Hmm, a 2.8GHz Pentium D was the slowest available when initially manufactured in 2005 or 2006...
My point was that a 2.8GHz CPU was (almost) the slowest Pentium D made.
Moving the goalposts? The Pentium D was most certainly
not the slowest CPU around in 2005 - it was actually one of the fastest. To then turn around and label the 2.8GHz version as 'almost the slowest' simply because the top speed grade was 3.2GHz is disingenuous.
Now consider that Atmel Studio 6 was released in February 2002. What was the fastest CPU you could get back then? Some of us remember those times, and we are
sick of being told to buy faster hardware just so software can become even more bloated.
my point wasn't to boast, but to show that attempting to castigate a piece of software for poor performance on a CPU nearly a decade old is slightly unfair
Your system has a top-of-the-line CPU and a solid state hard drive. I bet it cost plenty and is worth boasting about. So boast away, we don't mind.
What I
do mind is expecting hobbyists, students and others with limited funds to spend big bucks on a more powerful PC, just so they can enjoy debugging their Arduino at a reasonable speed. What's the point of releasing a cheap dev board that doesn't need any extra debugging hardware, if you then have to spend hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars to make your PC powerful enough to use it? The answer is:- you shouldn't have to. That's why debugging via the serial port is
still a valid option.