I would like to know if Mac Mini (mid 2011) with i5, 5gb ram and 500 gb hdd is enough to develop xamarin.ios apps? The one I am looking at have High Sierra on it. Have on mind that I am total noob for Apple products.
I don't mind upgrading it later.
Thanks
We have a Mac Mini (mid 2011) as a build server for our Xamarin apps. It works fine for a that purpose. I think it will work for you now. We upgraded ours to 16gb ram and 1TB HD when we got it. After using it a bit, you will probably want to put in more ram and a SSD to speed it up - especially if you are going to use it daily as your primary dev machine.
Related
I recently installed the Linux Pop! _OS 20.04 LTS distribution to develop in flutter. Everything works very well, except the AVD emulator, which is extremely slow. What could it be?
I have a 16gb dell of ram, i5 8th generation and 256 of ssd.
im on POP OS 21.10 (Intel® Pentium(R) Gold G5420 CPU # 3.80GHz × 4, 8 single channel ram ), first i need to applied this following instruction https://developer.android.com/studio/run/emulator-acceleration?utm_source=android-studio#vm-linux , for my use case(flutter) i increased the ram to 3gb and VM heap to 512mb , chose Hardware GLES 2.0 on graphics option, then it runs smoothly, if u are using genymotion u can increase the VRAM on virtual box.enter image description here
In case anyone else runs into this, I had to change quick boot to cold boot, as mentioned in this redit post. No idea why quick boot doesn't work, and my system was not spiking in any way but the whole OS was completely unusable until I killed the emulator. I'm on Pop! OS 22.04.
I have a TurboX Laptop with AMD E-1800 APU with 4GB RAM, I use it for development purposes, but the CPU is not working well, i have installed ubuntu 16.04 amd64 on it. Whenever i load more than two tabs in chromium it gets more slower,even gets more worst while working in IDEs. Cant afford new one right now. Any suggestions about some lightweight linux distros to work on development and with easy package installation like lamp, Android Studio and NetBeans etc.
Good morning my friend,
I think that the major problem here is your hardware.
In every distro it will be slow with so less RAM and an unpowerfull CPU like that.
Although, you can try Lubuntu or Puppy and see if your situation will get improved.
BR,
Loukas
Android studio's emulator takes like ages to start and also crashes sometimes and at times does not show output, is very very slow.
OS X Yosemite
version 10.10.1
MacBook Pro (15-inc, late 2008)
Processor 2.4 GHz Intel core 2 Duo
Memory 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Startup Disk Untitled
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT 256MB
If i remember correcly your MacBook do not support Hardware Accelerated Execution Manager becouse the cpu is quite old :-( (mine is too) so the default android emulator will be so so slow and there is no way to fix it
Yes you can tweek some parameters and maybe gain a second but it would be very marginal gain.
I use Genymotion is realy fast and run well on ald machines, give it a try. Is commercial product. It han the big disadvantage that there is no images with google play services.
Otherwise there is a way to run android images on "Oracle VM VirtualBox" but this way is not so easy, is hard to find a good android image and setup the envirnoment. install Android in VirtualBox
ps. if you haven't done this already upgrade hd to an ssd , it helps a lot
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've got a Dell XPS M1330 with a 2.2ghz processor, 4gig ram, GeForce 8400M, and a 64GB SSD disk.
I'm primarily doing web-development, sharepoint development, integration (Microsoft BI tools) and biztalk. I use virtual machines for these purposes. I've been using Vista 32Bit up until now but I'm considering moving to 64bit to squeeze that little extra ram out of the box.
I'd like to hear if anyone has been using 64bit vista under the same circumstances and if anything should hold me back. Have in mind that this is the laptop I use at work.
I have recently switched from a Vista 32 bit development machine to a Vista 64 bit development machine, with a quad-core intel processor, and 6gb of ram. THe performance improvements have been quite impressive, and thus far, no "issues" with any development tools that I have been using.
Skipped Vista x64 and moved straight to Win2k8 with 8gb RAM and a handful of disks. Smaller memory footprint with less crap preinstalled. RAM is cheap these days too - more you throw at the problem the fast it runs.
Hyper-V is pretty good too - use it host instances of Win2k8 and Win2k3, some larger VMs (>3Gb RAM) with tools, some smaller (1Gb RAM) ones with services.
I have a fully-loaded Thinkpad W500 with Vista 64 and it runs flawlessly, especially since VMWare Workstation now supports both 32-bit and 64-bit host workstations. The only issue I encountered was with Python. I simply could not get a 64-bit version working and ended up using the 32-bit version under WOW.
I'm running a custom Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 # 2.40GHz, 8.00 GB, NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT, with a 300gb raid 0 with 15mb cache on Vista 64. Only been on it a month, but it is fast and stable, with no compatibility issues.
I'm running a Dell XPS 1730 with Vista 64 (4GB Ram, 2x512Mb Graphics). Runs Vista64 very nicely! I can have 4 or 5 instances of VS2005 up and notice no degradation. I had no issues with 64bit drivers either. Personally, I can't think of a reason not to use Vista64 on a dev machine if your hardware is new...
Vista x64 SP1, HP Quad Core with 4GB RAM. Works flawlessly. Any apps not available in 64-bit ofcourse work fine under WoW64. My only complain is IE has to run in 32-bit because of the missing 64-bit Flash plugin. And if you are a Developer, you should know that Visual Studio also is not available in 64-bit.
http://www.basicinstructions.net/images/basic081009.gif http://www.basicinstructions.net/images/basic081009.gif
Sorry about that.
I am looking to purchase a new development PC. My budget is not more than $1,000 USD (including monitor). I am open to laptop (desktop replacement type) or the traditional desktop PC would do just fine.
My primary development environment will be Microsoft, Visual Studio 2008 (and support of older Visual Studio 6 code as well). SQL Server 2005, 2008 as well as legacy support of SQL Server 2000. Microsoft Office 2003, potential to install 2007 but support as far back as Office 2000. The software I will wrote and support will be Windows XP mostly, but some Vista. I am going to have to assume there are 64-bit implementations out there to install to.
My first confusion begins with choosing AMD or Intel. My concern is that there is a compatibility issue with building software using Visual Studio in an AMD environment. I dont have any evidence, its just a concern that hopefully someone will clear up for me.
Last, I am confused about 32-bit and 64-bit installations. Should I stick with the least common denominator (32-bit) even though 64-bit is steadily gaining ground? I am aware that the 64-bit operating systems will address over 4G of RAM and that I like because I would like to set up as many Virtual Machines for test environments as possible, and may have many active at once..
I am not looking for the dream machine, just a machine with a monitor and the best processor for about $1000 that will allow me to write software for the majority of machines out there.
There are some instruction level differences between AMD and Intel but nothing that Visual Studio is going to uncover. Perhaps if you were developing with Sun Studio you might run into them (I have!).
I would go for a 64 bit machine and run 32 bit VMs on it if you feel the need to do testing in that environment. The common feeling around here seems to be that the highest level of Vista you can afford is the platform on which to develop.
With 32-bit XP and Vista, you might not have access to much more than 3GB or RAM, but possibly quite less (My home machine could only access 2.25GB with Vista 32). If you can afford getting a machine with 4GB of RAM, I would recommend using Vista-64 (Home Premium or Ultimate).
Depending on what kind of development you are doing hard drive speed can make a big difference in compile times. Get 10,000 RPM hard drives if possible for a desktop machine and 7200 RPM drives for a laptop, but they do cost more.
AMD smoothed out their incompatibilities long ago. Your decision on that should simply be which brand you feel has better performance/features. I would definitely go with 64 bit because you can always emulate 32 bit for VM's and apps and so on. The ability to use extra memory will pay dividends later when you're just spending $100 for another 2-4 gigs instead of another $1000 to finally buy a 64 bit machine.
Given you're interested in running multiple VM's RAM is going to be key, as is the CPU.
Currently Intel are ahead on performance for dollar (especially if you are interested in overclocking) however AMD's options are acceptable and the batch of phenoms seem to be better at true quad core applications than the Intel quads.
The quality and speed of the RAM is largely unimportant. Generic DDRII 800mhz will be fine, just make sure you've got 4 or 8 GB of it.
In terms of operating systems, xp 64bit is fairly wanting on driver support even though it's been around for a while. Vista 64bit however has almost all the driver support of Vista 32bit. While this means that some of your older devices wont work, you should have much less hassles with Vista than XP. In terms of versioning, I recommend premium, however you'd need to look into the added feature list to determine if it's worth it or not (to me, it's not worth it at all).
In terms of issues that may occur due to specific processors? I agree with stimms that while there may be slight differences, it's not something you'd encounter in VS development. However my experience in that arena is by no means extensive.
If you look for a not-too-expensive dev machine, AMD should be better.
AMD 780G/790G mainboard has on-board integrated VGA, out-perform most nvidia/intel video integrated mainboard at a reasonable price. AMD Phenom CPU's performance is not as good as those of Intel. But considering you can get a AMD 3-core CPU at the price that Intel offers you only 2-core, it's a good deal.
Intel's CPU has great overclock potential. However as a developer, I suppose you like a solid-as-a-rock machine and not like to take risk geting a blue death screen while compiling your code.
Hardware virtualization is important if you like to paly with X64 virutal machine for testing. Most modern AMD CPUs have hardware virtualization feature built in, while Intel cut this feature from its low-end CPUs.
Get 4 gigs rams minimum equal that you need a system that can handle more than 3 gigs (so 64bits OS). Rams is cheap and IDE with all others software (debugging, testing, database client, etc) will require you some rams if you want something fast.
For the cpu, you can get a Quad Core for less than 190$, with a board that can handle it (about 125$) you have a strong start. You do not need to have the latest video card...
A lot of already build PC can be nice for you under your budget (under 720$). See this example:
Vista Home Premium 64-bit
320 gig hard drive
3 gig rams
GeForce 7100 graphics
22" Acer LCD included
Core 2 Duo E4700