Opinions on Visual Studio 2008 performance
-
I was chastised as an idiot (I know I am, but for other reasons) after my being nasty to poor VS in last night's newsletter, so I've decided to get a second (and third, fourth and fiftieth hopefully) opinion. What do people think of the performance of Visual Studio 2008?
-------------- TTFN - Kent
I use it on both XP and Vista(32) and it works as well as one would expect from a large framework. Having thought about the last sentence I wonder if my expectations have been so abraided of the last 15 years of using MS products that I no longer know the difference. It occasionally spits the dummy, but then every development platform I have EVER used choked sooner or later and needed the system will need to be slapped. It is rarely so slow that it is irritating (except when going terminal) and I regularly have 2-3 copies open. Overall not bad.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
there is a difference :confused: I'm still using VC++ 1.52 and VC++ 6.0 at work :sigh:
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
I was chastised as an idiot (I know I am, but for other reasons) after my being nasty to poor VS in last night's newsletter, so I've decided to get a second (and third, fourth and fiftieth hopefully) opinion. What do people think of the performance of Visual Studio 2008?
-------------- TTFN - Kent
VS2008 is "OK" in my view. It's more sluggish than VS2003 (which I keep drifting back to for that reason) but with SP1 and the Feature Pack installed its hard to beat. It's also a heck of a lot less buggy than VS2005, which still has a number of significant bugs in it which were reported at Beta 2 and closed as "won't fix". But I digress... If you want a real easy target, take a look at VS2010 Beta 1 and compare it with the stability and snappiness of the previous CTP. "10 is the new 6" indeed! :|
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Tech Blog | Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
Reference adding is way way way too slow, especially if you were going to browse or add an other project in the same solution as reference anyway, I'm not having any other problems though
harold aptroot wrote:
Reference adding is way way way too slow
I thought that is the problem in all VS versions. I can reproduce that issue in VS2003 as well VS2005 also. :-)
Books are as useful to a stupid person as a mirror is useful to a blind person. - Chanakya
-
I was chastised as an idiot (I know I am, but for other reasons) after my being nasty to poor VS in last night's newsletter, so I've decided to get a second (and third, fourth and fiftieth hopefully) opinion. What do people think of the performance of Visual Studio 2008?
-------------- TTFN - Kent
sluggish and that's on a 4GB, dual core machine with 7200rpm drive. You are not being overly critical. Of course Outlook 2007 is VERY sluggish.
Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Hurtling toward a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid we go. —Michelle Malkin This crap sandwich is all yours.... 2009 "Stimulus Bill"
-
Core2 duo extreme @ 3 GHZ, Intel DG45ID board (with HDMI support, dolby digital, 7.1 surround and other goodies), 500Gigs WD, 22" Samsung Full HD Monitor, Nvidia graphics card with 512MB memory, 6Gigs of RAM and last but not least, MX5021[^] (Spanking good and I love it, although almost 6 to 7 times the cost of a normal 2.1 speakers though). Oddly, I'm running Vista X64 (will run it until I can get Win7). Now, I'm finding my office machine to be "slow". :)
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
Nice :-)
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Spanking good and I love it, although almost 6 to 7 times the cost of a normal 2.1 speakers though
You think that's excessive - when I had a desktop PC at home (long time ago now - I've only used laptops at home for...3 years now), I used a Rotel amp + Celestion monitor speakers - that's (almost) proper hi-fi, man. Did sound good.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p