Visual Studio 2010 Pro Sucks
-
MS is working hard days and nights to provide you SP 1 in time, please hold your breath till then.
WJFK (Write Just for Kicks)
The Digital Worm wrote:
MS is working hard days and nights to provide you SP 1 VS2012 in time, please hold your breath till then.
FTFY
-
Finally installed VS2010 Pro on my laptop in what took forever. It takes at least five minutes to load and then the few sample programs that I downloaded with it hang forever. :^) :( :sigh: :wtf: :| X| P.S. - This is my first "... Sucks" post.
Can someone who manages to use it regularly explain why I might possibly want to consider this "uprade"? I'm still not sure it was a net gain by going from VC6 to VS2005 and VS2008. I know, that's the attitude of the old and stubborn "Back in my day!" crowd, but I'm a nerd, I LOVE new shiny stuff. But I've been waiting for the VS family to knock my socks off with the next version, yet it keeps getting worse. I'm starting to use Eclipse on Linux for some experimental "embedded PC" type project we're doing, and so far I have to say I am impressed. It's the first non-MS IDE I've used since I used Symantec C++ (that's right) in 1995 or so. I'm still getting into it, but it's honestly the most fired up I've been about developing something since the 90's.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
Can someone who manages to use it regularly explain why I might possibly want to consider this "uprade"? I'm still not sure it was a net gain by going from VC6 to VS2005 and VS2008. I know, that's the attitude of the old and stubborn "Back in my day!" crowd, but I'm a nerd, I LOVE new shiny stuff. But I've been waiting for the VS family to knock my socks off with the next version, yet it keeps getting worse. I'm starting to use Eclipse on Linux for some experimental "embedded PC" type project we're doing, and so far I have to say I am impressed. It's the first non-MS IDE I've used since I used Symantec C++ (that's right) in 1995 or so. I'm still getting into it, but it's honestly the most fired up I've been about developing something since the 90's.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
David Kentley wrote:
Can someone who manages to use it regularly explain why I might possibly want to consider this "uprade"? I'm still not sure it was a net gain by going from VC6 to VS2005 and VS2008.
Scientific computation, image analysis product, 256x256 sub-image, maximum optimization on compiler, SSE2, per chip output: VS2005: 6.4 seconds per frame VS2008: 5.8 seconds per frame VS2010: 5.2 seconds per frame Intel: 5.1 seconds per frame When you are processing many 1000's of frames, it helps! Still not quite up to the Intel compiler though.
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
I get the impression that, generally, sliced bread leaves VS2010 way behind in the "best thing" stakes.
Baconbutty wrote:
I get the impression that, generally, sliced bread leaves VS2010 way behind in the "best thing" stakes.
My experience is that old moldy bread leaves VS2010 way behind in the "it's better than nothing" stakes.
-
David Kentley wrote:
Can someone who manages to use it regularly explain why I might possibly want to consider this "uprade"? I'm still not sure it was a net gain by going from VC6 to VS2005 and VS2008.
Scientific computation, image analysis product, 256x256 sub-image, maximum optimization on compiler, SSE2, per chip output: VS2005: 6.4 seconds per frame VS2008: 5.8 seconds per frame VS2010: 5.2 seconds per frame Intel: 5.1 seconds per frame When you are processing many 1000's of frames, it helps! Still not quite up to the Intel compiler though.
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
If they're that close on an intel CPU, then I assume VS2k10 has a huge lead if the executable is run on an Opeteron.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
If they're that close on an intel CPU, then I assume VS2k10 has a huge lead if the executable is run on an Opeteron.
That I can't tell you. I don't have any left to try on.
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
David Kentley wrote:
Can someone who manages to use it regularly explain why I might possibly want to consider this "uprade"? I'm still not sure it was a net gain by going from VC6 to VS2005 and VS2008.
Scientific computation, image analysis product, 256x256 sub-image, maximum optimization on compiler, SSE2, per chip output: VS2005: 6.4 seconds per frame VS2008: 5.8 seconds per frame VS2010: 5.2 seconds per frame Intel: 5.1 seconds per frame When you are processing many 1000's of frames, it helps! Still not quite up to the Intel compiler though.
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
El Corazon wrote:
VS2005: 6.4 seconds per frame VS2008: 5.8 seconds per frame VS2010: 5.2 seconds per frame Intel: 5.1 seconds per frame
Just so I understand, you are talking the speed of the created executable, correct? If so, seems like an SP could fix prior versions, not an entirely new VS.
Gary
-
El Corazon wrote:
VS2005: 6.4 seconds per frame VS2008: 5.8 seconds per frame VS2010: 5.2 seconds per frame Intel: 5.1 seconds per frame
Just so I understand, you are talking the speed of the created executable, correct? If so, seems like an SP could fix prior versions, not an entirely new VS.
Gary
ghle wrote:
Just so I understand, you are talking the speed of the created executable, correct? If so, seems like an SP could fix prior versions, not an entirely new VS.
True, if MS would supply the new compiler as a patch, yes. All of those are fully patched to current. and yes, this is native C++/C executable optimized by the compiler. Same source, so IDE is pretty much irrelevant at this point.
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
ghle wrote:
Just so I understand, you are talking the speed of the created executable, correct? If so, seems like an SP could fix prior versions, not an entirely new VS.
True, if MS would supply the new compiler as a patch, yes. All of those are fully patched to current. and yes, this is native C++/C executable optimized by the compiler. Same source, so IDE is pretty much irrelevant at this point.
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
El Corazon wrote:
Same source, so IDE is pretty much irrelevant at this point.
One more compelling reason to upgrade to 2010 - for the accessories. I've had little time with VS 08 or 10, I found them both difficult to get started on. Thanks for the encouragement. :)
Gary
-
VS 2010 needs WPF accelaration If you laptop graphics card is unable to provide WPF acceleration, disable it. HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Avalon.Graphics\DisableHWAcceleration=1 It worked for me