Hallo,
i have Visual Studio 2005 Pro on Windows XP SP2 (CPU: 2200+, 512MB). I
develop ASP.NET sites with C#.
As soon as i save a codebehind file VS seems to compile and the system
is working to capacity for some seconds, although it is a new project
with only 2 sites of code.
Why is that? I have to keep my hand away from mouse and keyboard
partically as the system is working to capacity and nearly nothing is
happening. The windows aren't displayed correctly sometimes too - blank
empty windows.
Why? VS 2003 is installed on the same machine too and is working without
any problem - quick.
thanks, toebens
p.s.
does anybody have a link for the topic "compilation" with .NET 2.0?
obviously i dont need to build my asp.net projects because i can see
changes i have made in the codebehind directly in the browser.
is this the cause for the lagging system?
toebens - 20 Mar 2006 09:32 GMT
i really would like somebody to reply as nobody replied in the german
newsgroup allready.
is this a bug?
Eric Beaudry - 21 Mar 2006 16:19 GMT
I have the same kind of problem and some others too. I just post something
about that new IDE not really as good the previous were.
But still one way I found to speed up opening a solution is to make sure
every code window was closed before I close the solution (making sure the IDE
won't start some "strange" procedure before everything is loaded in the IDE)
It helps but doesn't solve the issue. It will probabably save you a couple of
startup crashes also (the bigger the solution the more crash I get when I
leave to many code windows open)
I also found that having connection to DB in the explorer might be causing
some delay when starting the IDE. I'm now using the enterprise manager client
instead on the one built into the IDE... Maybe it's me but I'm starting to
feel like the IDE is simply getting to big!
Hope it makes your life a bit easier (until we get some fixes)

Signature
Eric Beaudry
.Net Architecture Developer
> i really would like somebody to reply as nobody replied in the german
> newsgroup allready.
>
> is this a bug?