471,337 Members | 1,435 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,337 software developers and data experts.

What OS do you develop on?

I see more and more people using Windows Server for their OS on the
workstation they use for development. Is this pretty common? Aside
from being able to set up just about any server resource you might
need to develop for (SQL Server, SharePoint, IIS, etc.) on your local
machine, what are the other pros and cons? What OS do you use and why?

--
Richard Carpenter
Jun 27 '08 #1
4 1875
Hello, Richard.
I used to use server OS such as Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server
2003, but I've started to use XP for my development machine for
development.

The reason for that is that it's simply a lighter OS. Although I do do
some testing on my development machine, as the unit test and automated
build system matured, I didn't really see compelling reason to have my
development machine on the server machine.

Most of Microsoft server product provide us with SDK, so I guess that
another good reason why not to have to build your development machine
on a server OS.

After all, I think it's just a matter of preference.

On Apr 26, 6:19*pm, Richard Carpenter <rumble...@hotmail.comwrote:
I see more and more people using Windows Server for their OS on the
workstation they use for development. Is this pretty common? Aside
from being able to set up just about any server resource you might
need to develop for (SQL Server, SharePoint, IIS, etc.) on your local
machine, what are the other pros and cons? What OS do you use and why?

--
Richard Carpenter
Jun 27 '08 #2
Windows Server 2008 - it's a perfect workstation compared to Vista.

--
With regards
Anders Borum / SphereWorks
Microsoft Certified Professional (.NET MCP)
Jun 27 '08 #3
I tend to develop on the platform that I am targetting; if I am
writing server code, I'll use Windows Server; if I'm writing client
code I'll use XP/Vista. The reason is that I get fewer surprises when
things work differently, or require different permissions /
configuration changes / additional installs. The easiest way to do
this is with a few virtual machine images; this makes it a breeze to
change between platforms, and if you mess it up, you simply go back to
your master image (i.e. the clean image that reprsents the target
platform).

Marc
Jun 27 '08 #4
On Apr 27, 3:48*am, Marc Gravell <marc.grav...@gmail.comwrote:
I tend to develop on the platform that I am targetting; if I am
writing server code, I'll use Windows Server; if I'm writing client
code I'll use XP/Vista. The reason is that I get fewer surprises when
things work differently, or require different permissions /
configuration changes / additional installs. The easiest way to do
this is with a few virtual machine images; this makes it a breeze to
change between platforms, and if you mess it up, you simply go back to
your master image (i.e. the clean image that reprsents the target
platform).
That's the approach I've taken to date and exactly the same reasoning.
The client I'm currently developing for uses a Windows workgroup
environment and will be using SQL Server 2005 Express for their data
store, so that's what I'm using for this project. It prevents me from
going down any design paths that the client's environment may not be
able to support.

--
Richard Carpenter

Jun 27 '08 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.