6 ms·

In my experience, Visual Studio performance has improved significantly since VS2010, but if you compare it to VC6, it's a joke. There's still an old PC at the

In my experience, Visual Studio performance has improved significantly since VS2010, but if you compare it to VC6, it's a joke. There's still an old PC at the office running it, and double clicking a project opens the IDE and loads the project in less than a second. It's beautiful.

roel_v 10y ago
Sure, but it does so much more than VC6 used to do. I mean, the intellisense is so good nowadays, the continuous compiling that essentially gives you on the fly 'compiler errors', ... I agree that it would probably be nice if those could be turned off, and the UI is sluggish, but VC6 was (apart from being fast) not much to write home about (compared to what we have now).
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  To be fair though parent was referring to VC6's start-up time compared to the current version's start-up time. Is it fair to expect continuous compilation or maybe even intenseness to slow down start-up? I'm not so sure.
- orcy 10y ago
  We still build some stuff with VS2005 and it feels very fast and responsive while having everything I usually need in ide. The only thing it missing is modern C++ compiler.
whitefish 10y ago
Couldn't you say this about the software industry in general? In the 90's I used to have a Sun workstation on my desk. It ran the powerful Solaris operating system, but had just 16MB of RAM! Today you need 1GB of RAM to run an OS comfortably. My question: what does modern Linux do that Solaris from the 90's did not, that it requires 50x more memory?
- oblio 10y ago
  Well, I don't know, could your Solaris (mostly) seamlessly connect and disconnect to wireless networks? I don't even think there were that many wireless networks in the world back then :) Anyway, this is is just 1 contrived example of something modern OSs do, and that OSs from the 90's didn't do. Sure, there's some bloat, but a lot of it is the "Mozilla kind": "Mozilla is big not because it is full of useless crap. It is big because your needs are big".
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    Isn't a significant chunk of OS memory usage caused by the desktop UI? If we're talking about servers, I'm guessing it would be because of drivers and more built-in functionality, some of which is rarely used.
    - floatboth 10y ago
      Yeah — the image buffers (screen resolutions) are bigger, we run more apps, more advanced desktop environments… also in the old days (before OS X, Compiz (fun with desktop cubes!) and Vista Aero) people used to run without compositing, which meant one common image for all apps to draw into. Just booted my laptop (FreeBSD -current amd64, 1366x768 display) and started X: only 204M "Active" memory. Of the 204M: 60M is syncthing, 39M compton, 31M Xorg, 11M i3bar, 11M polkitd, 10M i3, 9M dunst, 5M wpa-supplicant… Not counting syncthing that's 144 megabytes. I think that looks reasonable. You can go lower and optimize for low memory (no polkit, no compton — 94M) or go higher and optimize for usability and fancy UI features (install gnome :D)
  - mschaef 10y ago
    If it takes 1008MB to seamlessly connect to a wireless network, something is clearly wrong.
    - oblio 10y ago
      > 1 contrived example
  - 10y ago

roel_v 10y ago

Sure, but it does so much more than VC6 used to do. I mean, the intellisense is so good nowadays, the continuous compiling that essentially gives you on the fly 'compiler errors', ... I agree that it would probably be nice if those could be turned off, and the UI is sluggish, but VC6 was (apart from being fast) not much to write home about (compared to what we have now).

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
To be fair though parent was referring to VC6's start-up time compared to the current version's start-up time. Is it fair to expect continuous compilation or maybe even intenseness to slow down start-up? I'm not so sure.
orcy 10y ago
We still build some stuff with VS2005 and it feels very fast and responsive while having everything I usually need in ide. The only thing it missing is modern C++ compiler.

whitefish 10y ago

Couldn't you say this about the software industry in general? In the 90's I used to have a Sun workstation on my desk. It ran the powerful Solaris operating system, but had just 16MB of RAM! Today you need 1GB of RAM to run an OS comfortably. My question: what does modern Linux do that Solaris from the 90's did not, that it requires 50x more memory?

oblio 10y ago
Well, I don't know, could your Solaris (mostly) seamlessly connect and disconnect to wireless networks? I don't even think there were that many wireless networks in the world back then :) Anyway, this is is just 1 contrived example of something modern OSs do, and that OSs from the 90's didn't do. Sure, there's some bloat, but a lot of it is the "Mozilla kind": "Mozilla is big not because it is full of useless crap. It is big because your needs are big".
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Isn't a significant chunk of OS memory usage caused by the desktop UI? If we're talking about servers, I'm guessing it would be because of drivers and more built-in functionality, some of which is rarely used.
  - floatboth 10y ago
    Yeah — the image buffers (screen resolutions) are bigger, we run more apps, more advanced desktop environments… also in the old days (before OS X, Compiz (fun with desktop cubes!) and Vista Aero) people used to run without compositing, which meant one common image for all apps to draw into. Just booted my laptop (FreeBSD -current amd64, 1366x768 display) and started X: only 204M "Active" memory. Of the 204M: 60M is syncthing, 39M compton, 31M Xorg, 11M i3bar, 11M polkitd, 10M i3, 9M dunst, 5M wpa-supplicant… Not counting syncthing that's 144 megabytes. I think that looks reasonable. You can go lower and optimize for low memory (no polkit, no compton — 94M) or go higher and optimize for usability and fancy UI features (install gnome :D)
- mschaef 10y ago
  If it takes 1008MB to seamlessly connect to a wireless network, something is clearly wrong.
  - oblio 10y ago
    > 1 contrived example
- 10y ago