The OP specifically mentioned his "powerful laptop", which strongly
implies that he's asking specifically about hardware requirements.
Actually the OPs original question was "what is the minimum
requirment to run the software...". This does not exclude software
such as OS, framework, etc...
Also,
software requirements are cut and dried.
Exactly - that is why I said if they could determine the minimum
OS, framework, MDACs, etc... They could in turn use the minimum
hardware specs from these items to clarify their applications minimum
hardware requirements as well.
Either you have the necessary
software or you don't. Not much soliciting for advice anyone should need
on that topic.
I was in the position of this poster a year or so ago, when I
bought a top of the line laptop with all the bells and whistles, and I
had the exact same question myself. I bought this machine because I
wanted it to handle whatever I threw at it, but when I asked myself
"what would be the minimum requirements for my software to run on
other systems?" I did not consider this an issue of hardware alone. If
I used certain controls, I limited the application to running on
certain OS's. If I used others, it would determine which framework
would need to be installed. As I said in my first post, if you could
track the controls used (or parse it with a utility that would do it
for you), you could then find the true minimum hardware AND software
requirements (the minimum OS, framework, etc... would also clarify
the minimum hardware) - this would thus be the ground level of system
to start testing to determine the prefered performance. And I also
pointed out that I agreed with you guys on the point that minimum
performance would then be a matter of personal preference, but at
least you could use my suggestions to try to find the true minimum. I
would consider it an automatically known issue that performance will
vary from machine to machine so long as true minimum requirements are
met. Prefered performance will always be a matter of personal
preference and I would assume that the OP would know this. It is not
known to me how to quickly find the minimum requirements, as I have
suggested, for my applications without having to track every control I
used, manually. I also, as most of my background is in hardware and
systems engineering, am always very interested in making sure the
hardware, OS, and such are at required minimums before I install or
buy stuff to put on it - so it follows, to me, that the OP would like
to be able to tell his potential users those same specs so they could
ignor the app, upgrade (hardware and/or software) to be able to run
the app, or whatever; not so he could tell them "I haven't tested your
exact configuration so I don't know for sure how it will perform".
I agree that the original post was somewhat ambiguous, but not enough IMHO
for you to read into it what you did.
As the other poster that 'got my goat' brought up, I do have some
experience with issues in software design, as well as the hardware and
networking side, so I rely on that experience to read questions - I
didn't think I was reading into this, I thought everyone else was
stating the obvious and not answering the question as to how to find
the true minimum requirements. Maybe I'm off on this but I don't think
so. I stick to my position on this - the OP did not ask how to
determine recommended requirements - he asked how to determine minimum
requirements for the app to run.
It seems to me that if you can offer "another side" without insulting
those who have already offered their advice, that would be better.
True... However - the only 'insult' that was made to start with was
"I think this question should have a more defined answer than has
been given". In response I have PS tell me that the supporting OS and
framework components of the application are irrelevant in determining
true minimum hardware requirements!?! I say BS, and that is when I
made the sarcastic remark about the hardware requirements for 'my
application' as he did to the OP in his first post. Again I will stand
by what I said. Posters should post something that may help other than
the totally obvious that solves nothing. These responses are like
seeing someone come crawling out of the desert and asking them if they
are thirsty and then giving them a drop of water.
Nothing wrong with elaborating on the question or the answer, but when you
accuse others of failing to meet some standard of care, especially when
they in fact have not, that's where you cross the line.
I have explained my point on this above. I do see you point - and I
will agree that I entered this issue on the aggitated side and it
showed. I will try better not to do that, but this only comes from
reading SO MANY posts, and posting so many times myself, where re-
posting (sometimes 2 and 3 re-posts) was required to actually get an
answer because people are so quick to point out the obvious while
ignoring the core question - it's maddening. Tell me, what did PS's
first post accomplish in helping the OP? Nothing. At least in your
response you gave suggestions, not just a quick BS comment that will
get nobody anywhere. If posters can't contribute an idea of where to
look, direct insight, etc... why bother posting? Leave it for someone
else to answer that has something to contribute.
P.S. I appologize for upsetting everyone so much - I know peoples
posts and time are given freely on here and the intention is just to
help each other - but great intentions mean nothing if they don't
result in anything worthwhile. I recognize you calmness and tone here.
I really do see your point, I hope you see mine and understand that
I'm not just trying to be a prat, but I must say I think the comment I
made about this issue not being clarified better was handled more
poorly by those it was directed at.
<p)