1

I had a similar question Reason Visual Studio would be slower on 64-bit dual core machine?

Now i want to know if programming is much slower on windows 7 (64bits) then vista or XP (32bits)? (i never tried vista) should i dev on XP as much as possible? i found it strange when running a webpage (visual studio 9) it would take a page 3sec to load while it being instantaneously on the same laptop in XP.

Should i expect poor performance in non web applications as well?

-edit-

Answer is here. Whcih explains why only loading webpages was slow https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1055528/is-development-programming-on-windows-7-slow

Community
  • 1
  • The differences in load times and regular programming should be so small that you wouldn't notice the difference, be it faster or slower. The most intensive part, the compiler, might show some noticeable difference. It just depends on whether it supports 64 bit. Shouldn't this question be on Stack Overflow? – Tamara Wijsman Jun 28 '09 at 18:59
  • I think it should but my first question was move here. I'll try a copy/paste to SO –  Jun 28 '09 at 19:02

4 Answers4

1

This question makes no sense at all due to a fact there is nothing measurable what you are asking about, in general Win7 is pretty responsive and fast compare to Vista on the same machine, but this is just a feeling. I think the general performance is up to you laptop: memory+cpu+hdd IO config and the amount of running tasks.

Istvan
  • 2,582
  • 3
  • 22
  • 29
  • -1 loading 3 seconds vs instant is pretty measurable. Solution added in edit link –  Nov 12 '09 at 20:46
1

According to the linked thread the problem was using Firefox to load local pages was slow due to Vista's and Windows 7's IPv6 implementation. XP lacks this. The work around is to "Go to about:config and set network.dns.disableIPv6 to true." Apparently this solves the "slowness" which isn't to do with visual studio.

dlamblin
  • 939
  • 2
  • 10
  • 20
0

I think you may be comparing apples to oranges.

windows 7 (64bits) then vista or XP (32bits)

Remember that a 64 bit OS and 64 bit apps really do need a LOT more RAM. I have seen .NET apps that just "magically" need 2-4x the RAM when run on a 64bit OS.

A basic, bare bones 64bit PC needs 2GB RAM. For development you may need more (though Visual Studio itself runs as 32 bit even on x64, if memory serves).

If you have 4+ GB RAM and still see slowness on Win7, there is a problem.

Otherwise, it is probably a case of insufficient hardware.

Jonesome Reinstate Monica
  • 5,445
  • 10
  • 56
  • 82
  • 2
    Apps do not "magically" need 2-4x the RAM on a 64-bit system. You need to be more specific about the conditions if you're throwing that kind of claim out there. – phoebus Oct 25 '09 at 06:54
  • Using a 64Bit OS will not make your apps need more RAM. If you are running a 32bit App, then the WOW abstraction layer may use some resources, but nothing that significant. – Sam Cogan Oct 26 '09 at 16:05
  • >> Apps do not "magically" need 2-4x the RAM on a 64-bit system. >> Using a 64Bit OS will not make your apps need more RAM. For many (most?) .NET apps, RAM consumption on x64 is higher. In some cases MUCH higher. I have seen .NET apps at idle require 2x and more, running exactly the same binaries on x64. Win32 apps run in x86 emulation, and will not need more RAM. However in my experience, .NET apps use at a minimum 10-25% more on x64. – Jonesome Reinstate Monica Oct 28 '09 at 01:01
  • In 64-bit mode, lots of data values are twice the size, pointers in particular. Lots aren't. I'd expect increases in disk space and RAM required, but hardly twice to four times. The application is more important than the OS for memory requirements. Perhaps the .NET runtime is bigger on 64-bit OSs. – David Thornley Oct 28 '09 at 13:27
0

I also experience cca 15% slower compilation under Windows7 - same hardware, same VS2008SP1. XP32bit is faster than Win7-32bit. I tried to turn off all services but without any result.