• 0

VS2010 Load Time


Question

Hi there,

I was wondering what people's load times of VS 2010 is. I'm trying to establish if my PC needs upgrading and that VS 2010 could be faster if that was the case.

My PC is Aspire 7540g, AMD Athlon II X2 M300, Mobility Radeon HD4570, 4GB, 7200 RPM drive, W7-64Bit, VS2010SP1.

My WEI is processor 4.9, Memory 7.0, Graphics 4.9, Gaming Graphics 6.3, Hard Disk 5.9

Initial load of VS 2010 is 25-30 seconds, subsequent loading times around 20 seconds.

Thanks,

Simon.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1004220-vs2010-load-time/
Share on other sites

19 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

A lot of it can depend on your addons too. An out-of-the-box install can load rather quickly, a few seconds on my machine if I recall. Once I load it up with various addons, it can take a fair bit longer. CodeRush/ReSharper/etc tend to be the biggest offenders there.. absurdly handy but also takes a fair bit extra in time and resources to run. As much as I love the 2010 IDE, it can be fairly piggish.. pretty quick once it's up and running (if you got the memory for it), not so much when it first starts up.

Depending on your needs of course you don't have to use the IDE. Occasionally I'll just work with another editor for quick changes, large builds I tend to do from a console versus the IDE, etc etc. Shoot I've even used VIM on occasion for giggles when I'm in a retro mood.

  • 0
VS 2010 is slow. I have already seen so many guys who have switched back to VS 2008 because of sluggishness of VS 2010. Even on my Core i7 it takes more than 5 seconds to load. SP1 didn't fix the problem either (Nothing new, the same thing happened with Vista too)

Just my own observations, but VS2010 is slow to load on a cold start, subsequent loads typically take a couple seconds tops. Once it's up and running I personally found it to be significantly quicker than 2008, never mind missing the platform and IDE features that aren't available in 2008.

  • 0

turn the splash off, MS put a programmed delay in it on the first load to make it show, after that it doesn't not sure how they pulled that off but they somehow did... add the argument /nosplash to devenv.exe for the VS link you will cut a few seconds off the initial load time

  • 0

VS 2010 is slow. I have already seen so many guys who have switched back to VS 2008 because of sluggishness of VS 2010. Even on my Core i7 it takes more than 5 seconds to load. SP1 didn't fix the problem either (Nothing new, the same thing happened with Vista too)

oh please, every freaking VS release I hear this same comment...... VS 2002 is slow I went back to VS6..... VS 2005 is slow I went back to 2002, VS 2008 is slow I went back to VS2005...... now once a freaking gain..... VS2010 is slow,THEY ARE ALL SLOW! The IDE environment is MASSIVE no mater what with the flexability of the IDE it will be slow somewhere at somepoint, its a generic shell written to support ANY programming language if someone makes a add-in and templates for it...

If you want to see slow, our main solution has 120 projects in it (about 3 million lines of code).... it takes 5 MINUTES! to load but after that it's fine... biggest slow down is the setup projects, which for some reason are slow loading by nature... and source control get auto status update adds to it also

  • Like 1
  • 0

A lot of it can depend on your addons too. An out-of-the-box install can load rather quickly, a few seconds on my machine if I recall. Once I load it up with various addons, it can take a fair bit longer. CodeRush/ReSharper/etc tend to be the biggest offenders there.. absurdly handy but also takes a fair bit extra in time and resources to run. As much as I love the 2010 IDE, it can be fairly piggish.. pretty quick once it's up and running (if you got the memory for it), not so much when it first starts up.

Depending on your needs of course you don't have to use the IDE. Occasionally I'll just work with another editor for quick changes, large builds I tend to do from a console versus the IDE, etc etc. Shoot I've even used VIM on occasion for giggles when I'm in a retro mood.

have you ever opened a web.config file directly in VS2010 or VS2008 just to do a quick edit? external to the solution you are in, just like right click web.config open in VS?... we always have this odd delay, it takes about 1 minute to open the file like it has to think about what to do, after that opens fine and saves fine.... every one of our dev machines repos this... always been an odd behavior, and MS always closes our bugs on it as "by design"

  • 0
have you ever opened a web.config file directly in VS2010 or VS2008 just to do a quick edit? external to the solution you are in, just like right click web.config open in VS?... we always have this odd delay, it takes about 1 minute to open the file like it has to think about what to do, after that opens fine and saves fine.... every one of our dev machines repos this... always been an odd behavior, and MS always closes our bugs on it as "by design"

Mmm I don't use much ASP.NET (more often than not I typically go the PHP route for web based stuff via VS.PHP, most of the servers I work with are running BSD and I'm not thrilled with Mono in its current state), most of the time I have VS loaded it's for PHP, a desktop application or a system service, some managed, some not. As a guess it's probably reparsing and validating dependencies, etc etc once it sees the file was changed, but I'm the wrong person to ask for troubleshooting ASP.NET.. I don't recall a delay though.

Make sure you've updated to service pack 1. VS2010 loads almost instantly for me whether it's the first start of the day or 10th.

In my case it's probably my addons.. I have a bunch, and I know CodeRush/Refactor Pro is one of my biggest offenders. I can live with the delay though.. I love those addons to death. If I have it disabled though yea mine's near instant to start. That's on a current OS mind you; on a test VM running ye olde XP it's significantly longer thanks to a lack of SuperFetch.

  • 0

System: Dell Studio 17 laptop (purchased January 2009)

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.53Ghz (T9400)

RAM: 2x2GB Samsung DDR2 PC2-6400

HDD: 2x Western Digital 320GB 7200RPM SATA2 (model: WD3200BJKT) - no RAID configuration just two independent drives running in AHCI mode. All applications are installed on the same drive as the operating system and pagefile.

Graphics: 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 (dedicated)

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1

WEI: 5.3

VS 2010 Ultimate Cold Start: 7 seconds

VS 2010 Ultimate Warm Start: 3 seconds

VS 2008 Pro Cold Start: 2 seconds

VS 2008 Pro Warm Start: <1 second

Word 2010 Professional Plus Cold Start: 2 seconds

Word 2010 Professional Plus Warm Start: <1 second

VS 2010 is slower as the IDE is now WPF based. Disabling fancy effects but keeping hardware acceleration improves VS 2010 UI responsiveness and "snappiness" quite a bit.

  • 0

On a Q9450 processor with a single 7200RPM HDD, Visual Studio 2010:

No plugins - intial load = 8 seconds, subsequent loads = 3 seconds.

Resharper installed - initial = 18 seconds, subsequent = 9 seconds.

The VMWare Virtual Debugger Visual Studio 2010 plugin really kills it for me, that buggy plugin takes my Visual Studio 2010 start-up times to 60-80 seconds.

have you ever opened a web.config file directly in VS2010 or VS2008 just to do a quick edit? external to the solution you are in, just like right click web.config open in VS?... we always have this odd delay, it takes about 1 minute to open the file like it has to think about what to do, after that opens fine and saves fine.... every one of our dev machines repos this... always been an odd behavior, and MS always closes our bugs on it as "by design"

I do that quite often, never had any delays.

  • 0

For me on core i7 box running Windows 7 over a 1Gb network connection VS2010 takes about 20 seconds to start, after which it's fairly quick.

And before seeing this topic I never really paid much attention to how long it took, before now it definitely didn't seem like anything near 20 seconds.

  • 0

Me thinks, given the edit you just made, that you don't understand cold/warm boots.

I'm running an i7 930 @ 4ghz with 12GB of RAM and a Vertex 4.

The difference is likely to do with specific addons and what modules you have installed/enabled.

The "Start Page" web control really smashes load times.

  • 0

Me thinks, given the edit you just made, that you don't understand cold/warm boots.

I'm running an i7 930 @ 4ghz with 12GB of RAM and a Vertex 4.

The difference is likely to do with specific addons and what modules you have installed/enabled.

The "Start Page" web control really smashes load times.

if your referencing me , they are warm boots

also realized this is a bumped thread from 2011.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
    • I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      572
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      173
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!