Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware?

Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware? by there on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @09:39AM (#2780820)

i think the parent meant that the developer would not be able to get any more work done during that day because their machine is without a hard drive, not that the code on the hard drive would be lost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware? by ErrantX on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @09:43AM (#2780847)

The better solution here is to have a couple of "gold disks" of a default developer machine; with all the required programs etc.

That way if you go down you can just swap the drive out and be on your way again.

This is what we do (and we have a lot of hard drive churn due to heavy use) and it works well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware? by protomyth on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @11:40AM (#2781373)

I think I would rather have the RAID so I don't have to take as much time. Setting up the personal info stuff on a machine takes time too.

For Linux / Windows folks, SuperMicro has a nice tower that has 4 hot swap hard drive bays that I really like.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware? by ErrantX on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @11:43AM (#2781389)

Things like Chrome and Dropbox have made this less of a chore.

Speaking only for myself... I have a gold disk plus a little script that syncs scripts and configs to backups. And I use Chrome logged into my Google account.

I do see your point, but a lot of it can be mitigated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware? by SoftwareMaven on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:08PM (#2781504)

Between BitBucket and Dropbox, it takes me no time at all (well, a little time to sync Dropbox, but I'm busy in those times).

[ Parent | on HN ]