There is no dll management in VS. You place some code in a dll and simply
keep going, debugging it, if you want to. Not at all like VO.
Sorry I don't go with the one big app thing. Just take a look at your list
again for the reasons, rather than me repeat them again. You previously said
They don't impress me because they are so slow. Most are about 1.6Ghz and
the expensive ones are around 2Ghz.
I'll let Stark, carry on from here. He's the resident hardware man around
here. I'm not due for a new machine for another couple of months, so I
haven't got around to looking at this new stuff.
Yeh, I wake up every morning and the dog reminds me.<g> .
Don't kick it then... <g>
That is contradictory to what you just stated about using dll's with VO in
your previous post - the one I was replying to. Nothing like changing tack
No its not, in fact the same difficulties arise with DLL management for VS
just as much as VO. The only point I will concede is error handling into
the debugger is a generation better than VO but most other aspects suffer
the same issues as all IDEs. As I said, my solution in VO was to make one
huge app and from what I see with VS, that tends to be the way I see most
Can't imagine how if you spend your whole day reindexing the repo.
Well let's not overdo it. The reindex takes about 4 seconds. A full
recompile about 3 minutes (but I only need to do this once every couple of
days). I might add here that a VS full recompile takes a helluva lot
longer than a VO compile for the same amount of code - even VS 2003! In
fact, sometimes the IDE goes into go-slow and starts doing a VO on my.
great difference. I thought you had a fast machine!!!! Maybe time to buy
setting up buffers somewhere. Reporting Services loading is the same.
God-awful slow but once its resident, its OK. But hey, don't undock and
move a property window! On this score (IDE-wise) VO is an order of
magnitude faster in just about everything: editing, incremental compiles,
exe gen, you name it.
haven't done that here for a while. Dual core these days, I suppose you
don't like them either..
<shrug> They don't impress me because they are so slow. Most are about
1.6Ghz and the expensive ones are around 2Ghz. So what! They are almost
technically equivalent to HT so what's the beef? They can get you at most
around a 25% increase in general performance but only for applications
that launch multiple threads and actively manage the threads. If all you
do is launch a thread in the same memory space as the main app then you
are just competing for the same resource. And how many apps really manage
by thread? Even Outlook is particularly poor. VS is atrocious. Watch it in
the task manager some time.
My current 3.2Ghz P4 is hyperthreaded - which means it is on a par with a
dual core. So why would I want to ditch one third or more of my processor
speed? In the case of most laptops, it means they run at exactly HALF my
laptop speed. I don't think most people understand where the bottleneck is
because usually its not the processor. It's the database and bus governor
feeding the processor - two cores only adds an overhead that slows down a
single threaded app. It only improves a multi-threaded app when there is
work that can be properly arbitrated out to two processors or more.
You've got a thing about this docking stuff, haven't you? I really don't
understand, I spend most of the day with the editor taking up all the
<g> Work with Reporting Services for a while.
Well you know I'm not going to agree with you there. I'd rather spend time
in the design phase, get the class design right. If it requires a couple
Well I won't argue with that because not enough of us do it anywhere near
enough of the time. As I've said a dozen times already, I am totally
comfortable with C# and I am learning to adapt to VS and it's foibles. No
problem. But when the discussion turns into what is faster or easier I can
make the statements I have with certainty. Don't read it as a criticism of
VS or I'll start calling you Johel <g>.
Guess what, I'm not trying. I've already convinced the only guy that
<g> good quote