memory requirement for DotNet 2005?

[Bob]

It's been my experience that clients with 128MB RAM (for any OS later than Win98) are brought to
their knees by DotNet apps. Any loading operation - starting up, or a creating new form - takes
absolutely forever. I've had to tell customers that in order to run my apps now, they have to have
at least 256MB of RAM. If their machines are old enough, if they can take any more RAM at all, the
older RAM is more expensive than normal RAM, i.e. $100 for 128MB. Often times I recommend just
getting a new machine, even though these older machines, even a PII 450, with enough RAM, are fast
enough to run DotNet applications just fine.

I consider the DotNet app memory requirement a liability to my business; customers factor in any
required hardware upgrades into the cost of any prospective project. I would like to know:

1. Will DotNet 2005 be any lighter on memory?
2. Will future OS versions (i.e. Longhorn) reduce total memory requirement?
3. Does MS acknowledge that Framework memory usage is a problem?

I hope I'm not the only DotNet app developer dealing with businesses that tend to not upgrade their
computers unless they have to.

Bob

[Shane Story]

I agree....
Furthermore... It seems that the way task manager reports memory usage is an
issue.

If it shows 10MB memory usage---even if it supposedly isn't being
reserved...the user still sees it that way and this is a negative impression
for your product.

It seems to me that MS is more focused on the big corporate developers with
..NET than on the rest of us and that is unfortunate--but also another topic.

Thanks,

Shane
"Bob" <no***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u3*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

It's been my experience that clients with 128MB RAM (for any OS later than
Win98) are brought to
their knees by DotNet apps. Any loading operation - starting up, or a
creating new form - takes
absolutely forever. I've had to tell customers that in order to run my
apps now, they have to have
at least 256MB of RAM. If their machines are old enough, if they can take
any more RAM at all, the
older RAM is more expensive than normal RAM, i.e. $100 for 128MB. Often
times I recommend just
getting a new machine, even though these older machines, even a PII 450,
with enough RAM, are fast
enough to run DotNet applications just fine.

I consider the DotNet app memory requirement a liability to my business;
customers factor in any
required hardware upgrades into the cost of any prospective project. I
would like to know:

1. Will DotNet 2005 be any lighter on memory?
2. Will future OS versions (i.e. Longhorn) reduce total memory
requirement?
3. Does MS acknowledge that Framework memory usage is a problem?

I hope I'm not the only DotNet app developer dealing with businesses that
tend to not upgrade their
computers unless they have to.

Bob

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Bob" <no***@nowhere.com> schrieb:

1. Will DotNet 2005 be any lighter on memory?
This information applies to the Beta version and can change for the release
versíon:

Visual Studio 2005 Beta 1 System Requirements
<URL:http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/productinfo/sysreqs/>

..NET Framework SDK Version 2.0 Beta 1 Readme
<URL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/downloads/updates/fw20readme.aspx>
-> "1. System Requirements"
2. Will future OS versions (i.e. Longhorn) reduce total memory
requirement?
I stongly doubt that.
3. Does MS acknowledge that Framework memory usage is a problem?
I think it's not actually a problem. In a professional environment (I am
speaking about Europe) PCs are typically replaced by new machines every
three years. Three year old machines today can still be used for VS.NET
development, they are powerful enough. Technology is always oriented
towards the current/future hardware. If you have lower hardware
capabilities and capacities, use tools that are more suitable for this
hardware, for example, VB6.
I hope I'm not the only DotNet app developer dealing with businesses that
tend to not upgrade their computers unless they have to.

:-)

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Bob]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
<...>

3. Does MS acknowledge that Framework memory usage is a problem?

I think it's not actually a problem. In a professional environment (I am
speaking about Europe) PCs are typically replaced by new machines every
three years. Three year old machines today can still be used for VS.NET
development, they are powerful enough. Technology is always oriented
towards the current/future hardware. If you have lower hardware
capabilities and capacities, use tools that are more suitable for this
hardware, for example, VB6.

I don't have lower capabilities, it's my _customers_. And you would have to drag me kicking and
screaming back to VB6. It's just not going to happen. As it is I've put a tremendous amount of work
into decomissioning all my old VB6 stuff. Not only will I not enhance my VB6 work any more, I don't
even want to support it.

As far as replacing machines every 3 years, that's quite simply a waste of money for most
businesses. If it weren't for my pushing DotNet apps on my customers, the vast majority absolutely
do *not* need computers faster than 450MHz or more than 128MB RAM. They just don't. No reason at
all, not even for engineers using AutoCAD. So it *IS* a problem for anyone who works in the real
world where money isn't spent frivolously.

Bob

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Bob" <no***@nowhere.com> schrieb:

As far as replacing machines every 3 years, that's quite simply a waste of
money for most
businesses. If it weren't for my pushing DotNet apps on my customers, the
vast majority absolutely
do *not* need computers faster than 450MHz or more than 128MB RAM. They
just don't. No reason at
all, not even for engineers using AutoCAD. So it *IS* a problem for anyone
who works in the real
world where money isn't spent frivolously.

Don't get me wrong... If you want to build applications for 6 year old
machines, use 6 year old tools, but don't expect newer tools to target 6
year old technology. Maybe you dropped VB6 too early.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Bob]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uM*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
<...>

Don't get me wrong... If you want to build applications for 6 year old
machines, use 6 year old tools, but don't expect newer tools to target 6
year old technology. Maybe you dropped VB6 too early.

Yeah, I suppose. But as the useful (business) life of computers continues to increase, I predict
that this problem will not go away, but get worse until the software bloating trend stops or
reverses. And many say, of course, that that will never, ever happen.

Bob

[guy]

Thats why i always recommend that customers cram as much RAM into the box as
they can when they buy it - it can double the life of the pc

:-)

guy

"Bob" wrote:

It's been my experience that clients with 128MB RAM (for any OS later than Win98) are brought to
their knees by DotNet apps. Any loading operation - starting up, or a creating new form - takes
absolutely forever. I've had to tell customers that in order to run my apps now, they have to have
at least 256MB of RAM. If their machines are old enough, if they can take any more RAM at all, the
older RAM is more expensive than normal RAM, i.e. $100 for 128MB. Often times I recommend just
getting a new machine, even though these older machines, even a PII 450, with enough RAM, are fast
enough to run DotNet applications just fine.

I consider the DotNet app memory requirement a liability to my business; customers factor in any
required hardware upgrades into the cost of any prospective project. I would like to know:

1. Will DotNet 2005 be any lighter on memory?
2. Will future OS versions (i.e. Longhorn) reduce total memory requirement?
3. Does MS acknowledge that Framework memory usage is a problem?

I hope I'm not the only DotNet app developer dealing with businesses that tend to not upgrade their
computers unless they have to.

Bob

[Cor Ligthert]

Guy,

Memory has been a time very expensive while I have never had the experience
that it did double the life of a pc to buy it in advance. Tomorrow it was
mostly cheaper than today.

I have seen in past to many computers which hold no addressable memory
because somebody had said invest in memory.

Just my thought

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Bob,

My expirience is that with modern software any NTx system needs at least
128Mb memory. That is why I have often written in this newsgroups that I
liked the way of memory management from W9x systems. (It is completly
different). However what is the cost of memory today comparing with an hour
of a programmer (Speaking from a western community).

Just my thought,

Cor