By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
449,315 Members | 1,672 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,315 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Visual Basic Express 2005 speed questions

P: n/a
Hi everyone. I've been trying to move some small applications written in
vb.net 2003 to vb.net 2005 express just for testing purposes. I have
noticed so far that the applications seem to run much slower in the 2005
version. Especially when it comes to nested loops. I haven't done much
testing so it might just be this one computer but I was curious to know if
anyone else has experienced these kind of problems when moving to the 2005
version. I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.

-- Marco
Feb 7 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
25 Replies


P: n/a
I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.
This won't matter - the compiler (vbc.exe) is completely independent
of the ide. As a matter of fact any program written using the IDE can
be written and compiled using just notepad - on any computer that has
the framework installed. The actual compiler ships with the framework,
while the IDE is just a tool for writing the programs.

So the real question is whether .Net 1.1 (used by vs2003) is faster
than .Net 2.0 (used by vs2005), and I don't know for sure - but I
think 2.0 is at least as fast as 1.1, if not faster.

Are you testing your programs in their release versions? If you are
running the released version of the 1.1 app, and the debug version of
same app in 2.0, then the 2.0 app will definitely perform worse, due
to the debugging overhead.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Feb 7, 8:57 am, "Marco" <nospampleasesyx...@hotmail.comwrote:
Hi everyone. I've been trying to move some small applications written in
vb.net 2003 to vb.net 2005 express just for testing purposes. I have
noticed so far that the applications seem to run much slower in the 2005
version. Especially when it comes to nested loops. I haven't done much
testing so it might just be this one computer but I was curious to know if
anyone else has experienced these kind of problems when moving to the 2005
version. I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.

-- Marco
Feb 7 '07 #2

P: n/a
my friend, you are delusional

VB 2005 runs SLOWER than 2003; which is SLOWER than Vb6

they sold us on performance and yet it is slower
they convinced us-- when we weren't having performance problems in the
first place-- that we needed 'better performance'

and now we can't deploy vb 2002,2003, 2005 apps on VISTA?
we can't use 2002,2003,2005 apps on WIndows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP
_OR_ VISTA?
WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS COMPANY?

Feb 7 '07 #3

P: n/a
On Feb 7, 11:23 am, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
my friend, you are delusional

VB 2005 runs SLOWER than 2003; which is SLOWER than Vb6

they sold us on performance and yet it is slower
they convinced us-- when we weren't having performance problems in the
first place-- that we needed 'better performance'

and now we can't deploy vb 2002,2003, 2005 apps on VISTA?
we can't use 2002,2003,2005 apps on WIndows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP
_OR_ VISTA?

WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS COMPANY?
Your trolling is getting pretty obnoxious. We've all heard your long
and loud complaints. Enough already!

Feb 7 '07 #4

P: n/a
I was using the debug version on both of them. I don't have the projects on
this computer so I can't test it but I can see why the 2005 edition would
run slower in debug mode then the 2003 one. Thanks.

"rowe_newsgroups" <ro********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.

This won't matter - the compiler (vbc.exe) is completely independent
of the ide. As a matter of fact any program written using the IDE can
be written and compiled using just notepad - on any computer that has
the framework installed. The actual compiler ships with the framework,
while the IDE is just a tool for writing the programs.

So the real question is whether .Net 1.1 (used by vs2003) is faster
than .Net 2.0 (used by vs2005), and I don't know for sure - but I
think 2.0 is at least as fast as 1.1, if not faster.

Are you testing your programs in their release versions? If you are
running the released version of the 1.1 app, and the debug version of
same app in 2.0, then the 2.0 app will definitely perform worse, due
to the debugging overhead.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Feb 7, 8:57 am, "Marco" <nospampleasesyx...@hotmail.comwrote:
>Hi everyone. I've been trying to move some small applications written in
vb.net 2003 to vb.net 2005 express just for testing purposes. I have
noticed so far that the applications seem to run much slower in the 2005
version. Especially when it comes to nested loops. I haven't done much
testing so it might just be this one computer but I was curious to know
if
anyone else has experienced these kind of problems when moving to the
2005
version. I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to
the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.

-- Marco

Feb 7 '07 #5

P: n/a
You have some new debugging features such as Managed Debug Assistants
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/d21c150d.aspx) that could likely
slow down things.

I would start by comparing the release build to first find out first if this
is a debug only issue.
"Marco" <no****************@hotmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
e9**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I was using the debug version on both of them. I don't have the projects
on this computer so I can't test it but I can see why the 2005 edition
would run slower in debug mode then the 2003 one. Thanks.

"rowe_newsgroups" <ro********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>>I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.

This won't matter - the compiler (vbc.exe) is completely independent
of the ide. As a matter of fact any program written using the IDE can
be written and compiled using just notepad - on any computer that has
the framework installed. The actual compiler ships with the framework,
while the IDE is just a tool for writing the programs.

So the real question is whether .Net 1.1 (used by vs2003) is faster
than .Net 2.0 (used by vs2005), and I don't know for sure - but I
think 2.0 is at least as fast as 1.1, if not faster.

Are you testing your programs in their release versions? If you are
running the released version of the 1.1 app, and the debug version of
same app in 2.0, then the 2.0 app will definitely perform worse, due
to the debugging overhead.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Feb 7, 8:57 am, "Marco" <nospampleasesyx...@hotmail.comwrote:
>>Hi everyone. I've been trying to move some small applications written
in
vb.net 2003 to vb.net 2005 express just for testing purposes. I have
noticed so far that the applications seem to run much slower in the
2005
version. Especially when it comes to nested loops. I haven't done much
testing so it might just be this one computer but I was curious to know
if
anyone else has experienced these kind of problems when moving to the
2005
version. I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to
the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.

-- Marco


Feb 7 '07 #6

P: n/a
I would start by comparing the release build to first find out first if this
is a debug only issue.
Great advice! The OP should notice that it you should always do this
kind of testing in release builds. After all, your clients aren't
(most likely) going to be running your programs in debug mode!

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Feb 7, 12:21 pm, "Patrice" <http://www.chez.com/scribe/wrote:
You have some new debugging features such as Managed Debug Assistants
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/d21c150d.aspx) that could likely
slow down things.

I would start by comparing the release build to first find out first if this
is a debug only issue.

"Marco" <nospampleasesyx...@hotmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
e9lrWmtSHHA.1...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
I was using the debug version on both of them. I don't have the projects
on this computer so I can't test it but I can see why the 2005 edition
would run slower in debug mode then the 2003 one. Thanks.
"rowe_newsgroups" <rowe_em...@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.
This won't matter - the compiler (vbc.exe) is completely independent
of the ide. As a matter of fact any program written using the IDE can
be written and compiled using just notepad - on any computer that has
the framework installed. The actual compiler ships with the framework,
while the IDE is just a tool for writing the programs.
So the real question is whether .Net 1.1 (used by vs2003) is faster
than .Net 2.0 (used by vs2005), and I don't know for sure - but I
think 2.0 is at least as fast as 1.1, if not faster.
Are you testing your programs in their release versions? If you are
running the released version of the 1.1 app, and the debug version of
same app in 2.0, then the 2.0 app will definitely perform worse, due
to the debugging overhead.
Thanks,
Seth Rowe
On Feb 7, 8:57 am, "Marco" <nospampleasesyx...@hotmail.comwrote:
Hi everyone. I've been trying to move some small applications written
in
vb.net 2003 to vb.net 2005 express just for testing purposes. I have
noticed so far that the applications seem to run much slower in the
2005
version. Especially when it comes to nested loops. I haven't done much
testing so it might just be this one computer but I was curious to know
if
anyone else has experienced these kind of problems when moving to the
2005
version. I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm portingto
the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.
>-- Marco

Feb 7 '07 #7

P: n/a
Lord Zoltar,

Just when you thought it was safe... :)

Bruce

<lo*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
On Feb 7, 11:23 am, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>my friend, you are delusional

VB 2005 runs SLOWER than 2003; which is SLOWER than Vb6

they sold us on performance and yet it is slower
they convinced us-- when we weren't having performance problems in the
first place-- that we needed 'better performance'

and now we can't deploy vb 2002,2003, 2005 apps on VISTA?
we can't use 2002,2003,2005 apps on WIndows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP
_OR_ VISTA?

WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS COMPANY?

Your trolling is getting pretty obnoxious. We've all heard your long
and loud complaints. Enough already!

Feb 8 '07 #8

P: n/a
Marco wrote:
Hi everyone. I've been trying to move some small applications written in
vb.net 2003 to vb.net 2005 express just for testing purposes. I have
noticed so far that the applications seem to run much slower in the 2005
version. Especially when it comes to nested loops. I haven't done much
testing so it might just be this one computer but I was curious to know if
anyone else has experienced these kind of problems when moving to the 2005
version. I'm also wondering if the problem could be that I'm porting to the
express editions instead of the full Visual Studio one. Are the express
editions slower then the full product? Thanks for any help.

-- Marco

I didn't use VB.NET 2003 and came to 2005 straight from VB6. At the
risk of playing into Aarons hands, I have to concur that 2005 is slower
than VB6 in SOME areas, particularly in refreshing Windows Forms, which
goes a long way to the overall perception that it's slower everywhere,
however, as I have discovered time and again, VB 2005 is actually FASTER
than VB6 in most areas - Provided you use the correct commands,
functions and methods.

The real problem seems to come from the fact that in VB 2005 you can
write very similar code to what you could in VB6, even using the same
commands, but I now know that this is a huge mistake. If you take the
time to learn some of the added commands and/or enhanced features then
you, like me, will discover that in almost every way VB 2005 can
outperform VB6. I have taken the time to port several small
applications, and even one large application, over to VB 2005, and
without exception, overall they run faster, even allowing for the slower
Windows refresh/update issue.

The "nested loops" problem that you raised is one that I have not found
to be an issue, so maybe it is just the system you were testing on(?)

I hope my comments help in some way.

ShaneO

There are 10 kinds of people - Those who understand Binary and those who
don't.
Feb 8 '07 #9

P: n/a
EAT A MOTHER FUCKING DICK BITCH

when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT EXCEL is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ACCESS is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT OUTLOOK is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT SQL 2000 DTS is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT VBS FILES is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT VB6 is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT VBA is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ASP CLASSIC is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT DHTML is when I stop
bitching

Feb 8 '07 #10

P: n/a
sorry dog; the debugger in VB DOTNET _SUCKS_ compared to VB6.

do you kids even have edit and continue yet?

get a real programming language dog

-Aaron

Feb 8 '07 #11

P: n/a
provided that you use the correct commands, functions and methods?

SORRY DOG, YOUR DISCLAIMER _SUCKS_

MY MOTHER FUCKING CODE IN VB6 RAN _FINE_
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE MY EXISTING CODE RUN FASTER? I AM FINE WITH THAT

when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT EXCEL is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ACCESS is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT WORD is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT OUTLOOK is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT SQL 2000 DTS is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT DHTML is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ASP CLASSIC is when I
stop bitching

Feb 8 '07 #12

P: n/a
it is a huge mistake to re-use existing code?

whatever happened to 'standing on the shoulders of giants'

MOTHER FUCKING GOOKS, SAND NIGGERS AND CHINKS IN REDMOND KILLED OUR
LANGUAGE AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT

Feb 8 '07 #13

P: n/a
You already posted this. So apparently you do know how to cut and paste.
Unless you just like to type a lot. You're such a whiner.

Robin S.
(King of Russia)
--------------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
EAT A MOTHER FUCKING DICK BITCH

when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT EXCEL is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ACCESS is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT OUTLOOK is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT SQL 2000 DTS is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT VBS FILES is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT VB6 is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT VBA is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ASP CLASSIC is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT DHTML is when I stop
bitching

Feb 9 '07 #14

P: n/a
Wow, that's *three* times you've used that same block of whining today. If
you had put it in a class, you could have just written it once and then
instantiated it and used it three times.

Robin S.
(King of Russia)
-----------------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
provided that you use the correct commands, functions and methods?

SORRY DOG, YOUR DISCLAIMER _SUCKS_

MY MOTHER FUCKING CODE IN VB6 RAN _FINE_
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE MY EXISTING CODE RUN FASTER? I AM FINE WITH THAT

when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT EXCEL is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ACCESS is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT WORD is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT OUTLOOK is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT SQL 2000 DTS is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT DHTML is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ASP CLASSIC is when I
stop bitching

Feb 9 '07 #15

P: n/a
Wow, that's *three* times you've used that same block of whining today. If
you had put it in a class, you could have just written it once and then
instantiated it and used it three times.
OOP: Object Orientated Posting?

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Feb 9, 2:59 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
Wow, that's *three* times you've used that same block of whining today. If
you had put it in a class, you could have just written it once and then
instantiated it and used it three times.

Robin S.
(King of Russia)
-----------------------------------------------<aaron.ke...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
provided that you use the correct commands, functions and methods?
SORRY DOG, YOUR DISCLAIMER _SUCKS_
MY MOTHER FUCKING CODE IN VB6 RAN _FINE_
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE MY EXISTING CODE RUN FASTER? I AM FINE WITH THAT
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT EXCEL is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ACCESS is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT WORD is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT OUTLOOK is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT SQL 2000 DTS is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT DHTML is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ASP CLASSIC is when I
stop bitching

Feb 9 '07 #16

P: n/a
aa*********@gmail.com schreef:
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT EXCEL is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ACCESS is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT WORD is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT OUTLOOK is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT SQL 2000 DTS is when I
stop bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT DHTML is when I stop
bitching
when I can cut and paste VB 2005 into MICROSOFT ASP CLASSIC is when I
stop bitching
can you cut and paste excel code into word? no
can you cut and paste sql 2000 DTS into DHTML? no
can you cut and paste outlook code into asp? no

they all may use some form of vba, but there's many application specific
code that just doesn't work in the other applications.

--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v
Feb 9 '07 #17

P: n/a
aa*********@gmail.com schreef:
it is a huge mistake to re-use existing code?

whatever happened to 'standing on the shoulders of giants'

MOTHER FUCKING GOOKS, SAND NIGGERS AND CHINKS IN REDMOND KILLED OUR
LANGUAGE AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT
I have a library full of reusable code. Everything is self contained.
Just hand it what it needs to know, it'll return what I want to have.
How is it not reusable?

--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v
Feb 9 '07 #18

P: n/a
>MY MOTHER FUCKING CODE IN VB6 RAN _FINE_
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE MY EXISTING CODE RUN FASTER? I AM FINE WITH THAT
Well, I HATE to point out the obvious, but it must not have. Otherwise you
wouldn't be an ersatz 'ex-employee'. Which brings up another point, as well,
that you'll deny, of course. If it's OK for YOUR code to be bloated, why is
it NOT ok for anyone else's code to be bloated? Bit of a conundrum, isn't
it?
Feb 9 '07 #19

P: n/a
robin

well technically; putting it in 3 different classes; I still would
have had to copy and paste.

a mish-mash of modules and classes is not efficient; suck an egg bitch

OOP is for fags.

80% of VB6 developers NEVER USED A CLASS; WHO DECIDED THAT WE NEEDED
TO BE EDUCATED?

FUCK CLASSES
all they do is make code more verbose

Feb 9 '07 #20

P: n/a
my code is not bloated

I used procedures, functions
I don't need to duplicate business logic in each of my classes

ROFL

-Aaron

Feb 9 '07 #21

P: n/a
my code is NOT bloated.

my IDE sure is though; VB 2005 is _BLOATWARE_
yet it doesn't have HALF of the functionality of VB6 (PORTABILITY, I
MEAN DUH!)

-Aaron

Feb 9 '07 #22

P: n/a
See? I just *knew* you didn't understand classes. You create *one* class,
then instantiate it three times. No copying or pasting.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
-----------------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@a75g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
robin

well technically; putting it in 3 different classes; I still would
have had to copy and paste.

a mish-mash of modules and classes is not efficient; suck an egg bitch

OOP is for fags.

80% of VB6 developers NEVER USED A CLASS; WHO DECIDED THAT WE NEEDED
TO BE EDUCATED?

FUCK CLASSES
all they do is make code more verbose

Feb 10 '07 #23

P: n/a
robin

he knows classes; stop trying to use FUD

it's quite comical actually

modules are _BETTER_ than classes at code reuse.

I do not believe that a hybrid approach-- some classes and some
modules is more efficient for a bunch of reasons:

a) consistency
b) having a generalized class defeats the purpose of basing these on
real world objects

being able to inherit from one class is just about worthless.. being
able to reuse the same function time and time again-- without horsing
around-- is PRICELESS

Feb 10 '07 #24

P: n/a
I don't create jack shit for classes

I support code reuse

and I don't believe that microsoft has the AUTHORITY to dictate how I
program.

80% of VB6 developers were _NOT_ wrong

-Aaron
Feb 10 '07 #25

P: n/a
Yer slipping Aaron. LOL

"punjab_tom" <pu********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@a34g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>I don't create jack shit for classes

I support code reuse

and I don't believe that microsoft has the AUTHORITY to dictate how I
program.

80% of VB6 developers were _NOT_ wrong

-Aaron


Feb 10 '07 #26

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.