BFG will build my dream PC so...

Please advise me on what I should get :-) This will be bought in Canada (Vancouver) btw.

Well I can't go too silly as it's not supposed to be the best gaming rig ever and I should set and example with expenditure.

Anyway I need a half decent graphics card without it being over the top as I won't be playing FPS games at work (I'll save that for home).

What I really want is a very fast CPU so that compile times are reduced. I don't think BlitzMax compile will use multi-cores so if I can get more speed from a fast CPU Dual Core than a slower CPU Quad Core then I should goal Dual Core unless I'm misunderstanding how these things work (I'm behind the times).

Suppose I should really plonk Vista on it and get lots of RAM. I use XP now. Anyway, is Vista Business OK? I'll turn of UAC probably too and patch it as well.

I don't need loads of HD space or RAID etc as there will be a server there, but I would like a fast drive for sure and I guess space is a bonus for stuff like a huge wav collection of my CDs etc ;-)

I need a decent large TFT too, but I'm concerned that too large and all the text will be tiny and I hate interpolation on TFTs if I change the res down so I'm not sure what to do about that...

I'll be getting a Microsoft natural keybaord and MS optical mouse + a mousepad (hate just using bare desk).

What else should I consider? Am I going to be OK just with onboard sound these days?

Oh and what version of Photoshop should I get? I'm not a pro artist but I often edit stuff that the artists send me and I need more control over the advanced effects than Elements offers.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Graphics: GeForce 9800GT ~£120 (or about a trillion Canadian Dollars)
CPU: Phenom Quad Core Black Edition
MoBo: Not sure about them these days, but something that supports SLi for future expansion would be a good idea, and with good on board sound.

a 1/2/3TB Buffalo TeraStation would be a handy addition for backup purposes...

For photoshop, I'd recommend CS2 minimum (It's the one I use at work all the time, and it's good), although CS3 would be better, CS4 being the ideal (not quite out yet, but available for pre-order at a discount).

CPU: The E8500 Intel looks pretty good and is a descent price. Don't know about the Phenom Quad core.

Your best best is too check out the CPU charts on Tom's Hardware: www.tomshardware.com

Same goes for graphics cards.

Since sounds cards are cheap, it may be worth getting a sound blaster audigy sound card.

Would be a good idea to have Vista as you'll want to fully test in Vista during development as that's what most new PC's have now.

I have a 22" widescreen TFT monitor, it's just lovely.

Consider setting up dual-screens too. I just got them at work and now wonder how I ever managed without them!!

Not recommended if you're developing for it.

Vista Business is just fine for developing -- It has a few features that Home Premium doesn't (such as being able to remote desktop into Vista Business, or join a domain).
It also lacks some functions (doesn't have as much multimedia apps bundled with it, but do you really need those?)
Vista Ultimate contains pretty much everything, but it's doubtful you'll need it. I run Vista Business 64 bit myself, and so far it's run pretty much everything I've thrown at it, including Blitzmax/mingw/svn/etc.

The only issue I've had with the 64 bit version is that some older programs that do driver-level things aren't compatible (e.g. WS_FTP's explorer integration) but that tends to be fixed in their more recent versions. the advantage of being able to use more than 3GB RAM was definitely worth it for me to switch to the 64 bit version. (Currently using 6GB)

Anyway, since you're using it for developing games you probably want a good monitor as well -- if you're looking at an LCD (I would), you'll find that many of the cheaper ones have worse color representation than the higher end ones. (Most of the cheaper panels are 6 bit + hardware based dithering, which can lead to banding in gradients and dimished visuals. Don't cheap out on the screen.)

You'll probably want widescreen since that's pretty much a given on any new PC, and you'll want to be able to see what things look like for the average user as well.

I just this week picked out a `faster` pc at work (and just finished getting everything up-and-running/copied over from my old one). I had a struggle with the whole dual core vs quad core thing. It was a toss-up between a 3GHz dual core with a 1333 something hz frontside bus, versus a 2.4GHz quad core with a 1000 frontside bus. I figured the dual core would be about a 20% speedup over the quad core, but with half as many cores and a little more than half as much total potential performance. At work I don't exactly edit video or whatever but I do process lots of images, plus working in some other fairly big apps, often at the same time. So because I do a lot of sometimes-intensive computation at the same time I decided the quad core would be better.

I think I'd rather go with a slightly slower quad core than a not significantly faster dual core. The jump up from 2.4GHz to 3.0GHz just didn't seem like enough of an increase. If the jump had been from 2.4 to 4GHz I would've gone for a dual core.

So I got the quad core and am pretty happy with it so far. I also got Vista Business with it and although my computer is the first in our company to have Vista rather than XP Pro, I was allowed to go ahead and install it. I didn't have any problems with any applications and I would say Vista is more responsive than XP regardless of the hardware - I think it had some significant internal redesign that helps things be more efficient.

Now, here's the deal with the dual or quad core CPU's... The way the hardware works at the moment (and hopefully the chip designers will overcome this in future), you have to tell the operating system which parts of your application can run in parallel. Either you do that by launching `separate applications`, or within a given application you split it into threads (where possible). Each thread can be distributed to a separate CPU core and execute in parallel. You might notice that even without launching any apps, Windows is already running like 60 processes and 250 threads or something like that, so it's not as if it doesn't have workload that it can move around as needed. So if along comes your single-threaded cpu-hogging application, it can say okay, here you go, here's a CPU core all to yourself, and then move other threads to other cores.

Also if your application does anything with files or the operating system etc or any other `systems` that are in their own thread, those systems can run on other cores too. So your application (seems to me) ends up being about 80% your own code and 20% external threads.

A single-threaded app might also not necessarily use 100% of the cpu core's time - it may fluctuate. I have been seeing the graph of cpu use be quite sporadic for regular applications, like processing a batch of images which involves several different steps per image. It'll end up using like 60-80% of the cpu core time.

For a game or something more balanced/consistent per frame, you might get that up higher towards 90-100%. So you combine that workload throughput with the activities of system threads on other cores which your app might be working with, and I find that `on average` a single-threaded app uses up to about 30% of the total cpu processing power of a quad core. You definitely notice that a huge portion of the cpu capabilities go unused by single-core apps. The structure of the application and the way the operating system uses it and the way the hardware interprets programs puts up walls between the cpu cores which severely limits the `potential` performance of a single-threaded application on a multi-core cpu. While my new computer is processing images about 2-3 times faster than my old one, it could be more like 8-10 times faster if more cores were used. But the apps don't support it.

It's actually quite tragic (and part of the reason why it was VERY important for BlitzMax to support real threads) to see a nice new reasonably fast quad-core system being less than a third used by your most demanding application. *IF* you can use applications that are actually multithreaded, and you're using the features in those apps that actually can do stuff in parallel (like image processing), then I think you will make very good use of the cpu power. I don't know if Photoshop is multithreaded that way or not but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

I would definitely research whether the apps you want to run will be multithreaded if you are going to think about multiple cores. Also you might notice that quad-core cpu's can be as cheap as or cheaper than dual core from some vendors - I just got my quad-core Dell machine for (currently) less than the price of the equivalent dual-core. I do wonder what benefit the extra 20% performance would've been like from a 3GHz dual core, but I don't think it would've been significant enough to make the decision clear. You really have to consider what you want to use it for and how the apps are going to use the hardware. BlitzMax's compiler isn't likely to be threaded for some time to come, in my opinion.

Also besides cpu speed you have to consider the front-side-bus speed and the memory speed. My old computer had 333 hz-thingy memory and bus, with a 2.6GHz single-core cpu. My new computer has a slightly slower cpu per-core, but with 800mhz memory and 1000 whatever bus, so it actually performs about 2-3 times faster. A computer can be as slow as its slowest parts. Bigger cache is good, too.

I would definitely recommend nothing less than dual core because even if your app doesn't do threading the operating system does and can put `other tasks` on the other core while your app gets attention. That helps not only with system responsiveness but also with overall processing, because like I said some of the things your app causes the o/s to do allows the o/s to do it on a separate core. When you run a single-threaded app you'll see more activity on the other core(s) than when it was idle.

Quad-core is the future, but the software is slightly behind the hardware. Either a faster dual core or a slightly slower quad would do fine. I'll let you decide.

And yes Vista is okay, it's nicer to use than XP. You can also often get an upgrade thing (like I did) where your pc comes with XP installed and bundled with a Vista Business install disk for `when you're ready to upgrade`. I upgraded right away ;-)

For your screen, go widescreen rather than dual-monitor - you can get more screen real-estate from a single given app on a single monitor if it's larger than two smaller non-wide screens. Okay so that sounds obvious. I also recommend LCD rather than TFT, supposed to be better picture quality.

Anyway, that's me for now.

I have a Core 2 Duo @ 2.4GHz at home, and a Core 2 Quad @2.4 Ghz at the office. Personally I've pretty much never seen it actually use more than two cores for anything there, so I'm sure that a faster dual core would give more of a feeling of speed than a slower quad, unless you have specific processes that run at 100% and can spawn many threads (e.g. raytraying or video transcoding or something)



Actually, the actual dotpitch varies very little among LCD's, meaning that if you run a 19" non-widescreen on its native res of 1280x1024, and compare it with a widescreen 24" at 1920x1200, you'll find that the text is very similar in size... although you may want to pop into a local computer store and actually see if in action for yourself if you have any doubts.

Of course you can also customize the font sizes in Windows' appearance settings to use slightly larger fonts, but not all programs use these, so the results may look slightly odd if you make changes there.

One thing I look for myself in an LCD is a low brightness -- I vastly prefer the 300 cd/m2 screens over the 400 cd/m2 ones, just because the whites are too bright and strain my eyes. I have a 300 cd/m2 screen myself, and even then I turned down the brightness setting from 100 to 28... Of course, for others a screen can't be bright enough.

I just got my very first widescreen myself (upgraded from 19" regular to 24" widescreen) and one feature that I do like is that it has a hardware setting for aspect ratio in the monitor itself -- it will display widescreen resolutions in widescreen, but if you through an 800x600 or 1024x768 into it, it is set to display it with black bars on the side rather than stretching it. It's nice to have the monitor take care of that on its own and not have to depend on the videocard.

I bought:
GT9800 512
Vista Business (32 bit)
4 gig memory
700 gig harddrive
+some stuff

=> Cost around 800 euros or something (about 650 pounds)

Very pleased.


GT9800 has been really nice. Crysis and all work, although you might survive with older card.


No idea, but I would guess quad core doesn't help much here. But this is just guess - so ask from somebody else.

I'm sticking with dual core and it's good (don't compile blitzmax though).


Yep, vista business is good - I use it. (check out comparison table at microsoft's site - it tells pretty well what's the differences). Whatever you get, get at least home premium version.


hard drive space is cheap nowadays. getting 500 gigs or 700 gigs costs almost the same (it's like 10 euro difference). Pay attention to how much NOISE the harddrive will cause (ask the seller about these).


Well, I have 20'1" viewsonic, and I've liked it. I think it could be 22" but nothing to complain here. Some people buy 2 screens, but I haven't used to that so... anyway - make sure you check out the guarantees. This viewsonic came with "if there's single dead pixel in the main screen area (or 2 in near the edges) I get a new screen". Some brands require that there's 2 (or even 3) dead pixels before you can get a monitor replaced.


I've always used logitech, but suit yourself ;) Get 'wrist support' thingies for both keyboard + mouse. You don't want to injure your hands, right?


well, when buying a new computer you get all kinds of other stuff 'cheaper' than normally, so getting additional harddrive (for backups) could be worth thinking (I have my old harddrive as secondary backup drive).

Also getting a decent headset/speakers/webcam could be useful (and would not cost perhaps too much since they could probably give some discount if purchased same time with the rest of the rig).

Oh, and as for the memory. I bought 4 gigs, even though 32-bit windows can use only about 3.2 gigs. I think 64-bit windows can use more (4 point something) but one guy who was installing 64-bit reported some problems getting things to work (he was setting eclipse and some development environment). I don't know if that was just he, so you gotta check out more information about the 32 bit versus 64 bit windows. I use 32 bit and everything so far has worked really well, nothing to complain.


Use GIMP! XD

Get a RAID of SSD. Like this one. You won't have much space, but at 800MB/s sustained read rate, does it really matter? Vista should run like a charm of one of those suckers!

Having a server doesn't cancel out having a need for RAID, unless you're connected to that server via FC-SW.

Get 3 22inch monitors, trust me it will make a huge difference to your productivity.

Great info thanks all! Much appreciated. So some clarification and more questions now:

1) I'm using it mainly for BMax, so now I'm thinking a very fast Dual Core is the way to go.
2) Will Vista 64 bit run faster on a 64 bit CPU? If so, are there 64-bit Dual cores available?
3) I can turn off Vista UAC and patch it up because BFG have a huge test suite - my PC will not be used for testing, so I don't need to worry about that.
4) I use Gimp right now and will carry on using it, but I also need Photoshop to edit the artists files and see the same effects they are using. I find bits of Photoshop easier to use than Gimp and vice versa.
5) OK 9800GT graphics card sounds good thx.
6) Why is LCD better than TFT? I thought LCD was older technology.
7) The RAID SSD sound AWESOME but I may need to wait a couple of years before getting one of those. So I could get a Raid 0 for double the speed right? But that also comes with double the failure rate. Of course I'll backup every day so that won't matter much. If I get too large a dive aren't they slower? Are there some well know faster drivers?
8) Who said about it being Quiet? (Ah Juuso). Thanks for reminding me. This is a big consideration as I want a quite PSU, CPU Fan, GPU Fan, Hard Disk etc. If I'm sitting next to it all day I want it nice and quiet. But I still want the performance so I need to look into getting both.

You think BFG are going to do all their QA on this PC as well? o.O

While I'm not one for developing on a top of the range PC so you can see how stuff runs in the real world, there's no point in making the exercise into an ordeal (which is what UAC does).

E8500 if you need a higher clocked dual core than 4 cores. You could also get better cooling than the stock one and overclock it a bit (with the stock cooling you can easily squeeze ~500-600MHz more without overheating).
9800GT's are pretty cheap and do the job as you don't need a high end one.
Even if you install a 32bit OS, go for 4GB of RAM as it's so cheap right now, and you can get 2x2GB kits for less than 3 individual 1GB chips.
If the budget permits, you can get a 32GB SSD (to install simply the OS on (and some programs that are hungry on the loading times (photoshop, maya, etc), install other programs and store data on regular HDDs) for about $200-250, which would greatly increase boot time and swap. Then, if data is really important, HDD are dirt cheap, so get 2 500GB (~$70 each) and put them in RAID1 (mirrored array).
Get the Dell 24" monitor ( http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=320-6272 ).

Thanks for the info gosse, good advice. Raid1 protects my data but it not as fast as Raid 0 though right? I probably need speed over safty as I'll backup everything to the server (my PC is a workhorse not a data storage device), although Raid 1 would make rebuilding my much PC easier if a drive fails. I didn't realise those SSDs were so cheap, pretty tempting to put Vista on it...

RAID1 array of n drives prevent the failure of n-1 drives, as long as one is still working, you won't lose the data. But you are right, it's no faster than a regular drive, but if it's for data storage and not OS installation, you don't really need faster access time. Except if your day job involves creating and moving around 4GB of data every 10 minutes.
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=31806&vpn=PE32GS25SSDR&manufacture=Patriot
^ 32GB SSD for $194.99 and you get (but 2/3 chance you'll never receive it) a $50 mail-in rebate. (and its a store in Vancouver :P)

Much faster. Vista x64 will barely run at all on a 32 bit CPU ;]


Yes you're right. It's much easier to debug something on a foreign machine.

So what sort of Intel 64-bit CPUs are available. Will my old 32 bit programs be crap on such a CPU?

Unless you are a complete audiophile: yes, it will be more than sufficient. One thing to consider: If you end up with surround sound speakers, you may want to look at a motherboard that has the 6 connector jacks instead of the 3. either one will work with all the speakers, but if you have a 5.1 speaker set it will take up all three jacks leaving none to connect a microphone to. (Which may be an issue if you also want to do voicechats like Skype and the likes)

As far as the 64 vs. 32 bit is concerned: I run vista 32 at the office, and vista 64 at home. Speed wise, there is little apparent difference. some 64 bit apps get a marginal speed boost, but in reality the biggest difference is that under Vista 64 you can address much more memory than under 32, and that 64 has mandatory driver signing. (Which means that not all of the low-end or older stuff has drivers available to it, which is bad, but also that there is a little more quality control and thereby more stable drivers. (Most of windows' instabilities are driver-related)
Now, 32 bit programs run through WOW64 (windows-on-windows 64) under Vista64 -- there is a translation layer, so possibly a very marginal slowdown, but I have never noticed a difference at all in day-to-day use.

One important distinction between 32 and 64 bit: Under 32-bit windows, there is WOW32, that allows you to run 16 bit programs. This no longer exists under Vista64 -- you can either run 64 bit programs natively, or 32 bit through WOW, but no support for 16 bit at all. Most people have no 16 bit programs left, but you never know so it's worth mentioning. We're talking about windows 3.x era software here. (Oh, including the powerBASIC for windows compilers, the actual compilers themselves are/were 16 bit as well, at least not too long ago)

Anyway, I like Vista64 better than the 32 -- the 32 version keeps bugging me that it's running low on memory and that I need to close some programs as soon at I use 2.1 GB RAM (3GB installed). It's amazingly easy to hit that 2.1GB in use threshold, vista definitely is a memory hog. It will then keep freezing for short moments, apps stop responding, etc. Under Vista64 I have 6GB, and never gotten any complaints or slowdowns.

I don't understand what you're doing to your PC.

I've been using Vista on a PC with 1.5GB of RAM for well over a year and I've never seen it complain about running out of memory, even when running 3DS Max, Photoshop, ProjectStudio, 3-4 x Firefox, WAMPServer, Nero etc at the same time.

That only applies to Windows XP. Vista does not support 16 bit programs whether 32 bit or 64 bit. It might say that it does, but trust me, it really doesn't. At all.

Yeah I had to code some kind of Registry thing recently for a retail game and ran into the WOW issue.

Xlsior: OK thanks for the info. I think I'll get 32-bit and stick in 3GB of RAM (or 4GB in two pairs if that's cheaper (or faster))

I don't need 5.1 so onboard sound will be fine.

"I need a decent large TFT too, but I'm concerned that too large and all the text will be tiny and I hate interpolation on TFTs if I change the res down so I'm not sure what to do about that..."

I've had my 22" for a month now, I and I have never come across the problem, as long as the res is the same "aspect" ratio as what the monitor is capable of. Going up or down, the text stays crisp, clear as long as the res aspect is the same. ;)

I use a 4:3 21" CRT for dev work. Easy to calibrate to get the colours right, resolutions up to 1600x1200.

The only downside is that it takes up more space than a TFT would (and it weighs the same as a small planet).

Here's the request I'll be sending to BFG unless I'm missing anything or need to make any last minute changes:

- Tower Case
- Vista Business 32-bit
- Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16 GHz, DDR3-1333) or higher. Or the 8600 (3.33GHz) if cost is not crazy. I'd also really like to get a good quality silent fan for the CPU.
- 3GB RAM (or 4GB if it's cheaper/faster due to matched pairs. I know Vista 32-bit can only access 3Gb but I don't want Vista 64-bit)
- NVIDIA Geforce 9800 GTX or GT (512MB). Is there a quiet fan model?
- Suitable motherboard for above CPU/RAM/GPU with on-board sound and network port.
- Good quality high wattage PSU which is capable of running the GPU and other hardware. I would like a silent fan model.
- 2x500GB Hard Disk in a RAID 0 configuration for speed. Need to find a good quality make which is as fast as possible. I would also like to have quiet drives please.
- Standard DVD-RW. Don't think I need a Floppy Drive.
- Some decent quality speakers (mains powered). Just Stereo, don't need 5.1 or anything.
- Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000
- Microsoft IntelliMouse Optical (NOT wireless)
- A rubber backed cloth covered mouse mat.
- I welcome your recommendation on screen. I need a widescreen flatpanel that is not cheap so it's really clear and has good colour and response times. Probably 22". Someone recommended this Dell 24" ( http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=320-6272 ). What do you tend to use in Seattle for programmers and artists?
- It may be worth getting a UPS to run the screen and PC in the event of spikes and dips in the power supply.

@Gfk: Yeah I currently have a 19" Iiyama CRT at 1024x768 which is really nice but I thought I should go flatscreen for a change.

There are some nice 30" LCD screens out there and two would be great for debugging! ;o)

haha, I think that may be overkill, but later when they realise I'm totally invaluable... :-)

Just an FYI if you're ever thinking of an upgrade down the track... a retail version of Vista 32 bit can be upgraded to 64 bit via the Microsoft website for the cost of 'shipping' only. Then you'll have both discs.

Um... That's what I said. WOW32 allows you to run 16 bit on 32-bit windows, WOW64 lets you run 32-bit on 64 bit windows, without support for 16 bit.

When they send you teh cash for it just go buy a cheap laptop and pocket the rest...

I've decided I hate PCs.

Spent the last hour and a half removing five of my PC fans. A simple enough job, except that the mounting screws for the CD drives felt like they'd been put in with compressed air. I had to remove these so I could get the front of the casing off. I then had to squeeze together six pairs of clips to release the front of the case.

I also removed the HD cooler, since I realised it hadn't been plugged in anyway and nothing had gone wrong.

Put the whole lot back together, PC worked, no power light. 20 minutes of staring at the motherboard resulted in nothing, so I removed the front of the case again, and reconnected the wire behind the front panel that I'd accidentally and unknowingly pulled out when I removed it the first time.

I also bent my screwdriver, and my thumbs hurt. :/

Moral: Get some other chump to build PCs for you.

Um... someone misunderstands someone. I'm saying that Vista 32 bit does not have WOW32 (technically it does, but it doesn't do anything) and thus does not support 16 bit software.


Well, it does help if you know what you're doing. =p


I'm not able to assemble -anything- (computers, chairs, lego) without somehow making myself bleed. After that inevitability happens however, everything goes quite smoothly.

Ha - same here. If there are sharp, cutting edges to be found, my fingers are sure to find them.

Actually, I'm pretty good at cutting up my fingers in general. Last year I almost severed a finger with an electric hedge-trimmer. It didn't feel too great at the time, but looking back on it now, I can't help feeling quite proud of the mighty blood splatter that I made.

I don't mess around with computer hardware (or hedge-trimmers) these days, so hopefully my finger chopping days are over. Having said that, I've just bought myself one of the new Macbook Pros with the solid aluminium casings, which is bound to contain some nice slicy, finger-hungry edges within it.

No cash changes hands. I tell them what I want and they order+build it for me. I don't bother with hardware myself any more, those days are long gone.

a few pc's ive built in the past shipped with blood as an extra feature
i think i cut myself LESS when working at a powder coat company cleaning metal work with alchohol cleaners and rags
and i think i bled more from a small scratch that just happened to be on a vien/atery on the back of my leg resulting in me staying the morning in hospital (and making my matress look rather messy)
i often think if i didnt get up to go to the toilet and see all the blood follwing me i just might have bled to death in my sleep o.O

I know. That's what I was saying too: XP has WOW32, while Vista64 has WOW64 which doesn't do 16 bit.



...Or get a case that's designed well.

One suggestion on the screen. Get one with a base you can adjust far up and down, and rotate from wide screen to tall screen. Having a tall screen is really great when working with code or text in general.

Personally I favor using multiple desktops in software (you can do this on Win/OSX/Linux), rather than multiple screens. I had two screen for a while, but kept sitting a bit twisted when working on my secondary screen, so I switched to just using one.

From Wall Street Journal about screen size and prodcutivity study (funded by NEC :P ).

"People using the 24-inch screen completed the tasks 52% faster than people who used the 18-inch monitor; people who used the two 20-inch monitors were 44% faster than those with the 18-inch ones. There is an upper limit, however: Productivity dropped off again when people used a 26-inch screen."

It basically says that you get less productivity from two 20-inch screens, than one 24-inch one. Presumably, since productivity dropped off at 26-inches, a dual 24-inch setup wouldn't be that great either. Of course, it all depends on what kind of work you do. :)

Yeah I was joking anyhow. I'm about to build myself a new computer myself for the house. I'm still using my PC from back in 2003 (no PCI-E for me yet). Foaming at the mouth. I'll prolly spend around 1k bucks on it. But I have a widescreen ViewSonic monitor that won't be getting replaced. I absolutely love it.

Btw, I have a tech demo of my new casual game Bauble (tentative title) working now. Does BFG look at tech demos and help with development if they deem it worthy?

Maybe, I don't know enough about the game submissions department. I've always sent them fully working games. BFG do publish games for people and give them advice and help, I know that much - but you have to have something pretty special.

I use a triple screen display at work, and it's awfully nice to have all the screen real-estate to have email open, your web browser ready, and visual studio (plus whatever your application is outputting)

I imagine at least a dual screen set-up is ideal for game development type environments so you can code-step debug without corrupting your screen. Plus if you work at the BFG offices (vs, say telecommuting), i'm sure they want you to have all the other office-oriented things available such as email and/or IM...

I'd also make sure the CPU is capable of virutalization (most virtualization apps are now requiring some sort of technology at the chip level to be fully cross-platform compatible). Unless of course you're not doing cross platform applications, or want to emulate other hardware.

Thanks RocketGnome. I don't think virtualisation is an issue. I just put my code on a Mac and compile it there when the PC version is done.

A KVM Switch is a necessity and I would recommend Photoshop CS3. Also two flatscreen monitors would be recommended.

These are also very handy to have around for shortcuts in Photoshop:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Adobe-Photoshop-CS2/SparkNotes-Editors/e/9781411404724/?itm=3

Thanks for the tips. Hey your sig looks good btw.

Nice. Sounds like GA is being properly pimped up via BFG. ;)

"Sounds like GA is being properly pimped up via BFG."

Yeah. Now that GA's going to be in my neck of the woods, I need to find out how he got that gig. :)