I heard a lot of complaints about the RTM being buggy. I'm tempted to make the move, but I have enough problems with VS 2003/1.1 bugs that have never been fixed. Of course i will make the move eventually, just hoping maybe MS will put out some bug fixes.

Any comments?

I haven't been in it a ton yet, but I have run into a few stupid problems. One was in visual inheritance; you can read more here (http://www.gilbertnet.net/tech/Not+A+Very+Good+Start.aspx). Very frustrating and not a great indication as to build quality. Here's hoping that SP1 gets released very quickly.

Jeff...

<edit>Hmmm....forum doesn't like pluses either?

(Otis: I'll extend the URL regexp soon, let me write that down...

I've used 2005 so much I'd throw a tantrum if I was told to go back to 2005. There are problems with 2005, but they're no more annoying than 2003's problems. Spend a couple days putting together one of those side projects you've been putting off for a while and you'll see how exciting it is. When was the last time you used 2003 and thought "WHOA, that's COOL!"?

Altogether, the time I've said and productivity I've gained far outweigh the little work arounds I have to go through when my compiler starts spitting out Japanese characters (literally).

There are quircks, but there are always quircks with vs.net.

The biggest thing I have against vs.net is that it's downright slow. I have to do development in 2003 and 2005 in parallel and I can tell you, 2005 packs way more features and handy things, but the performance price payed is IMHO too high.

OK, that is about the reaction I expected, thanks.

Guess I'll start thinking about it.

I agree with Otis. Its great and feature-ful and all that, but you pay the price with performance. I have had to turn off a couple of features like validation HTML files when the file is too big.

Still, its much better to work with than 2003, and we migrated our entire app over with no problems at all.

A question from me: I have in vs.net 2005 a website, with ONE (1) page, default.aspx. It uses that dreaded on-disk website project crap, and I don't use IIS, but that build-in webserver.

I have northwind adapter code loaded into that project as well.

Now, when I compile this, the northwind projects compile fast, 2, 3 seconds tops. This webpage, that ONE webpage, takes 20 seconds to compile. TWENTY. Even when I run the thing, it builds everything again.

This is super annoying as I have to debug a designer in there, so it's even slower in attached debugmode (think 1 minute per run before I can even do things).

What did I do wrong? Did I forgot to set up something? How can 1 webpage take this long?

I already replaced the references to teh northwind assemblies to the dlls instead of the projects so that's a little easier, but still, it's sooooooo slooooooooooow (and I'm on a 3Ghz xeon dell box with raid 0 scsi)

It really does seem that the more things change, they more they are the same. Despite the incredible advances in PC hardware, MS continues to create new software capable of bogging it down.

When the Winforms app that I'm working on loads, it reminds me of old VB apps, not one written in C++. (But maybe if I ngen the release version, it will not be so bad).

When I jetted off to spend some time here in the US, the only laptop I could grab from the office pool was a Dell Inspiron 1000. To put this in perspective, it'll just about run Word. Badly.

And then I installed Visual Studio ... lol .... what was I thinking?!!

Pete

Sorry Otis I forgot to mention that I've seen a number of people complain about performance when using the in-built server. Switch to using IIS and see if that improves things.

That's what I do on my crappy laptop and it doesn't take half that time.

Pete

Otis wrote:

Now, when I compile this, the northwind projects compile fast, 2, 3 seconds tops. This webpage, that ONE webpage, takes 20 seconds to compile. TWENTY. Even when I run the thing, it builds everything again.

I already replaced the references to teh northwind assemblies to the dlls instead of the projects so that's a little easier, but still, it's sooooooo slooooooooooow (and I'm on a 3Ghz xeon dell box with raid 0 scsi)

All I can say is I feel your pain. Even switching between code view and designer view can throw my machine into swap. I just took a look at the "Recommended System requirements" for 2005 and they only want 192mb of RAM. I've got a machine with 512mb and with VS2005 open, I swap constantly! Shouldn't be! I've requested 1gb, but I'm not terribly hopeful that it will make a difference.

I noticed in a prior post that MattWoberts turned off html validation. Matt, how did you do that? Maybe that could help speed things up a bit?

Tools -> Options -> Text Editor -> Html -> Validation

Untick 'Show Errors' and you should be good to go.

Pete

the thing is that the local IIS I have is also used for .NET 1.x development when I have to (like this forum ) and switching these two back/forth isn't that great. But I'll see if it makes a difference thanks for the tip

If your using IIS 6.0 (which I think you might be as I think I remember you mentioning server 2003 in a previous post) Create two seperate ApplicationPools. Map one application pool to asp.net 1.1 and the other application pool to asp.net 2.0. That way when you create your IIS app, all you have to do is set it use the right ApplicationPool.

Pete

Otis wrote:

the thing is that the local IIS I have is also used for .NET 1.x development when I have to (like this forum ) and switching these two back/forth isn't that great. But I'll see if it makes a difference thanks for the tip

I do this and it's not a problem. In IIS you can set at the virtual directory level which version of the framework should run the application.

Take a look at the ASP.Net tab in the IIS Virutal Directories properties that .Net 2.0 added when you installed it.

BOb

Thanks! I think I can manage that I didn't know you could have multiple pools/virtdirs with different framework versions

I've now tried it under IIS and .net 2.0 in a virtual dir (local XP IIS).

Night and DAY. This is indeed much much faster. Thanks so much for this tip, as I was erm... let's say not that happy

Otis wrote:

I've now tried it under IIS and .net 2.0 in a virtual dir (local XP IIS).

Night and DAY. This is indeed much much faster. Thanks so much for this tip, as I was erm... let's say not that happy

I do web development primarily and since using 2005, I've become much more familiar with app pools. Didn't have to worry about it with 2003, but with two versions of the framework, you'll definitely run into problems if you don't create a new app pool in IIS.

Yip, I can second that. I create a seperate app pool for each framework version and also if i have important "must stay up" applications I create an app pool just for them.

App pools have a really useful feature where by you can set them to recycle on certain conditions (too much memory used, period of time passed, damn thing crashed again) etc.

When a recycle occurs IIS will create a new instance of the App Pool, transfer all current requests and then kill the old one. Certainly beats a call out at 3 in the morning.

Pete

lad4bear wrote:

Yip, I can second that. I create a seperate app pool for each framework version and also if i have important "must stay up" applications I create an app pool just for them.

App pools have a really useful feature where by you can set them to recycle on certain conditions (too much memory used, period of time passed, damn thing crashed again) etc.

When a recycle occurs IIS will create a new instance of the App Pool, transfer all current requests and then kill the old one. Certainly beats a call out at 3 in the morning. Pete

heh we now have our own pizza blade server running this site, but it was running on a shared hosted environment when we released 1.0.2005.1. So 5 minutes after we released the email to the mailinglist that we'd released a new version, the site died because it recycled a lot of times due to a memory leak in .NET when streaming a file. The isp had defined htat if you recycled 3 times in an hour, the site was switched off.

So there we were... a new release and no site! I've never been so mad in my life. Luckily the ISP was very friendly and re-enabled it, and I reprogrammed the filestreamer so it wasn't leaking memory anymore (passing a byte buffer to request object simply doesn't release that managed buffer apparently in asp.net 1x..) but it was very scary and my first encouter with app-pools. Since our new server I use them too to fine-control parts of the site, though I never looked into the tab for the framework version