Which is less worse ? Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 ?
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
>> Unfortunately we moved over our software >> development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. Sincere condolences ;-) >> We have found that there are many many bugs >> in VS2002 that are painful... I have similiar experience with 2002. I've installed 2003 on another machine for evaluation, but did not spent much time with it. >> Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for >> 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you >> flip to another file When you're flip to another file, the IDE activates it in the project view. This can take some time. If you close the project view, this won't happen anymore. .NET 2003 does not have this stupid feature at all! Another trick (that worked for VC6 as well) is to delete the *.NCB and *.OPT files. This may prevent the IDE from sleeping, when you enter a newline. That's all I can say about 2003 so far. My biggest issue to evaluate 2003 was to see, whether a usable sourcecode browser was re-added. It was not :( Unfortunately we must use .NET 2002 to create DLLs for an application, that was built with .NET 2002. Otherwise I would uninstall it at once. tbrammer
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
We moved from VS6 to VS.NET2002 with our quite large C / C++ project and had the same experience. With the release of VS.NET 2003 we upgraded again. VS.NET2003 is definitly better! Many bugs and anoyances have been fixed and the performance seems to have improved also. While VS.NET2002 crashed every few hours, VS.NET2003 is quite stable (approx one crash per week). Even the resource editors have been improved. It is possible again to edit resource files, though you still need to do some text editing sometimes. Overall VS.NET2003 is not as usable as VS6, but the better compiler makes up for it. My biggest regret is the object browser which seems to have lost much of its functionality (is not able to display call graphs any more, etc). Oliver
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
I was shocked when I read this thread. :omg: I guess it just a matter of perspective. Coming from much simpiler tools including the Tasking EDE I was just blown away when I saw VS. I beleive the Tasking 68K tools cost us $8000 and the tech support _can_not_ speak English. My first thoughts were that I've been using crap for way too long. I'm sure that as I use VS for a while I'll notice the problems but for now I think I'm in Utopia. :-D Ken Galer Electrical Engineer Preferred Utilities Corp. Danbury, CT 06810
-
I was shocked when I read this thread. :omg: I guess it just a matter of perspective. Coming from much simpiler tools including the Tasking EDE I was just blown away when I saw VS. I beleive the Tasking 68K tools cost us $8000 and the tech support _can_not_ speak English. My first thoughts were that I've been using crap for way too long. I'm sure that as I use VS for a while I'll notice the problems but for now I think I'm in Utopia. :-D Ken Galer Electrical Engineer Preferred Utilities Corp. Danbury, CT 06810
Ken Galer wrote: I was shocked when I read this thread. Hey that was probably the idea of starting it. :-D For what its worth I've been using VS 2003 since it was released in beta. It has a few idiosyncracies, but has given me no more problems than any other tool that is so much at the mercy of its user. Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
I could experience Visual Studio .net 02 only in the Beta 2, but there it was very slow and had also many bugs then i changed to vs .net 03 it is much better and faster than the 02 scio me nihil scire My OpenSource(zlib/libpng License) Engine: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rendertech
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
Same exact problem here. 50% of the things that I try to do in VS .NET (click on this, click on that, add variable here, add class there, resource view here, this thing there...) take 10-20 seconds to complete on my machine (P4 2.6GHZ fresh Windows XP install). I get very happy when I do something and it happens right away :D The first couple of times this happened I thought the IDE crashed on me! (I've had it totally crash one or two times so far in the last two days!)
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
Just to let you know. I am on .NET 2003 and it is less worse than .NET 2002 Good to see a handful of bugs fixed ... - I can finally open up resource files and edit them - files are sorted without case sensitivity Seems to be a few new source safe quirks. Checked Out ness can get out of sync with Source safe - i.e. Source safe thinks the file is checked out with the IDE doesnt, etc. Strangely sometimes I have to check in a file twice. Get latest doesnt always work. I can live with these buggetts. Speed - probably about the same. The IDE still goes out to lunch every now and then for 2 - 15 seconds at a time. Typically when you fire off 2 things at once - e.g. a compile and start editing some files. I think it uses more memory, so it can flood the system cache more easily. frog
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
I want to save my modified files, compile + link, and debug my applications without the anonying message "These project cofiguration are out of date", "Would you like to build them ?". :mad: Of course I want to build the project thats why I modified the source files !!!. Any ideas ? It happend in VS.Net 2002, and 2003 Noel
-
I want to save my modified files, compile + link, and debug my applications without the anonying message "These project cofiguration are out of date", "Would you like to build them ?". :mad: Of course I want to build the project thats why I modified the source files !!!. Any ideas ? It happend in VS.Net 2002, and 2003 Noel
Can't guarentee it will work but you can try: echo y |
-
Can't guarentee it will work but you can try: echo y |
-
Stupid html tags :-) echo Y | your executable This will be like sending a y keystroke. It used to work in dos days, give it a try
-
Stupid html tags :-) echo Y | your executable This will be like sending a y keystroke. It used to work in dos days, give it a try
-
Oh, I thought you were doing it commandline... Nevermind then...
-
Unfortunately we moved over our software development from VC6++ Visual Studio .NET 2002. We have found that there are many many bugs in VS2002 that are painful, to do with the resource editor, However, my biggest annoyance is that the thing it is so damn slow and sluggish. We work on big commercial C++ projects (100s of files per project) and the IDE is the tool we use 95% of the time, 8 hours a day. If you spend that much time in front of the thing, you want it to be fast and responsive (like VC6++ used to be). Source control is particularly slow, as is running macros (even with the macro recorder/player), building, launching the debugger, and just plain editing text is slow. Periodically the IDE will go to lunch for 5-20 seconds at a time, typically when you flip to another file, but randomly at any time. So my question is - Is VS2003 any better - I imagine that MS may have fixed some of the bugs and hopefully not introduced too many new ones. But how does it do on speed and responsiveness on big C++ software projects ? We have come to the decision that must regress back to VC6++ or go forward. Anyone with similar experiences. Frog :zzz:
A number of replies in this thread mentioned that the IDE "goes away" for 5 - 20 seconds or so every once in a while; especially when starting some action. I just posted a note that when I start into Debug, the ethernet light on my computer blinks for about 30 seconds while nothing goes on in VC++. Then it apparently times out, the blinking stops, and debug commences. Any thoughts on why VC++ would be accessing the network? And have any of the others on this list noticed network activity when the IDE sleeps? chuck