As a hardware guy, it seems to me like you software guys have all the brains. You know lans, vlans, proxies, routers, subnet masks sand networking beyond anything. I ussually feel like a shopfitter, when you guys develope software and make programs.
The weidest thing happened to me today. While installing a new sys board on a compaq laptop, I had a stunning looking software girl (who's desk I was using at the time) come up to me and remark "wow, that is impressive". I could only blurt out ahhh and yep, while I went back to fitting the heatsink and fan to the cpu. (why can I not accept compliments from a beauty paying me compliments)?
MaybeIam wrong, but the plus side of hardware, is when you have taken apart and reasembled the unit you look like a wiz, but when you spend two hours taking apart a laptop you are not familiar with, they look at you like a rubbish collector.
Anyway the question was, who is brainer, the hardware engineer or the software engineer and figuring that is a software website, I expect the software engineer to win

I've just had the though that most programmers have an understanding of how bits and bytes are transferred about inside a pc, how logic levels, timings and memory come together, and that there's better algorithms to make your code more efficient if you know them (I'm thinking of object creation/reuse and loops, etc.), whereas hardware guys might understand the physics/electronics side of things more, they're less knowledgable the other way, about software implementations&layers that use the hardware they work on.
I dunno though, depends how comples their work is, how much they have to debug&test in each field.

yeah it's a weird situation because anybody can make anything they want with software (as long as you have the skills), but with hardware even if you have the skills, you'll need special, expensive equipment to make anything... even something as simple as a soundcard...

it seems like the hardware had the hardest challenges to overcome, look at the progress of the computer through time. I personally think physics is the hardest part, could be because i dont understand it much.

I'd say that low level hardware design is a lot harder than programming. I'm doing my Computer Science degree at the moment and hardware gives me the most headaches.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. You're looking at two wholly different aspects of the IT industry. Programmers deal with a completely different level of the computer than hardware/networking pros do. One does not necessarily know the other.

I have 12 years in the industry, and I can tell you that programmers rarely know the ins and outs of networking, unless they are programming network aware products. Even then, most of the time programmers don't need to know much more than layer 3 and 4. They don't care about layer 1 issues, for sure, and most of the time, layers 2 and 3 are not being programmed for unless they are writing code to manage routers and switches.

Low-level programmers probably know much more about networking than application programmers. But again, asking who's smarter between programmers and hardware/networking gurus is not a fair comparison.

it depends on what you mean by "hardware"

if you mean Intel guys, hten id tip my hat to the hardware folks
if you mean the tech support guys that come over and install a ram stick for you and take a hundred bucks, then it's software.

#

I replace the occasional RAM chip, but more often than not I am diagnosing and repairing critical servers. What does IBM have to do with it. Compared to Compaq their Laptops are a pain in the arse to take apart, anyway. I am only 23 and new to the industry, but I have seen Compaq contractors driving new Mercs and Lexus cars and sys admins (note have to yet see a programmers car), driving Austin Meastros.
As for brains, there are clever software guys who have no human contact and their are dumb engineers who know how to talk and vise versa.
It is hard being my age. Every time I make a mistake I get bitten, simply because I have only a couple of years experience. I am having to spend my time awake either working or researching, to make up for what I don't know that the middle aged engineers do. I do not recommend hardware to anyone, go into software and play games all day and get paid for it. My lunch break is spent driving to my next site visit and I do not have time for a proper breakfast or lunch.

linus torvalds could have NEVER pioneered the linux kernel if he didn't have advanced knowledge of CPU architectures, etc... and he would have never been able to be part of the transmeta crusoe CPU engineering team if he didn't have an advanced knowledge of operating system kernels...

one hand washes the other...

when programming, the lower the level, the more you need to know about the hardware... you don't get any lower than a kernel, hence no programmer will need to know as much about hardware as a kernel developer...

when programming, the higher the level, the less you need to know about hardware.... you don't get any higher than a high-level language such as python or java, hence high-level programmers will rarely need to know anything about the hardware... this is where the "write once, run anywhere" thing comes in...


EXACTLY... the comparison should be between kernel developers and hardware engineers...

keep in mind that "hardware engineer" means one who can ENGINEER (NOT install, configure, troubleshoot, repair, etc.) hardware... in other words, engineers design hardware that didn't exist before... for example, the people who design CPUs at Intel or AMD, or at Cisco... or the ones who design motherboards, random access memory... etc... NOT the people that go around "replacing RAM chips", those are TECHNICIANS, and they are a dime a dozen...


there is no answer to that question... hardware and software need each other to work... a kernel is useless without a CPU to run it through... a CPU is useless without a kernel to run through it... etc...

Win32Sux,
I agree with everything you said, except the spelling of the word "technician."

Also, "Low Level Programmers" would be a good name for a rock band.

LOL! thanks! i just corrected my spelling mistake...

=)

Having worked in IT for a long time, I would say that both as as clever as each other.

However, it is important to remember that its only difficult if you don't know anything about the subject.

Hardware people look at developers and think, wow he wrote all that? (not knowing that reusable modules are designed to speed up the process)
Software people look at hardware and think, that looks so complex, how do you build one of those? (again not knowing that most chips come with suggested designs and uses and producing a PCB is just a matter of using a pencil, some UV light and some acid!)

At the end of the day, we should all try and learn more about stuff we don't know enough about!

Yours

Oli

Speaking as a software man, all I can say is: all respect to the hardware people! How could I run software if it were not for hardware?

I like hardware people, they can be trained At several of the accounts I have worked at, once the hardware guys accepted that we knew what we were talking about they'd accept our diagnosis. Often they'd just say "shall we send out the part and then send a guy out to pick up the broken bit?"

But, f0ul_Oli's comment is true: if you can't (or don't) do something when someone does it it looks like the guy's a genius. We should all respect each other's jobs and not feel that one is better than the other.

This seems like good advice not only for hardware and software people, but people who choose to use Windows or Linux. I don't see this same kind of respect going in that direction, though. For some reason, people who choose Linux for the most part seem to despise anyone who chooses Windows.

I find myself in the rare position of liking both operating systems equally and having mutual respect for people who run one over the other.

Sorry...I don't mean to turn this into a Linux vs Windows debate, but perhaps it's too late...