Hardware for Web Development?

@LauraabSep 04.2006

Hi all-
I’m a database programmer, currently learning web development for my employer. They’ve offered to buy me new hardware, since my current system is 4 years old and has a crummy monitor. Price IS an issue, but I’d like to get the most ‘bang for the buck’. What would you recommend? How fast? How much memory? What size monitor? We usually buy Dell computers – would there be a reason not to go with them?
Thanks-

to post a comment

Full-stack Developer

14 Comments(s) _↴

@CharlesSep 04.2006 — #For web development just keep what you have. And perhaps hit some yard sales to find something less capable. You don't want to be writing pages that only work on the best and most expensive.

@knowjSep 04.2006 — #besically just work with what makes your life easier.

nowdays dont go for less than 1gig of ram

im currently working on a

toshiba tecra A4

Centrion

1.86 intel pentium M

1.5gig of ram (added 1gig extra)

128mb ati radon 300x

80gig HD

windows xp pro

basically you dont need high specs atall for development only for graphical/video work.

its just how well you can multitasks etc..

its nice to be able to have every program you want/need/would like to. running at the same time with no lag. im a very impatient person so as soon as my computer halts im already rebooting it. with the spec i have im never waiting for anything.

usually i have dreamweaver (for codeing), firefox, apache, mysql, filezilla, itunes, photoshop, windows live messenger, IE and a few other random program running at the same time with no waiting whatsoever.

but as i said a low spec system is fine for developemt

you could do the same job just as well on an old 486

@LauraabauthorSep 04.2006 — #Thanks so much for the replies! I understand about not developing something that takes a mega-machine to read, but I do notice a big lag when I have both Dreamweaver and Photoshop open at the same time. I'm also working on a small screen and would like a larger monitor so I can view more windows at once....

@LauraabauthorSep 04.2006 — #Do I need a wide screen, two screens, or will one standard screen be sufficient if I like to have lots of programs open at once?

@David_HarrisonSep 04.2006 — #If you're working with Photoshop, then RAM is very helpful there (and I mean good RAM with high transfer rates and low latency, not the cheap stuff). 1 GB minimum, 2 GB would be better, especially if you do a lot of photoshopping.

As far as CPU goes, you don't need anything too fancy, however dual core systems are getting pretty cheap now so you might want to check into them.

For monitor, well 17" LCD's are OK, but they're not very big. 19" LCD's run at the same resolution as 17" LCD's, so they're pretty pointless. However 20" LCD's are nice and big and they offer more pixels than you can shake a stick at, would be very handy for design work.

Widescreen monitors actually give you FEWER pixels. For example, compare a 20" monitor (1600x1200) with a 20" widescreen monitor (1680x1050). They added a mere 80 pixels to the width, and subtracted 150 from the height. You actually end up with 156,000 fewer pixels on a 20" widescreen monitor because of that.

@LauraabauthorSep 04.2006 — #Wow! GREAT info!

Here's another stupid question: back some years ago, Macs were all the rage for graphics and multimedia. Are Windows machines more popular than Macs for web development?

@ray326Sep 04.2006 — #Are Windows machines more popular than Macs for web development?[/QUOTE]
Windows machines are "more popular" for EVERYTHING because they are a commodity and a monopoly. But if you narrow the research to professional web design studios you'll find the designers are using Macs. If you're familiar with Windows, don't switch. The hardware won't make you better.

I recommend the standard selection process.

1. Select the application software

2. Select the operating system that supports the application software

3. Select the hardware that supports both the above properly

For GUIs I recommend large flatscreen CRT monitors because they will run at higher resolutions and produce better image quality than the LCDs. Run at the highest resolution you can so you can put lots of stuff on the screen with minimal overlapping.

Get 2 Gb of memory up front. That generally gets the job done and expanding later may mean pulling out existing memory for slot space. The power required of the PC is dictated to a large extent by the kind of web development you do. If its static web sites then you'll only be running an additional web server (Apache?) on it. If its J2EE ala WebSphere then you might have Apache, the WebSphere app server, DB2 and/or Oracle and a big programming IDE plus you'll want to be running email, at least one office app and maybe one or more graphics creation or cataloging programs.

@David_HarrisonSep 04.2006 — #For GUIs I recommend large flatscreen CRT monitors because they will run at higher resolutions and produce better image quality than the LCDs.[/QUOTE]You are of course kidding. Show me a CRT that runs at greater than 2560x1600. CRT's are also prone to visible flicker, especially if you run them at the highest resolutions they support, because then you have to lower the refresh rate. A CRT at anything less than 100 Hz will result in a very annoying flicker that may cause headaches. Not to mention that CRT's draw massive amounts of power, take up vast amounts of space and have a weight measured in metric tonnes.

I would also argue that LCD's have the better image quality, though that is more subjective. I realise that technically CRT's can display more colours, however PC's only output 16,777,216, and LCD's and CRT's alike will be able to reproduce them. So long as the LCD has a decent contrast ratio it's not a problem. The Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP 20.1" Performance LCD Monitor has a large resolution of 1600x1200 and a very high contrast ratio of 800:1 so it would be excellent for design work.

@invertedpandaSep 05.2006 — #Note that CRT flicker noticability varies from person to person - I know people who can stare at 60hz and not feel a thing. I need at least 85, myself.

I've been working on a 17" LCD, and I love it. I'd recommend dual LCDs, if at all possible; keep your code in one window, browser in the other. When doing testing for multiple browsers, you can compare renderings side by side - VERY useful.

Horsepower wise, you don't need much, unless you'll be working on graphics (Photoshop, Gimp, whatever); I do all my programming on a Thinkpad T23 - 1ghz processor, 512MB RAM, 40 gb HDD (split between Linux and Windows). Nothing fancy at all. I also run WAMP/LAMP on both installs (Windows/Linux Apache PHP MySQL), for testing purposes (denying outside connections can be important, however ?).

@LauraabauthorSep 06.2006 — #Thanks so much for all the great info, everyone! I ordered a Dell Pentium 4 with a 20" screen and lots of memory...how fun it is to get a new machine! (this doesn't happen nearly often enough)

@ray326Sep 06.2006 — #Show me a CRT that runs at greater than 2560x1600.[/QUOTE]And what LCD are you looking at there?
A CRT at anything less than 100 Hz will result in a very annoying flicker that may cause headaches.[/QUOTE]
Flicker can be a problem if the right card/monitor setup is bad but that statement is in general false. I'm running 75-85 here with no problem. Flicker depends on the speed of the phosphor and the presence of flourescent lighting with refreshes below 75. Of course if the card/monitor have to run interlaced at the resolution you've selected then flicker will kill you regardless.
I realise that technically CRT's can display more colours, however PC's only output 16,777,216, and LCD's and CRT's alike will be able to reproduce them.[/QUOTE]
Color quality depends on several factors but I'm pretty sure CRTs have a more useful gamut than LCDs and will always produce colors more correctly. Of course the production of full range color is a very expensive proposition regardless of medium.
Not to mention that CRT's draw massive amounts of power, take up vast amounts of space and have a weight measured in metric tonnes.[/QUOTE]
I don't recall the OP mentioning she would be carrying this system back and forth from home or running it on batteries but a big CRT would certainly be a problem in that case.

@David_HarrisonSep 06.2006 — #Color quality depends on several factors but I'm pretty sure CRTs have a more useful gamut than LCDs and will always produce colors more correctly. Of course the production of full range color is a very expensive proposition regardless of medium.[/quote]What makes you so sure that a CRT monitor will produce colours more accurately than an LCD?

I don't recall the OP mentioning she would be carrying this system back and forth from home or running it on batteries but a big CRT would certainly be a problem in that case.[/QUOTE]Power should always be an issue though, after all, you have to pay the bills and we do currently only have the one planet.

Lauraab, good to hear you got your new machine, I hope it performs well for you.

@ray326Sep 06.2006 — #What makes you so sure that a CRT monitor will produce colours more accurately than an LCD?[/QUOTE]Actually neither of the do a great job at full range but here's the opinion of the guys that sell both and aren't married to either.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/
Power should always be an issue though, after all, you have to pay the bills and we do currently only have the one planet.[/QUOTE]The power difference for similar sized screens is roughly 100% and a single monitor isn't significant compared to the residence usage. Now if I had a business with a hundred of them, I'd probably go with the LCDs but for a small design shop I think CRTs are the better way to go.

@drhowarddrfineSep 08.2006 — #A CRT at anything less than 100 Hz will result in a very annoying flicker that may cause headaches. [/QUOTE]Not true at all. As stated above, flicker varies from person to person but most don't need 100hz.
I would also argue that LCD's have the better image quality, though that is more subjective. I realise that technically CRT's can display more colours, however PC's only output 16,777,216, and LCD's and CRT's alike will be able to reproduce them.[/QUOTE]LCDs do NOT produce better quality which is why quality concerned graphic designers use CRTs and not LCDs.
So long as the LCD has a decent contrast ratio it's not a problem.[/QUOTE]CRTs have significantly better contrast ratio than LCDs.