(Hope to be non OT)
Hi, i'm a little exasperated about running vs.net 2008 on an acer aspire with an intel t2350.
I know, this hardware is not the "last" and the best we can find on the market. So i'm thinking to buy a new notebook.
For your experience, which type of processor i can buy ?
I found, here in italy, acer notebook between 350-500 euros with t4400 and 2-3 gb ram.
Is it enough to have a good "working experience" with vs (with good i intend not to wait 10-20 seconds when i switch from asp.net design to asp.net source code) ?
Any answer is appreciated
I think it relies in the weight of the solution you're working on.
Switching from asp design to source code is really slow. Personally, I had bad experiences and I don not find productive using the design view. I used VS2008 in machines with a really good hardware configuration and this 'switching' still slow, it must be a bug.
In this link you can find the 'official' info that you're looking for.
Also I found that there was an effort to reduce that loading time, but in my opinion, is not enough.
I think this belongs in SuperUser forum.
Here are the minumum requirements for:
VS 2010
VS 2008:
Computer with a 1.6 GHz or faster
processor Visual Studio 2008 can be
installed on the following operating
systems: Windows Vista® (x86 & x64) -
all editions except Starter Edition
Windows® XP (x86 & x64) with Service
Pack 2 or later - all editions except
Starter Edition Windows Server® 2003
(x86 & x64) with Service Pack 1 or
later (all editions) Windows Server
2003 R2 (x86 and x64) or later (all
editions) 384 MB of RAM or more (768
MB of RAM or more for Windows Vista)
2.2 GB of available hard-disk space 5400 RPM hard drive
Just about any machine with 2GB of RAM will run the actual Visual Studio editor just fine.
However, development systems rarely stop at just a single editor. You might typically have two or three instances of the editor, plus a web browser or two, a task management system, a web server and a database engine, and maybe an additional VM or two. Not to mention power left over to actually run, debug, and compile the app you're working on.
Because the load here is typically spread over several apps/processes, a development machine can generally make pretty good use of a quad code processor with at least 4GB of RAM.
If you're developing with less than 4gb and a 64 bit OS you're living in 1996.
64bit, 4gb of memory.
I find using a Solid State hard drive do alot for the performance. That and 4gb of ram and a decent CPU and you a good to go!
Related
Assuming we have to stay on Windows XP x86, what would be the best spec for working in Visual Studio 2010 with ReSharper, PowerTool and a couple of other smaller add-ons?
Components we can upgrade are:
CPU
RAM
HDD
Graphics
At the moment, I have a Pentium Dual-Core E5300 2.6GHz with 4GB RAM and ReSharper makes Visual Studio crash in a solution of around 2000 files.
Really should be moving to Win 7, or at least Win Vista. There is MASSIVE improvements in VS just by running on top of those.
As you stated XP x86, some suggestions:
Ram: 4Gb as fast as you can get. This is important but also only depends on number of VS instances and solution size. At 4Gb I would suggest staying in the low solution bracket (< 25 projects).
CPU: Fast as you can get. Multi core helps a bit, but a lot of the VS UI is single threaded on the GUI.
HDD: VS is a harddrive monster, so fast hard drive. SSD especially here. Spend the money here FIRST. R# perf bottle neck is the file scanning so this will help with this too.
Graphics: Far more important than you would think, mostly due to the fact VS uses WPF and hardware acceleration. Very important to get a good graphics card with STABLE drivers. VS 2010 SP1 disables hardware acceleration on XP by default (can be turned on in the settings) because so many VS 2010 crashes on XP are from unstable graphic drivers and WPF hits those issues a lot. If you get a good stable one, turn that setting on!
Another issue is also just regular restarts, VS does a lot in memory and isn't too good at cleaning up. So the stack fills quickly and it will crash often (PerfWaston is looking for this info) so a restart every so often helps.
As I said at the start your best bet is also one of the cheapest (compared to new hardware) upgrade to Win7, especially x64. More RAM, better SSD support, more stable OS, there is a lot in there that will help your VS experience be faster and more stable.
I would highly recommend moving to 64-bit. Even if you just have 4GB addressable ram with Visual studio, it will have access to more memory if you get more than 4GB of RAM.
Also, get faster hard drives. SSD or RAID 5. I'd pick this over a faster CPU.
Is Visual studio 2010 slower than 2005? I just had my laptop upgraded to windows 7 64bit with visual studio 2010, and vs 2010 is much slower than vs2005 was when I had xp. Any upgrades or configurations you can think of that might help me out?
Turn off the "Enable rich client visual experience" and turn on "Use graphics hardware acceleration if available"
Extra features always come at a cost. If you don't upgrade your computer at a similar rate you upgrade your software, you'll find it gets slower and slower.
About VS2010 specifically, the UI uses WPF, so you need at least a decently passable graphics card to handle it. Intellisense also got a lot better, so it will use slightly more CPU.
For what it's worth, 2010 runs very smoothly on my computer.
Depending on your setup, Visual Studio 2010 can be faster than VS 2010 or slower. I'm not sure from your question in what way Visual Studio is running slower, though.
Is it just Visual Studio, or is anything else slower?
You mentioned you're running Windows 7 x64. If you have more than 4 GB of RAM, this is a good idea. If you have less than 4 GB, you're probably going to be slower than if you're running 32-bit. It's also worth looking at your Windows 7 performance rating--if it's low, applications like Visual Studio will be slow too.
The hardware requirements are listed over at http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/ultimate/system-requirements, but those are bare-bones requirements. If you're doing SharePoint development, then you'll need a much beefier system (SharePoint will compete for a lot of your system resources). I'd want at least 1 GB more RAM than recommended there even without SharePoint. The processor speed is fine for multiple cores, but if you have an old laptop 1.6 GHz and a single core won't be that fast.
Most people find an SSD drive helps incredibly.
Launching Visual Studio does seem to take longer, but to me it runs faster once it's up. F1 help is non-blocking now. Compiles can be done in parallel. Navigation and adding references is faster.
Grab the productivity power pack from vscodegallery.com--that adds a lot of shortcuts.
Visual Studio has more features than previous versions. Most people install everything. It may be better to just install the features you need.
The previous poster mentioned having a good video card or chipset. That's probably a good idea, but disk I/O and CPU are probably more important.
Is it possible using windows 7 or windows server 2008 to create 5 VMWare virtual machines
so that 5 developers can use them using thin clients to work with
Visual Studio 2008/2010 with all components (sql server express, IIS etc).
what can be the options and the hardware specs for server and clients?
I am looking forward for all opinions.
Thanks and Regards.
It's certainly possible as long as you have enough cores, RAM and Windows/VS licenses. I often use Hyper-V for testing different Visual Studio installations, though I haven't had more than 2 running at the same time. I think you can pull this off, but you'll probably want 16GB of RAM and an 8-core processor. I'm not sure what problems you might run into with VMWare, but I think it would work with Hyper-V.
Good luck!
I have a Windows XP machine with a dual core 3.6G CPU and 4megs. I am not very happy with the performance. I was wondering if compilation in VS 2010 is multithreaded and does VS 2010 benefit from switching from dual to quad core machine?
What language are you working in? The native C++ compiler will spawn off multiple processes when you build. In VS 2008 it was one project per core; now it will use multiple cores even if you have only one (presumably huge) project. I don't think managed code does.
A helpful blog entry on what hardware will be useful with VS 2010 is http://blogs.msdn.com/ddperf/archive/2008/12/23/visual-studio-2010-hardware-requirements.aspx for more.
You'd probably get a bigger speed up from changing your hard disk (i.e., to SSD) and installing VS and putting your projects on that disk. It'll speed up the Intellisense cache and what-not. If you're on XP rather than Vista or Windows 7 too, the shell on VS2010 was rewritten to use WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) and WPF is not optimised for XP; it will run slower.
Compilation of large projects tends to be very disk-intensive. Getting a faster disk will speed up the build process.
Skip SSD and buy more RAM and put all your projects on RamDisk like SoftPerfect RAMDisk
I am updating my rig and I need to make a decision between staying with XP x64 or going to Vista x64. I do very little development, really just building products from my developers. The other 90% of my work is done with Google Apps, Skype, Office, etc...
I want to upgrade to Vista not only because I will have 3x monitors running on DirectX10, but mostly because iTunes isnt' supported on XP x64!
So, my question...
With all the horror stories about Vista, will Vista Ultimate x64 with 8GB RAM be good for my development machine?
If I can't develop on Vista, I can always fire open a VPC to do the development in. No?
EDIT
I am using all Microsoft development tools...
VS.NET 2005
VS.NET 2008
VB6
SQL Server 2005/2008
ASP.NET
(.NET 2.0 & .NET 3.0)
I'm sure the software will run, I suppose I am not so sure that the OS will be speedy enough, or stable enough.
I am fine with Vista 64 bits for .net and php.
A lot of conversation about it are already on SO. Here is some important point your might take in consideration for .Net:
Unit Testing with NUnit
UAC with developpement
VS and Vista
A lot more...
You can develop for X86 on your new X64 machine without problem.
For PHP XAMPP work fine, Eclipse work fine too.
I run Vista x64 with 4GB of memory and haven't run into any major problems. Before this I was using Vista x86 and I definitely like x64 better as it seems more stable.
In case you're curious, with only (hehe, only!? amazing to say) 4GB of memory I can easily run:
3 instances of Visual Studio 2008 with Resharper
a couple Sql Management Studio instances
Outlook with 3 mail stores totaling # 2GB
Firefox with # 20 tabs
a bunch of Windows Explorer windows
Windows Media Player
iTunes (which is slow as a dog)
# 5 Excel and Word documents
plus some assorted services (eg, Sql Service 2005 and 2008) and status-area apps
Even with all this I still have roughly 750 MB free and no performance issues when using the applications.
I run Vista Business x64 SP 1 (8 GB RAM) for one month now. No problems so far. I'm using following software:
Visual Studio 2005 SP 1
Visual Studio 2008 SP 1
TortoiseSVN / VisualSVN
Visual SourceSafe (older projects)
SQL Server Client Tools
Firefox 3.01 + Firebug
IE 7 + Fiddler
Chrome
Red Gate SQL Compare / Data Compare
Virtual PC 2007 SP 1
Notepad ++
SyncBack
RoyalTS (RemoteDesktop Manager)
Skype
Office 2007
I used it for a long time before switching to Windows Server 2008 (x64) - was very good though,
Personally, I found Server 2008 to be a much better dev OS though. Check out this article on converting Windows Server 2008 to smell a little more like Vista.
I personally use Vista Ultimate x64 with 8GB RAM for my development machine. I don't quite have 3 monitors, but my machine is pretty well set up for development.
Vista x64 is great for .NET and Java. Started with 4GB RAM and that wasn't enough (hit 100% sometimes and the machine would slow to a crawl). 6GB is just barely enough. Hitting 95% memory usage sometimes and it slows down a little, but the machine doesn't go into a paging frenzy anymore.
I run Vista x64 Ultimate as my primary dev machine and it's just fine. Support for x64 has come a long way and for the most part you won't notice a difference except for program files location and much, much more RAM.
Vista will be plenty fast and stable. I'm using Vista x64 Ultimate for development #work right now, and have been for some time. I have nothing but good to say about it.
I'd say it depends on what you're developing. The first priority should be to make sure that all of your development and testing tools work properly under Vista x64. If they don't, there's no reason to suffer the pain of doing all your actual work in a virtual machine.
So I'd say the best thing to do is to take the plunge, see how it works, and keep the XP discs around. And should everything work as expected, it would still be prudent to have a copy of XP running in a VPC just for compatibility testing.
You will have to go XP-based Virtual Machine for any development in IE6. It is near-impossible to run that browser in Vista, let alone Ultimate.
Since a lot of government and legacy code base is against IE6, this happens a lot.
I've used Vista x64 as a development machine and have had only a few minor issues mostly related to using third party APIs in Visual Studio 2008. Just remember that if your getting a really unexplainable error within your Visual Studio project while utilizing a third party API - try compiling your app using the x86 CPU flag in your project settings. This has solved a few headaches for me here and there.