals. I never had a problem with it.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  1600x900 [...] only 13.3" That works out to a horizontal PPI of 138.03. http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html If subpixel rendering is being used (e.g. ClearType on Windows), then the horizontal PPI [EDIT: when displaying text] is 3x that, or 414.09. Don't you think some of those subpixels might be wasted on such a small screen? What is your typical viewing distance?
  - tsuraan 18y ago
    If subpixel rendering is being used (e.g. ClearType on Windows), then the horizontal PPI is 3x that, or 414.09. Don't you think some of those subpixels might be wasted on such a small screen? The text on my laptop very crisp and clean looking; I don't think I have any sort of subpixel stuff enabled though; I'm running Linux, and have no idea if X even supports that sort of thing. The typical resolution for a small laptop is 1440 pixels wide, which requires some really small fonts or terminals <80 columns to fit three across on a screen. With 1600 pixels, it's really easy to fit 3 terminals with reasonable fonts. I don't know anything technical about it, but I know it looks nice and is easy to read. What is your typical viewing distance? Well, it's a laptop, so the distance from my eyes to my lap, or closer on an airplane. I'd say I'm rarely using the laptop when it's more than about 3' away from me.
dcurtis 18y ago
I use my MacBook Pro for design in Photoshop and development in TextMate + terminals + webkit. It's nice to be plugged into a screen, of course, but I can operate just fine with six spaces at 1440x900. I've become quite efficient with it, actually. The cost and size and power consumption of a desktop just doesn't make sense anymore unless you're doing serious data processing, video editing, or something like that. I like to work at coffee shops and outside often, too, and you definitely cannot do that with a desktop. Now that I think about it, you actually are the only developer I know who works on a desktop.
briansmith 18y ago
I think the original author is overestimating the cost of swapping. If you have a decent amount of memory (2GB+) and a fast hard drive (7200RPM+) you will usually get decent performance even when you have lots of memory-intensive tasks open. Personally, I run Vista + 3-4 virtual machines + Outlook + Carbide.c++ and/or IntelliJ IDEA and/or NetBeans + a bunch of web browsers + multiple databases with 3GB of RAM with no problem. I use a 14.1" screen on my laptop. Sometimes I wish I was using a bigger screen, but the majority of the time screen real estate isn't a big problem. In order to really make use of a giant screen I would need some new plugins for my IDEs that let me control my web browsers while keeping the focus in the editor. Otherwise, the smaller screen actually makes it easier for me to focus on the what I am looking at--everything is always in the center of the screen. The main issue I have with my current system is with the CPU speed. Since I started doing C++ programming I have really noticed the slowness of my 3-year-old CPU and memory. I would love for my builds to complete instantly instead of taking 3-5 seconds each.
jrockway 18y ago
I have a 24" monitor at home, and it's nice, but I don't have any trouble working from my 9" netbook screen either. I use Xmonad, so I can basically manage windows in my mind instead of by moving them around on screen. I only need to see what I am interacting with -- if I need something else, it is just a keystroke away. A bigger monitor just means I can be easily distracted by IRC, since I can see my code and IRC window at the same time. That is not necessarily good for productivity :)
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  This is the second comment by you on xmonad I've seen in a few minutes - have you written anywhere about your use of it, or do you know of anyone else who has written a good summary/explanation/use case of it?
  - jrockway 18y ago
    http://xmonad.org/ http://xmonad.org/ has lots of information. The use case is that the computer manages window positioning for you, instead of you doing it manually. This frees up your brain to do something less boring.
krschultz 18y ago
There are 8 enginers at my startup. Four use Lenovo laptops (1 with the write on screen), 2 use Mac Book Pro's, and 2 use desktops. In terms of power, we're all on Linux or Mac OSX and we have enough power for most stuff, if we need more there is a 16 core build server we share. In terms of interface, we all have 2 monitors and nice keyboards and just put the laptop on a stand during the day. The productivity of being able to just grab your laptop and take it home for late night hacking, or on an airplane to a conference, or in a meeting you just don't want to pay attention to outweighs giving up 20% more power.
- dasil003 18y ago
  So true. I can take my laptop home. I can take it to the coffee shop. Tomorrow I'm taking a bus up to Tahoe to do snowboarding. 4 hour bus ride will allow me to get plenty of work done on the way (thank you git!). 30" display + Aeron is definitely well worth it for office productivity, but frankly 4GB+2Ghz+2cores is plenty of juice for my typical web dev load which includes Photoshop/Illustrator/2 Parallels Instances. When people make these arguments about 2x performance increasing dev performance by a similar factor I call bullshit. Frankly I spend less than 5-10% of my time waiting for the machine, and even when I do that I'm still thinking, which is what developers should be spending most of their time doing anyway. Better approach to developer productivity is incremental process improvement. Analyze problems. Automate checks to prevent them in the future. Spend time refactoring. Maintain a test suite. Set up continuous integration. Over time these things make the difference of an order of magnitude for programmer productivity.

by tdavis 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

Some of us can't afford Mac Pros. For me, Macbook Pro is about the limit of what I can afford.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
tdavis 18y ago
The 17" MBP is very nearly the same price as a Mac Pro, and nothing says you need to buy one of those. You could build an impressive Linux desktop for far less than either of those machines.
- unalone 18y ago
  Really? What's the entry price for the Mac Pro?
  - tdavis 18y ago
    $2799, same as 17" MBP.

carterschonwald 18y ago

the current generation of macbook/macbook pro's unofficially can handle up to 6 gb's of memory and i think that a pretty nice desktop setup is just to use your laptop but have 1-2 additional screens and a nice keyboard and mouse pair. Though honestly, as far as I can tell, the main utility of having multiple screens is to physically separate your work from you fun visually and hence make it easier to focus.

Anon84 18y ago

I have a 15" MBP with 4GB of RAM. Whenever I'm in the office I connect it to a 22" LCD, time machine backup, external mouse, keyboard and storage, etc... I think of it more as a moveable desktop than a laptop but I like being able to carry all of my files, settings and apps around with me when I travel (and still have everything properly backed up). Give me a decent network connection anywhere in the world and I'm almost as productive as if I was sitting in my office.

gravitycop 18y ago

a mere 17" of screen real state and 2GB of RAM is just not enough for the long-term. Compare this to the 48" of screen and 6GB of RAM I get from my Mac Pro You run four 24" monitors?

tdavis 18y ago
No, two. I just meant as a total area. Unless 24 + 24 != 48... you've confused me.
- xenophanes 18y ago
  Two 24 inch screens is not the same size as one screen with a 48 inch diagonal.
  - tdavis 18y ago
    Okay, I figured that was the misunderstanding.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  The combined area of two 24" monitors is equal to the area of one 33.94" monitor of the same aspect ratio. ((24^2)*2)^-2 = 33.941125496954281171240529381033 A combined area equal to the area of a single 48" monitor would imply that your two monitors each have a diagonal measurement of 33.94". Since modern widescreen laptop displays tend to have 16:10 aspect ratios, one might reasonably guess that you meant to imply that you have two desktop monitors and that they are 16:9 37" flatscreen televisions (which would have a combined area roughly equal to that of one 16:10 48" monitor or, more likely, flatscreen-television).
  - sketerpot 18y ago
    Nitpick: I think you meant ((24^2)*2)^(1/2).
    - gravitycop 18y ago

tsuraan 18y ago

Screen real estate isn't reasonably measured in inches; resolution makes a ton more sense. My laptop's display is 1600x900, which is plenty of room for three terminals side-by-side. The screen itself is only 13.3" though. On the other hand, I know plenty of people with 20" displays that run them at really low resolutions, such as 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Why couldn't you use Spaces on a laptop? My old powerbook G4 ran spaces just fine; I used 6 of them; one for email, one for a browser, and the rest for terminals. I never had a problem with it.

gravitycop 18y ago
1600x900 [...] only 13.3" That works out to a horizontal PPI of 138.03. http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html If subpixel rendering is being used (e.g. ClearType on Windows), then the horizontal PPI [EDIT: when displaying text] is 3x that, or 414.09. Don't you think some of those subpixels might be wasted on such a small screen? What is your typical viewing distance?
- tsuraan 18y ago
  If subpixel rendering is being used (e.g. ClearType on Windows), then the horizontal PPI is 3x that, or 414.09. Don't you think some of those subpixels might be wasted on such a small screen? The text on my laptop very crisp and clean looking; I don't think I have any sort of subpixel stuff enabled though; I'm running Linux, and have no idea if X even supports that sort of thing. The typical resolution for a small laptop is 1440 pixels wide, which requires some really small fonts or terminals <80 columns to fit three across on a screen. With 1600 pixels, it's really easy to fit 3 terminals with reasonable fonts. I don't know anything technical about it, but I know it looks nice and is easy to read. What is your typical viewing distance? Well, it's a laptop, so the distance from my eyes to my lap, or closer on an airplane. I'd say I'm rarely using the laptop when it's more than about 3' away from me.

dcurtis 18y ago

I use my MacBook Pro for design in Photoshop and development in TextMate + terminals + webkit. It's nice to be plugged into a screen, of course, but I can operate just fine with six spaces at 1440x900. I've become quite efficient with it, actually. The cost and size and power consumption of a desktop just doesn't make sense anymore unless you're doing serious data processing, video editing, or something like that. I like to work at coffee shops and outside often, too, and you definitely cannot do that with a desktop. Now that I think about it, you actually are the only developer I know who works on a desktop.

briansmith 18y ago

I think the original author is overestimating the cost of swapping. If you have a decent amount of memory (2GB+) and a fast hard drive (7200RPM+) you will usually get decent performance even when you have lots of memory-intensive tasks open. Personally, I run Vista + 3-4 virtual machines + Outlook + Carbide.c++ and/or IntelliJ IDEA and/or NetBeans + a bunch of web browsers + multiple databases with 3GB of RAM with no problem. I use a 14.1" screen on my laptop. Sometimes I wish I was using a bigger screen, but the majority of the time screen real estate isn't a big problem. In order to really make use of a giant screen I would need some new plugins for my IDEs that let me control my web browsers while keeping the focus in the editor. Otherwise, the smaller screen actually makes it easier for me to focus on the what I am looking at--everything is always in the center of the screen. The main issue I have with my current system is with the CPU speed. Since I started doing C++ programming I have really noticed the slowness of my 3-year-old CPU and memory. I would love for my builds to complete instantly instead of taking 3-5 seconds each.

jrockway 18y ago

I have a 24" monitor at home, and it's nice, but I don't have any trouble working from my 9" netbook screen either. I use Xmonad, so I can basically manage windows in my mind instead of by moving them around on screen. I only need to see what I am interacting with -- if I need something else, it is just a keystroke away. A bigger monitor just means I can be easily distracted by IRC, since I can see my code and IRC window at the same time. That is not necessarily good for productivity :)

jodrellblank 18y ago
This is the second comment by you on xmonad I've seen in a few minutes - have you written anywhere about your use of it, or do you know of anyone else who has written a good summary/explanation/use case of it?
- jrockway 18y ago
  http://xmonad.org/ http://xmonad.org/ has lots of information. The use case is that the computer manages window positioning for you, instead of you doing it manually. This frees up your brain to do something less boring.

krschultz 18y ago

There are 8 enginers at my startup. Four use Lenovo laptops (1 with the write on screen), 2 use Mac Book Pro's, and 2 use desktops. In terms of power, we're all on Linux or Mac OSX and we have enough power for most stuff, if we need more there is a 16 core build server we share. In terms of interface, we all have 2 monitors and nice keyboards and just put the laptop on a stand during the day. The productivity of being able to just grab your laptop and take it home for late night hacking, or on an airplane to a conference, or in a meeting you just don't want to pay attention to outweighs giving up 20% more power.

dasil003 18y ago
So true. I can take my laptop home. I can take it to the coffee shop. Tomorrow I'm taking a bus up to Tahoe to do snowboarding. 4 hour bus ride will allow me to get plenty of work done on the way (thank you git!). 30" display + Aeron is definitely well worth it for office productivity, but frankly 4GB+2Ghz+2cores is plenty of juice for my typical web dev load which includes Photoshop/Illustrator/2 Parallels Instances. When people make these arguments about 2x performance increasing dev performance by a similar factor I call bullshit. Frankly I spend less than 5-10% of my time waiting for the machine, and even when I do that I'm still thinking, which is what developers should be spending most of their time doing anyway. Better approach to developer productivity is incremental process improvement. Analyze problems. Automate checks to prevent them in the future. Spend time refactoring. Maintain a test suite. Set up continuous integration. Over time these things make the difference of an order of magnitude for programmer productivity.