Which version of Windows 7 for .NET Developers

views:

174

answers:

+2 Q:

Which version of Windows 7 for .NET Developers

Hi, I'm looking to upgrade my laptop from Windows Vista to Windows 7. As a .NET developer I'm not interested in developing Windows 7 components at this stage, but was curious which version would suffice to Install Visual Studio/SQL Server and do some web development testing against the local instance of IIS.

I don't care too much about the superfluous features of any Windows 7 editions, I just need to know which one will keep me right for running apps and writing some code.

Also, does Windows 7 force the "run as administrator" against VS?

Any recommendations?

+1 A:

Any version would suffice your requirement. Then you need to consider only the cost. :)

Chathuranga Chandrasekara 2010-03-04 03:18:00

+1 A:

You can refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions for detail difference among Win7 editions.

As of the question which one is sufficent for your development work, I think it depends. For example, If you need to develop Aero releated functionality, clearly you cannot use Win7 Home Basic.

I have use Win7 for a while, and my general experience is that the Home Premium should be good enough for almost all kinds of development work if you do not need to have your workstation in a domain. Otherwise a professional version is what you should choose.

Findekano 2010-03-04 03:22:55

At least a professional version. Personally I dont see much point of going for the 64bit version. It just uses more memory to run and even newer version of VS2010 is not going to have support for 64bit in its initial launch. So if you just want a reliable work horse, stick with 32bit

Find the comparison here http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/default.aspx

Fadrian Sudaman 2010-03-04 03:23:44

If I could +10 you I would. I have and use both x86 and x64 for many years. If I had a nickel for all the times that things that are supposed to 'Just Work' didn't on an x64 box - even with AnyCPU or x86 targets - I wouldn't need to work. 32 bit if you like to code instead of raging against the machine.

Sky Sanders 2010-03-04 03:33:09

There is nothing wrong with the 64-bit version of Windows 7. In fact, I would highly discourage getting the 32-bit version simply because you're hard limiting your maximum RAM to 3GB.

Corey D 2010-03-04 03:37:12

Cory, the question is not the viability of the OS - I love the OS, the question is in the context of a Developer using Visual Studio. I have been using every version of Visual studio since V6. Trust me, x64 is for compiling stuff to deploy to servers. x86 is for getting code written.

Sky Sanders 2010-03-04 03:39:51

@SkySander, you say that you have used x64 for "many years" and many things did not work. That would certainly be true with older versions of windows and older machines of "many years" ago. The headaches came because older hardware did not have 64 bit drivers written for it, there wasn't enough of a market for it. With today's new machines, Vista and Win 7, x64 is squarely in the mainstream. All new hardware and peripherals have 64bit support. VS2008 and 2010 work flawlessly on Vista x64 and Win 7 x64. If your hardware supports it, there is no reason not go go x64 with Win 7.

Tion 2010-03-04 03:50:40

HELLO?! I am not dogging x64 - I am describing frustrations experienced in the context of using Visual Studio on x64. CONTEXT people, it helps. And if you are still not getting me, develop less than trivial code on an x64 box for a few years and then report back. Life is EASIER on x86. Can I get a witness?

Sky Sanders 2010-03-04 03:55:00

As far as VS and development is concerned the only problems are strongly named third party dlls that may not be available in 64 bit. However on a dev machine in VS you can multitarget: you can build 64 bit dlls or 32 bit dlls.In my experience with C# development deploying to x64 and x86 from both x64 and x86 machines, there is no reason not to go with x64. I don't know if by non trivial you mean C++ or unmanaged, but anything .Net is solid on x64. if you have tons of legacy COM garbage then you might be better off staying away from x64 to be safe.

Tion 2010-03-04 03:58:37

GRRRRRR.... I am not dogging **.Net** on x64 - I am describing frustrations experienced in the context of using Visual Studio on x64. CONTEXT people, it helps. And if you are still not getting me, develop less than trivial code on an x64 box for a few years and then report back. Life is **EASIER** on x86. Can I get a witness? or at least someone who can parse a response?

Sky Sanders 2010-03-04 04:04:53

I am using 64bit machine here as well. Well, from the question asked, I answered honestly with what will be the average working environment. Yes you can address more than 4GB of RAM on 64bit machine, but each pointer address is taking 8 bytes rather than 4 bytes, if you work the math, I dont think it is you are necessary have more RAM resource. The clear benefit to me is more on addressing bigger number range and no longer limited by 4GB size file.

Fadrian Sudaman 2010-03-04 04:07:44

I have x64 on my Lenovo t61p with 8gb ram and x25 ssd to offset the inherent latency of notebooks and am pleased with the performance. I have x86 on a Lenovo M57 with 4gb and a fast drive and do most of my dev on it. There are subtle but biting differences in the VS development workflow between x86 and x64. If you have not run into any of them after a few years of coding on x64 then you should be good to go. But when you do you will have a PWOP! (the sound of your palm hitting your forhead) moment and just grit your teeth and get through it. Enough pwops and you will see my point of view

Sky Sanders 2010-03-04 04:37:50

I am just trying to save someone serious frustration that may be encountered for the minimal gains of running x64.

Sky Sanders 2010-03-04 04:38:33

x64 is not THAT hard to make stuff work with - the worst I've seen is when you have to recompile stuff for COM STA. I've had to do that maybe twice. Meanwhile being able to use > 4 GBs of RAM is more than worth it.

Mark Allen 2010-03-04 04:49:52

This is becoming an unnecessary war between x64 and x86. I was simply answering the question posted and look it is accepted by the author! The question clearly posting on not caring about the superflous feature and hence I share my thought!

Fadrian Sudaman 2010-03-04 05:24:06

The single biggest point of getting x64 is practically unlimited amounts of memory. I would not be able to run ANY sane OS under a VM with any kind of usability without several gigabytes of memory, which x86 will just not support. It's not about the 4 GB hard limit, it's about most x86 code being limited to handle only 2 GB of memory because of bad pointer arithmetic, thus the OS will only give more than 2 GB to programs that specifically ask for it. Plus let's add a good speed improvement for processor-intensive x64 code because of new registers and instructions.

iconiK 2010-04-10 20:58:08

+6 A:

If your hardware supports it; x64 is really the way to go (improved compile time, much higher maximum ram). RAM is awfully cheap these days and if you end up running Windows7 for a few years; it's very likely that you'll enjoy the benefit of 8+gigs of RAM.

I was unable to find a Windows 7 32bit vs. 64bit benchmark - but here is one for Vista.

http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html

The 64-bit does outperform the 32-bit OS.

Beyond that, the differences are pretty superficial for your needs. At least, from what you've posted. Take a look below and see if anything is a must have. Each progressive version includes all of the features of the earlier ones - of if you really, really want Windows 7's encrypting file system - You can go with Professional or anything higher.

Below is a quick summary...

Windows 7 Home Premium

Aero Glass & advanced Window navigation
Windows Touch (Multi-touch and handwriting support) Video demo, More here
Windows Media Center
Internet Explorer 8: Web slices, accelerators, InPrivate Browsing

Windows 7 Professional

Domain Join (Step-By-Step Guide)
Group Policy Controls (More)
Location Aware Printing
Encrypting File System
Advanced Backup (First Look)
Offline Folders (more)
transparent caching, background sync for offline files
Remote Desktop Host (More)
Windows Mobility Center: Presentation Mode

Windows 7 Enterprise

DirectAccess keeps mobile users connected on the go
BranchCache makes file access faster (TechNet description)
Search information on the PC, mail or SharePoint
BitLocker protects data on a PC and portable drives
AppLocker lets you control what user’s can run
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure made better

Rob P. 2010-03-04 03:25:08

"Cheap" RAM? I get mine for free at http://www.downloadmoreram.com/ :)

masfenix 2010-03-04 03:41:31

But how does this address the question, i.e. x86 vs x64 for a .NET developer (i.e. Using Visual Studio). Do you have personal experience to share in the context of this question?

Sky Sanders 2010-03-04 04:30:51

In the majority of benchmarks I've seen x64 outperforms x86. When I use Visual Studio, I typically have other applications like Outlook, Chrome, SQL Dev, a Soft-phone application, an IT required anti-virus program, and as much as I hate it, I'll often have a second copy of Visual Studio running where one instance is our trunk code and another is our branch (depending on where we are in our release cycle).Generally speaking, the less time waiting on something the more productive I am. Going from 2 gigs to 8 gigs really made my life easier and the small CPU edge x64 gets can't hurt.

Rob P. 2010-03-04 04:41:47

Additionally - I will say that while the OS is x64 - there isn't a x64 version of Visual Studio (at least, not that I'm aware of/using). Oddly enough, our application is still set to target x86. I'm not sure if that matters much; but I have run into a problem where edit and continue is Visual Studio didn't seem to work when targeting x64. That would drive me crazy at work.Lastly, I've only been on a x64 machine for about three months now; so it's possible that my experience has been better than most.

Rob P. 2010-03-04 04:45:24

+1 A:

what ever version of windows 7 you get, remember this, before you install visual studio, install sqlserver first, this tip will save you a big headache...

I have to format my computer twice, before I get a hold of it...the first thing you install is sql server and then visual studio.

Hope it helps to prevent a future headache.

Cheers

Gerardo Jaramillo 2010-03-04 03:29:28

And if it's SQL Serv34 2005, and you want reporting services to work, install and fully configure IIS before installing SQL Server.

Cylon Cat 2010-04-10 18:01:24

I've had no problems installing SQL server after Visual Studio, or even uninstalling and then installing a new version of SQL server.

ScottS 2010-04-10 18:09:05

I do not think it matters much as long as you do not have the Windows 7 "Basic" version and the hardware meets (or even better to exceed) the recommended requirements.

prabhpreet 2010-04-10 20:37:06

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Which version of Windows 7 for .NET Developers

related questions