A Little Overwhelmed..

This is a discussion on A Little Overwhelmed.. within the Windows Programming forums, part of the Platform Specific Boards category; MS installers are surely slower than they should be. Compare Win2000 installation time to WinXP. I was guiding my friend ...

  1. #16
    System Novice siavoshkc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tehran
    Posts
    1,231
    MS installers are surely slower than they should be. Compare Win2000 installation time to WinXP. I was guiding my friend through installation of 2000 and it was finished before I hang off. XP takes a life time like Vista and 7. I am really curious to know what VS installer does during installation. Just try to write an installer that slow and you'll see.

    I also think .NET options are confuzing. They are designed to pull you from unmanaged to managed projects. I have seen so many C/C++ learners starting a CLI project by mistake. I myself added .net components to native projects mistakenly so many times and faced a Yes/No message box saying that by adding this component your project will be converted to managed.

    I am afraid of 2010 IDE crashes. Not tried it just heared of it.
    Learn C++ (C++ Books, C Books, FAQ, Forum Search)
    Code painter latest version on sourceforge DOWNLOAD NOW!
    Download FSB Data Integrity Tester.
    Siavosh K C

  2. #17
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,537
    Quote Originally Posted by siavoshkc View Post
    MS installers are surely slower than they should be. Compare Win2000 installation time to WinXP. I was guiding my friend through installation of 2000 and it was finished before I hang off. XP takes a life time like Vista and 7. I am really curious to know what VS installer does during installation. Just try to write an installer that slow and you'll see.
    I don't remember how long 2k takes to install, but XP takes about an hour.
    Vista takes about half an hour.
    7 maybe 20 minutes.
    But those are just preliminary figures. It depends on a lot of factors.
    But I agree that MS installers are slow. So are their software.

    I am afraid of 2010 IDE crashes. Not tried it just heared of it.
    It does crash sometimes, but the IntelliSense and C++0x features make up for it IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  3. #18
    Registered User Joelito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tijuana, BC, México
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    I don't remember how long 2k takes to install, but XP takes about an hour.
    Vista takes about half an hour.
    7 maybe 20 minutes.
    But those are just preliminary figures. It depends on a lot of factors.
    But I agree that MS installers are slow. So are their software.


    It does crash sometimes, but the IntelliSense and C++0x features make up for it IMO.
    I don't want to start a war here, but I don't think IntelliSense (I mean that little listbox that appears when you write a dot after an object) is worth of load-up the harddrive.

    I think, as programmers, we must be more efficient about the tools we use. An IDE that uses more the 3 GB of harddrive, plus the service packs, plus producing binaries around a 500 KB (or less) is not that "worth".

    How about get only the PSDK (Platform Software development kit), some good compiler (VS 2003 toolkit is around the internet) and good ide (codeblocks, even the damn notepad)...and focus only in make good binaries, and not worring about the "next" release of the IDE or service pack...
    * PC: Intel Core 2 DUO E6550 @ 2.33 GHz with 2 GB RAM: Archlinux-i686 with xfce4.
    * Laptop: Intel Core 2 DUO T6600 @ 2.20 GHz with 4 GB RAM: Archlinux-x86-64 with xfce4.

  4. #19
    System Novice siavoshkc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tehran
    Posts
    1,231
    I don't remember how long 2k takes to install, but XP takes about an hour.
    Vista takes about half an hour.
    7 maybe 20 minutes.
    Its computers getting faster not setups.
    Learn C++ (C++ Books, C Books, FAQ, Forum Search)
    Code painter latest version on sourceforge DOWNLOAD NOW!
    Download FSB Data Integrity Tester.
    Siavosh K C

  5. #20
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Joelito View Post
    I don't want to start a war here, but I don't think IntelliSense (I mean that little listbox that appears when you write a dot after an object) is worth of load-up the harddrive.
    Yes, it is. It is one of the niftiest tools there ever was.
    And no, that's not all there is to IntelliSense.
    Hover over a variable and see its type.
    Call a function and see its parameter list.
    Hover over a macro and see its contents.
    Press F12 on an identifier and jump to its definition.
    Also, related to IntelliSense, but not exactly IntelliSense, live compile, like Java. The IDE compiles the code in the background and pops up red identifiers on errors it sees. It's nice. And it also makes it worth it.

    I think, as programmers, we must be more efficient about the tools we use. An IDE that uses more the 3 GB of harddrive, plus the service packs, plus producing binaries around a 500 KB (or less) is not that "worth".
    The space it takes up is irrelevant.
    And I hope you aren't suggesting the binaries are bloated, because they're not. In fact, the VS compiler is pretty darn good as far as compilers go in terms of optimization.
    What the hell is there to be efficient about!? In the end, the binaries will be the same.

    How about get only the PSDK (Platform Software development kit), some good compiler (VS 2003 toolkit is around the internet) and good ide (codeblocks, even the damn notepad)...and focus only in make good binaries, and not worring about the "next" release of the IDE or service pack...
    Listen to yourself! Notepad! Gawd! Seriously!
    And just because we're using VS doesn't mean we have to be worrywarts of when the "next" release or service pack comes out. I worry about only being able to create higher quality code, and to make things easier for me, as a programmer.
    Visual Studio makes this true. It has all I need. Editor, compiler, debugger, test framework (albeit plugin), Windows SDK, MFC, etc, etc. The list goes on. Perhaps I'm a little fuzzy in utilizing all the features, but whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by siavoshkc View Post
    Its computers getting faster not setups.
    Ha. Every Windows increases in size and installation time just as fast as computers. The fact is that they optimized the installer in Vista & 7.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #21
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Ha. Every Windows increases in size and installation time just as fast as computers. The fact is that they optimized the installer in Vista & 7.
    How do you know?

  7. #22
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,537
    Size? Take a look at Windows distros from XP and up. They keep increasing.
    Installation time? That's very Microsoft to make everything slower and slower. Pretty much what they do with any new release. Compare 98 to XP. Compare 95 to 98. Slower. Slower.
    The fact that they optimized it? Take a look at the Windows engineering blogs and news.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #23
    System Novice siavoshkc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tehran
    Posts
    1,231
    2000 is fastest of all. I think their design has foundamental problems.

    Yes their programs get slower but don't do more.
    Learn C++ (C++ Books, C Books, FAQ, Forum Search)
    Code painter latest version on sourceforge DOWNLOAD NOW!
    Download FSB Data Integrity Tester.
    Siavosh K C

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. How do you keep from being overwhelmed by a project?
    By psychopath in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-22-2006, 01:27 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21