days and nights of Visual Studio hell
-
Perhaps I'm naive, but I still tend to feel that this is how it should be done: Install: Copy file structure into an empty directory on the target machine Uninstall: Delete that directory Never, ever, put anything into the windows directory Read and write configuration information to/from files - if they are placed outside the target directory, document where they are located. If you are doing COM related stuff, or anything else that requires information to be added to the registry, provide a commandline utility that cleans up the registry.
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
That's sooooo 1980's :) I totally agree. Hiding all these bits of code and configuration around on the system is great.. until something breaks. Then one needs to wipe and reinstall the OS to fix it.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
That's sooooo 1980's :) I totally agree. Hiding all these bits of code and configuration around on the system is great.. until something breaks. Then one needs to wipe and reinstall the OS to fix it.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
patbob wrote:
That's sooooo 1980's
So true - I'm currently postponing a complete reinstall due to an uninstaller that went out of its way to make my laptop unusable. The approach seems to have been similar to: cd ..\..\.. del /F /S /Q *.* with a slight misstake in what cd ..\..\.. actually meant (c:\oracle), it should have been cd ..\..
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
Michael Martin wrote:
Both my kids laptops are better specced than that.
You upgraded them to the latest Visual Studio? ..look at it this way; if my application runs fast enough on my machine to "not" go on my nerves, it'll probably be good enough for a clients' machine.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
..look at it this way; if my application runs fast enough on my machine to "not" go on my nerves, it'll probably be good enough for a clients' machine.
What's going to get on your nerves are the problems you'll have with your application AND VS trying to chew on that little bit of RAM you've got. I recommend you upgrade to 4GB at least, ASAP; anything less on an environment running VS and a Win OS later than XP just doesn't make sense.
"Seize the day" - Horace "It's not what he doesn't know that scares me; it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" - Will Rogers, said by him about Herbert Hoover
-
To my mind, Visual Studio has gone downhill since VS2008. The part that pisses me off the most is that MS feels like they need to re-write the user interface with every release, and every time they screw it up even worse. In VS2008 (and 2005, 2003, etc.) you could float toolbars and place them anywhere on the screen, so all the real estate you lost could be largely reclaimed. In VS2010, MS decided they had to rewrite it all into WPF (which should have been called WTF). As a result, none of the toolbars can be floated anymore, so vertical real estate is lost. And now with VS2012, they have gone totally crazy, reducing the whole UI to monochrome colours, upper-case naming, and you still can't float a toolbar. I wish these idiots would get it through their heads that developers make their living using these applications, that they spend 10+ hours a day in them, and screwing with them makse them counter-productive. An IDE is a tool, a massively important tool, so leave it alone. Fix its bugs, add features to it, but don't remove something once you've put it in. No one ever tried to change the user interface on a carpenter's tools; take the same attitude toward a developer's tools.
Now, here's a serious question: the VS developers obviously don't use VS - what DO they use? (If they actually used VS, I have to believe it would get better).
"Seize the day" - Horace "It's not what he doesn't know that scares me; it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" - Will Rogers, said by him about Herbert Hoover
-
This post is made based on the belief that: "suffering shared is suffering diluted" ... which does seem to me to be one modal use of the Lounge :) You have all been in software "hell," I'd bet; if not with Visual Studio, then with an OS issue, or some other issue with an application, or your own code, that, suddenly, begins to malfunction for no apparent reason; an application that won't install, etc., etc. And, I suspect, that you, like me, have tarried long in software hell, because you wanted, at all cost, to avoid the dreaded re-install of the OS, followed by endless upgrading, and endless re-install of all your tools, and programs. I'll spare you the "Google street-level view," which I am exposing, and getting some help with, kind of, on the MS Visual Studio install forum. Here's a high-altitude fly-by view: It started with installing an upgrade to the MindScape dingus (Add In ? Extension ?) to Visual Studio RC 1. Then, the next day, trying to start Visual Studio: it goes into an endless loop presenting a dialog "Loading Components." Only way out: Task Manager: kill devenv.exe. So, what could be more natural, at this time, when MS has a free 90 day trial of Visual Studio 2012 Pro RTM, than to uninstall the RC 1, and install the RTM ? Un-install of RC1 fails with countless issues. Hand editing the Registry to remove all RC1 and FrameWork 4.5RC references, results in the apparent removal of RC1, but then RTM will not install. Endless fiddling with more registry entries, removing selected .NET components: finally RTM installs, but will show, on first launch, when I try to create a Windows Forms solution, a dialog telling me it can't "create the compiler." If I then ignore this dialog, and create a second solution; I end up with a viable solution that will build and run (!), but which will not allow me to access to the Design view, of any Form or UserControl :) I bet you've seen that window with deep blue on top, and a yellow panel top-side, that usually appears when you have done some kind of messing around with the Designer.cs file in a WinForms project. I'd estimate I have now spent nearly twenty hours of my life, over the last five days, unable to use Visual Studio 2012, trying to get the RTM to work, and now trying to get it un-installed. That's major withdrawal syndrome for me, because: using VS is a favorite past-time, and I like to answer QA questions here, checking my answers by coding in 2012, before posting them, to make sure they are correct. Some of the help files I've be
I get an email whenever there's an error on my webapps. We recently initiated a service to do Red-Siren testing (a term I came up with...); e.g., testing for any security issues. (Now, I know this is .NET reporting the error, and I do know what the error is about... but the funny part is the actual error message, truncated that it is...) Got an error message recently. Of most interest, and danged funny at that, is the unedited (albeit truncated) verbatim "Error Message" from Microsoft's lovely .NET Framework ... (emphasis added) URL: https : / / www.RedactedWebSite.com /SomeWebApp/ThatLoginPage.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fSomeWebApp%2fDefault.aspx%3faction%3dppr&action=ppr%3CScript%20%3Ealert(%22HelloSIG%22)%3C/Script%3E Error Date: [redacted] Error Message: A potentially dangerous Request.QueryString value was detected from the client (action="ppr<Script >alert("Hell..." Albeit a little late (going on 7+ years of .NET programming...), thanks for the warning Microsoft!
-
I just upgraded my desktop box (Win7 x64) from 4GB to 8GB and the performance shot up - which leads me to conclude that the machine was being slowed down by excessive paging. A dev machine with 2GB RAM will suffer far, far worse. If you're using an x64 OS for development, you really need to be looking at 8GB or more.
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
I just upgraded my desktop box (Win7 x64) from 4GB to 8GB and the performance shot up - which leads me to conclude that the machine was being slowed down by excessive paging.
I agree, my work machine has 16GB and seems comfortable consuming 8GB of it. My home machine with 4GB seems to wheeze. I really have to work to push it past 8GB and that's with virtual machines running WinXP. I suppose it is like how WinXP will run in 512MB, but is much happier in 2GB.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
a 64-bit monster-machine with 2 Gb of RAM
I'm assuming that's a typo.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There are Virtual Machines available - don't use your primary environment for experiments, it sucks when you have to live in the ruins of a failed experiment
I'm with you on this. My development environment is now virtualized, and getting rid of the RC was just a matter of deleting the machine, and installing the RTM on a clean OS. I still have VS 2008 and 2010 VMs ready to be fired up at any time (in fact, I still develop with 2010; I only have 2012 installed for tinkering with, until I'm ready to commit to it).
Daniel Desormeaux wrote:
I'm assuming that's a typo.
Huh, I read it as sarcasm. My personal laptop was a cheapo replacement 64 bit, dual core 2GH, 3GB ram of my 1GH, originally 160MB ram laptop. I'm cheap, it still has 3GB ram. In 2004 I was working with 512MH, 360MB ram DESKTOPS. You work with what you have and what you can afford. After all, he did say the machine was a monster. Dealing with monsters is bad, right?
-
This post is made based on the belief that: "suffering shared is suffering diluted" ... which does seem to me to be one modal use of the Lounge :) You have all been in software "hell," I'd bet; if not with Visual Studio, then with an OS issue, or some other issue with an application, or your own code, that, suddenly, begins to malfunction for no apparent reason; an application that won't install, etc., etc. And, I suspect, that you, like me, have tarried long in software hell, because you wanted, at all cost, to avoid the dreaded re-install of the OS, followed by endless upgrading, and endless re-install of all your tools, and programs. I'll spare you the "Google street-level view," which I am exposing, and getting some help with, kind of, on the MS Visual Studio install forum. Here's a high-altitude fly-by view: It started with installing an upgrade to the MindScape dingus (Add In ? Extension ?) to Visual Studio RC 1. Then, the next day, trying to start Visual Studio: it goes into an endless loop presenting a dialog "Loading Components." Only way out: Task Manager: kill devenv.exe. So, what could be more natural, at this time, when MS has a free 90 day trial of Visual Studio 2012 Pro RTM, than to uninstall the RC 1, and install the RTM ? Un-install of RC1 fails with countless issues. Hand editing the Registry to remove all RC1 and FrameWork 4.5RC references, results in the apparent removal of RC1, but then RTM will not install. Endless fiddling with more registry entries, removing selected .NET components: finally RTM installs, but will show, on first launch, when I try to create a Windows Forms solution, a dialog telling me it can't "create the compiler." If I then ignore this dialog, and create a second solution; I end up with a viable solution that will build and run (!), but which will not allow me to access to the Design view, of any Form or UserControl :) I bet you've seen that window with deep blue on top, and a yellow panel top-side, that usually appears when you have done some kind of messing around with the Designer.cs file in a WinForms project. I'd estimate I have now spent nearly twenty hours of my life, over the last five days, unable to use Visual Studio 2012, trying to get the RTM to work, and now trying to get it un-installed. That's major withdrawal syndrome for me, because: using VS is a favorite past-time, and I like to answer QA questions here, checking my answers by coding in 2012, before posting them, to make sure they are correct. Some of the help files I've be
I started a vendor position in Sept. laid off because of budget last Friday. My vendor supplied desktop had VS 2012. The team was using T4 templates on 2010. I couldn't download the same version of T4 code the rest of the team was using, so went with Tangential's T4. That worked for about half an hour on my first day. I had to require the vendor to put in 2010. I installed the same verion of T4 the rest of the team had and that worked for about a week. I'm using TFS to sync up with their software, I just added a new tt file on the morning of the last day. VS blows up, I restart, says it can't find the tt files I just entered. Shoot, a couple of hours of work. Use dos to look at the directory, yep, file was still there. Use notepad to open it so I have a copy in memory and try to create a new tt file with the same name. Blows up because I already have the file open. I still have the error message that it can't find the file in the exact location where dos found it. I still found 2010 easier to use because I was used to it's menu structure was familiar. (Why do you have to go through a completely different menu path to do the same thing with the same software with a new release?) Anyway, forwarded all my files to my lead because no-one authorized me to release them and left. He sent a mail early today saying thanks and the files were installed today. I shudder to think about the problems I'd have syncing up with that software and yet still wishing I had those problems now.
-
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
I just upgraded my desktop box (Win7 x64) from 4GB to 8GB and the performance shot up - which leads me to conclude that the machine was being slowed down by excessive paging.
I usually conclude that I'm running too much crap, which usually is true. After downloading the MVPS-hosts file, disabling a lot of unneeded services, and cleaning the startup-path, everything seems to fly.
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
A dev machine with 2GB RAM will suffer far, far worse.
Did I mention I'm coming from a 1Gb laptop running Ubuntu? My last article was written entirely on that machine, including the software :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
I agree , I just upgraded to a laptop , i7, 8Gb and Win 7 64 from Core 2 with 4Gb and Win 7 32 bit . VS 2010 behaves a lot better , especially with R# installed , the 4gb PC I was getting Out Of Memory errors galore . Whats the line "Why didn't I do it earlier" -- Money as ever Mike
Mike
-
Got a new desktop a few weeks ago; a 64-bit monster-machine with 2 Gb of RAM, Windows 7 and Visual Studio 2010. Read a lot of rants when it came out, but it seems to be stable and it's relatively fast. Thank you, a hundred times, for beta-testing the software. Windows 7 is not as much a disaster as everybody claimed. Good luck with Win8 and VS2012 :)
BillWoodruff wrote:
I find it rather amazing that at this time of such sophistication in software, there isn't an un-installer program, produced by Microsoft, that can figure out what needs to be done: and "just do it."
There are Virtual Machines available - don't use your primary environment for experiments, it sucks when you have to live in the ruins of a failed experiment.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Get more RAM! 2 GB is the minimum recommendation for W7 64 bit alone, VS 2010 requires 1GB for 32 bit development, 2GB for 64 bit. If you use XP compatibility mode, count another 1 GB. And that doesn't include any other tools, or the apps you develop.
-
Get more RAM! 2 GB is the minimum recommendation for W7 64 bit alone, VS 2010 requires 1GB for 32 bit development, 2GB for 64 bit. If you use XP compatibility mode, count another 1 GB. And that doesn't include any other tools, or the apps you develop.
-
Recommended then. I don't know the rationale - that is what MS says. However, my dev machine has W7 64 bit and with VS 2010 developing 32 bit applications I rarely see memory usage drop below 4GB, so 2 GB is really on the low side. At this moment I run Outlook, VS 2010, and VS 2010. I have 12279MB memory, but only 7930 available. The processes tab only shows less than 1GB of usage, so >3 GB appear to be used by the system, and services. Don't ask me where all that memory goes, but that's 4GB I can't use.
-
Recommended then. I don't know the rationale - that is what MS says. However, my dev machine has W7 64 bit and with VS 2010 developing 32 bit applications I rarely see memory usage drop below 4GB, so 2 GB is really on the low side. At this moment I run Outlook, VS 2010, and VS 2010. I have 12279MB memory, but only 7930 available. The processes tab only shows less than 1GB of usage, so >3 GB appear to be used by the system, and services. Don't ask me where all that memory goes, but that's 4GB I can't use.
Currently writing a plugin for VS2010, so yes, I'm launching VS from VS, and am currently using 68% of the available physical memory. Without VS open, 59%. (No WPF UI, nothing fancy)
Stefan_Lang wrote:
The processes tab only shows less than 1GB of usage, so >3 GB appear to be used by the system, and services.
I disabled everything that I'm not using. Do you use the bitlocker service? Bluetooth? Human Interface Device Access? The Media Center Extender Service? :) Windows does a lot of things, and I'm not using most of it. Seems redundant to have services loaded that I do not use.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Currently writing a plugin for VS2010, so yes, I'm launching VS from VS, and am currently using 68% of the available physical memory. Without VS open, 59%. (No WPF UI, nothing fancy)
Stefan_Lang wrote:
The processes tab only shows less than 1GB of usage, so >3 GB appear to be used by the system, and services.
I disabled everything that I'm not using. Do you use the bitlocker service? Bluetooth? Human Interface Device Access? The Media Center Extender Service? :) Windows does a lot of things, and I'm not using most of it. Seems redundant to have services loaded that I do not use.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Here at work I'm not supposed to stop any services running on my machine (I once got in to a clash with the head of IT because I killed the antivirus program which I suspected to be the cause for my compiler hanging - and I'm still convinced it was: after killing the antivirus the compiler worked again!). Anyway even after checking
[]show processes of all users, that only accounts for a little more than 1GB of the 4, so I don't think stopping any of these would improve things notably. But then I'm not short of memory right now. P.S.: this makes me wonder if services use memory that is not listed in the task manager (and how you could check this). I did check the Media Center and Bluetooth services (not started), but am unsure about the others due to UI language being german. P.P.S: I did disable the indexer service several years ago, since I tend to start the compiler after extended periods of thinking, and that turned out to be about the same time the OS decided it would be good time to start indexing X|