Post

@larryosterman.github.io

Two quick stories, both from essentially the same time (early 1990s). #1 The Windows 3.x team was told by their leadership that they needed to use the lowest end machines available to do their development because if they had low end machines they would make sure their product worked great on them.

29/7/26, 4:46 pm5 reposts30 likes

Larry Osterman

@larryosterman.github.io

29 July

#2 At the Windows NT 3.1 ship party, the lead for Windows was asked about the fact that NT 3.1 required much more memory than Windows 3.x and replied basically that "That's ok, memory prices will drop so it won't be a problem"

Larry Osterman

@larryosterman.github.io

29 July

I think about these two stories a lot and what it says about attitudes towards software development.

Larry Osterman

@larryosterman.github.io

29 July

To be clear: Both viewpoints have significant merit, especially in the 1990s when Moore's Law ran supreme. Machines WERE getting faster and faster and RAM costs were dropping so provisioning a machine that could run NT 3.1 was not expensive.

Larry Osterman

@larryosterman.github.io

29 July

And obsessing over performance and forcing engineers to use the kind of machines that existing customers use can be a powerful motivator to ensure real-world performance. So I kind-of agree with both points of view.

Neil Carpenter

@neilcar.bsky.social

29 July

This reminds me of the ISA 2000 team being goaled on debugging everything through logging. ISA 2000 was a joy to support when compared to almost everything else my CSS network support team owned at the time.

Brian Hoyt

@hoyty.com

29 July

For a while not that long ago there was a Surface Laptop for schools. It was to put it mildly underpowered. I always said that Windows devs should be required to use that machine once a week. Just to experience what was being sold to consumers.