On Sep 14, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Graham Cox wrote:
On 14/09/2009, at 11:29 PM, Gregory Weston wrote:
Funny. To me that's actually an argument in the mini's favor. Or,
more broadly, it's extremely important that you actually test,
early, on something comparable to the low-end of your supported
configs. And since for a lot of small developers the development
machine is also the primary test machine, it makes a certain kind
of sense to aim low.
If, though, you *are* aiming higher it's worth noting that the
current low-end iMac has the same GPU as the mini. So if you're
looking to avoid that you have to go for a higher model.
Indeed, I tend to agree up to a point. I'm primarily developing on a
1st Gen MacBook, so I know all about low performance ;-) However for
some kinds of work it's just too low. For example, Core Image runs
poorly for many of its operations (and strangely has got
significantly worse in Snow Leopard), so I'm not really seeing the
kinds of real-world performance many of my end users are seeing. It
also means I may be sweating optimisation for a system that is
unrepresentative of my users, simply so I can use and test my own
software.
Oh, certainly. There's not a lot of reason other than personal budget
to have your only machine be substantially below your target system
requirements. As you say, it's just not realistic.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
