Comments on: Visual Studio Face-to-Face battle

By: Eldridge Shiley

Eldridge Shiley — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:13:06 +0000

I will immediately grab your rss feed as I can not to find your email subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please let me know in order that I could subscribe. Thanks.

By: Chris Lovett

Chris Lovett — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:00:14 +0000

You report extremely slow times for VS 2010 because it was “thrashing” on lack of memory. You would be able to get older version of VS to thrash also if you give them less that the recommended minimum memory. It would be interesting to see what happens when you give it at least the recommended minimum. I’ve been using VS 2010 for serious development since it was released and I have found it to be ok, and quite stable also.

By: shankar dakolia

shankar dakolia — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:00:00 +0000

you can’s force everybody just because vs 2010 needs higher hardware it is OK for heavy applications but what about small applications developed in vs 2010 that gives very slow performance on older or normal hardware

By: shankar dakolia

shankar dakolia — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:57:35 +0000

Ok nice post I have updated machine for visual studio 2010 but what about my client machines they are not ready to upgrade their machines rather than you can see delphi is much faster to develop and the applications developed also run faster on normal config machines

By: Michael Thuma

Michael Thuma — Tue, 10 May 2011 12:20:57 +0000

I agree with you on the tons additional things that come with the installation … did I order this – no?

Don’t complain the ViEmu works and this is the most important thing;) Nothing else matters.

By: Kari Shaffer

Kari Shaffer — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:18:31 +0000

I am afraid the only thing that you were able to validate was how much of an idiot you are. You seriously had to conduct testing to find out that the older IDE’s use fewer resources than the newer IDE’s ? Instead of played Microsoft critic and thinking that you are really cool because you are bashing Microsoft like every other loser who writes a tech blog, I suggest working on you grasp of the English language. You might trying providing content that is useful and not a bunch of whining about something that you probably can’t afford in the first place.

By: Gus

Gus — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:22:35 +0000

This is so pointless. I am sorry you spent quite a bit of time doing this comparison. Why didn’t you include Notepad? It would by so much faster than all of the VSs.

By: Dani

Dani — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:20:27 +0000

Well, I must agree with the writer.
VS2010 is much slower than 2008.
and I’m using an I7 machine, with 3GB ram.

I hope SP1 will fix these issues, and MS should keep the track of making software that can run on old computers (like 7…)
b/c – this is the real deal.

Tamir – did you meant here:
which worse separate post
to
Which worth separate post ?

By: Mario

Mario — Sun, 23 May 2010 17:21:53 +0000

The use of what might seem like a crippled system as a starting point is often one of the best ways of getting an easily readable metric of performance.

I would have used a system with considerably more RAM and a decent graphics card, but would have employed the slowest processor I could find for the test as was done here (nasty and mean spirited bashing on the part of some posters here, not at all warranted).

That sort of arrangement makes it easy to decern obvious differences in performance.

I’ve been using 2010, 2008 and to a lesser degree 2005. 2010 is markedly slower than the other releases. That is the reality we are now faced with when switching to products that use newer tech that will eventually be burned into metal.

WPF uses a form of display list technology. When it’s supported at the hardware level, 2010 will be a much more pleasant working environment. 2010 is also doing much more with each keystroke.

The bottom line, you have to have a multi-core system with lots of RAM and a high end graphics card to run at the performance level you can get with 2005/2008 with significantly weaker hardware.

64Kbytes of RAM used to be enough to run all sorts of “high end” systems back in the mid seventies. It’s probably not enough to run your toaster today.

Welcome to the future.

Thanks the evaluation! I for one think your observations are quite reasonable.

By: IanET

IanET — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:21:25 +0000

You might want to re-measure again in a week or so after the OS prefetcher has had a chance to optimize a few things (as it would have done for your 2005 and 2008 installs). It might not help but it can sometimes make a big difference.