How do you keep your Windows development machine from slowing down?

views:

2284

answers:

+27 Q:

How do you keep your Windows development machine from slowing down?

After using Windows for some time, any computer can begin to suffer from "Slow Computer Syndrome", or "winrot", so I am interested to hear what you are doing to prevent this.

I am not looking for these answers:

Reinstalling Windows
Upgrading the hardware

I am, however, looking for your experience on what steps you can recommend that actually make a difference on a computer that, with a more generous employer, would already have been replaced last year...

Edit: Windows XP and Vista.

Similar questions (though not necessarily exact duplicates):

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/305793/why-does-microsoft-windows-performance-appear-to-degrade-over-time
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/344468/as-a-developer-what-changes-do-you-make-to-a-vanilla-windows-install

+11 A:

I used Ghost to image it when it was new, keep all my data file in SCC or on a network drive then about every 3 months I just wipe it clean with the fresh image. Typically when I re-image I do all updates and stamp out a new image again for use 3 months later. Process takes about 2 hours.

Another option is to not do development on the machine. Seriously. Use your dev machine to host a virtual machine (Microsoft Virtual PC, WMWare, etc) and do development in the VMs.

ctacke 2009-01-07 14:53:58

Why would a VM be a good idea to develop on?

Bryan Denny 2009-01-07 15:06:54

@Bryan Denny: Why wouldn't it be a good idea?

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:11:11

I don't know, hence why I'm asking :)

Bryan Denny 2009-01-07 15:13:55

But the only downside I could think of would be speed?

Bryan Denny 2009-01-07 15:14:56

your first solution seems like the only viable one in this thread. im not sure if youve ever used virtual machines for development but it is pretty awful.

Shawn Simon 2009-01-07 15:16:04

VMs are perfectly fine for developing. That is assuming your host is decent though. Using a 1ghz machine with 512mb of RAM to host your dev VM is ridiculous of course. Ghosting and restoring is /much/ more ridiculous. If you mess up your box that much that often you have PEBKAC problem.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:19:15

We use ESX and labmanager for development all the time and performance is only as slow as the NIC. We also use VMWare locally for development and see no problem. VPC tends to be slow, but if you RDP to it it improves a lot due to VPC's terribly video driver.

ctacke 2009-01-07 16:12:06

And why is Ghosting ridiculous? It takes way less time than a reinstall, and trust me, if you do Studio snap ins, templates, etc. then having a screwed up box is pretty much a guarantee. Re-imaging is often faster than deciphering what you stepped on.

ctacke 2009-01-07 16:16:38

ctacke: If you need to ghost and restore more often than you need to buy a new machine then I cannot offer you any advice. I tend to try and do a major upgrade at least every 2-3 years. How someone could mess up a dev box enough to need to ghost it that quickly is beyond me.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 16:49:40

@Rich _ I see what you're saying. I have 2 dev boxes (more with the VMs). One is used heavily for creating Studio add-ins, custom device emulators, etc. When you install the add-in or emulator, uninstall rarely is clean, and often hoses Studio so a reinstall of VS still won't get it working.

ctacke 2009-01-07 16:58:19

@Rich - Unfortunately emulators are VMs and so won't run in a VM, so right on the iron is the only option there. Sometimes luck is with me and I'll get 6 months. Sometimes only a few weeks. Experience has shown that a repave is faster than trying to "fix" it.

ctacke 2009-01-07 17:00:17

@ctacke: If your software is 'hosing VS' or the registry, you should be using a VM, no doubt. You should also fix your software immediately.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 17:07:49

@Rich: It's pretty obvious we need to "fix" it. The whole point of development and testing is to make sure it works before shipping and for us the VS corruption is simply one of the test failure modes. Using a VM isn't possible for emulators, since you can't run a VM inside a VM.

ctacke 2009-01-07 18:38:32

@ctacke: Your point was that VS add-ins hose VS and the registry. There is no reason the testing for these isn't done in a VM. I have no idea where the rest of this is coming from.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 18:54:43

ctacke is right man, after using a machine for 6 months it is toast. installing crap etc. whenever i open ssms or visual studio like 50 blank windows fire open. its such a mess. i just reformat every once and awhile, takes care of it

Shawn Simon 2009-01-08 04:50:20

+1 A:

I install TuneUp and use the tools inside to clean my PC. There is a MemoryOptimize and a Registry cleaner inside which are very useful.

Markus Lausberg 2009-01-07 14:54:30

I have yet to find a memory optimizer that doesn't actually slow down. Using less memory != faster.

borisCallens 2009-01-15 11:24:37

+5 A:

Defragment your disk drive. Remove/disable unnecessary services. Remove/disable unnecessary programs that run at start up (and hide in the background, like Acrobat).

Use Task Manager to identify what programs are running, look them up on-line, and see if you really need them.

tvanfosson 2009-01-07 14:55:12

+37 A:

I put Windows in a virtual machine (VirtualBox, formerly VMware). Have a mainline version that you update every two years or so and create a test version of the machine where you install all the crap. My VM is about 3 years old now, and works fine even though the hardware has changed twice and I moved from VMware to VirtualBox.

phihag 2009-01-07 14:55:51

+1 (even though someone doesn't appear to like our VM idea) because VMs are scalable, able to back up, and great if hardware fails. Cleaning the registry, I'm sorry, isn't going to fix your PC.

ctacke 2009-01-07 15:01:29

Wow. I love this idea. It seems so obvious, too, but I never thought to work like this.

Michael Haren 2009-01-07 15:09:05

isnt this ridiculously slow ?

Shawn Simon 2009-01-07 15:13:58

@Shawn: A VM? Why would it be 'ridiculously slow'? Any modern machine should be able to run a VM at very adequate speed these days. This is how many server farms are run after all.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:17:31

I tried this for things I still needed to run under XP and found Visual Studio to be too slow for day to day usage.This was running on a 2ghz Core 2 Duo with 2gb RAM , so it's not like it was underpowered.

RSlaughter 2009-01-07 15:20:49

We've got about 5 different, mutually incompatible client platforms that we have to develop with so this is pretty much the only option we have to keep from having to rebuild machines as we switch from task to task.

Steve Mitcham 2009-01-07 15:29:33

Shawn: Given enough RAM, no. On older machines without hardware acceleration it's a little bit slower. On new machines with hardware acceleration, it could actually be faster because a modern operating systems can cache parts of the HDD in memory, which speeds up Windows XP.

phihag 2009-01-07 16:24:02

RSlaughter - 2GB is too low. You should be looking at at least 4GB for a development machine and, given the price of RAM, there's no reason not to. That will free up 2GB for your virtual machine and 2GB for the host.

Mark Brittingham 2009-01-07 16:57:24

i still doubt it. and what about network issues with trying to use it as a server. pretty annoying if you ask me. theres just something about the noticeable tiny lag when typing in a VM that makes me just unable to use it

Shawn Simon 2009-01-08 04:51:43

Agreed - I created a "Developemnt" VM with Windows, and all my dev tools. I then archived this and made it read only.When I need to do some developement, I make a copy of the VM, and use it.This means I can always create a new, clean, VM whenever I need.

revs 2009-01-08 11:26:20

I just built myself a new home dev machine with 8GB ram and a quad core Phenom for a relatively small outlay. Installed 64bit ubuntu on it and used VirtualBox for virtualising the Windows apps I need. Works like a charm, and VirtualBox "seamless mode" makes the windows apps behave like Gnome ones!

Paul Dixon 2009-01-08 11:29:02

Doesn't this only apply to software only applications, or ones that have minimal hardware interaction? I've yet to find a VM that would do adequate Direct3D processing, or interact with non standard hardware (i.e. AD converter card).

bsruth 2009-02-10 20:49:39

VM providers are starting to address the GPU virtualisation issue; e.g VMWare's Fusion and I believe an ability to use host OpenGL resource has been demoed for VirtualBox too.

timday 2009-02-10 20:57:46

@bsruth You can passthrough USB devices and with a more sophisticated VM application (Xen, KVM) PCI passthrough is possible, too. As timday said, 3D support is becoming a standard feature

phihag 2009-02-10 22:43:08

@RSlaughter 2GB of ram is way too little for a VM, even for development in general.... especially with 4GB of good quality DDR2 ram costing only around 45 dollars these days.

TM 2009-05-21 03:51:41

+18 A:

I run JKDefrag as my screensaver. The homepage looks ghetto but its the best.

I also use CCleaner to cleanup the registry and old temp files.

Advanced System Care has some great free features for optimizing.

nCleaner is nice too.

MalwareBytes is good to run now and then in conjunction with SpyBot.

I also use FoxIt instead of Adobe Reader to cut down on bloat.

Echostorm 2009-01-07 14:56:59

Thanks for the JKDefrag tip!

Ferruccio 2009-01-07 15:47:08

I'm dying of curiosity as to why I got voted down

Echostorm 2009-01-07 16:15:00

@Echostorm: Recommending frequent defrags would be my top reason. But if you really watch your downvotes that much with baited breath, you are in for a lot of heartbreak.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 16:50:50

What would be your beef with frequent defrags if they're running when you're away? I don't sweat downvotes much but I follow questions for awhile after I answer and thought this was one of my safer answers. I was more shocked than anything.

Echostorm 2009-01-07 16:53:31

@Echostorm: If you 'need' to defrag more than once every two years on a dev machine you have issues far beyond fragmentation. This will not give you any performance improvement at all, and if anything is just adding 'bloat'.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 16:55:52

@Rich: I'm a bit taken aback by what you're saying bud. Maybe I put my box through more than you do but I'm terribly interested either way. Do you have a link or can you elaborate? How can defragging cause bloat? Do you keep your dev box pretty barren?

Echostorm 2009-01-07 17:00:08

@Echostorm: Defragging doesn't /cause/ bloat. You are essentially doing nothing with your constant defragging. However, I don't have JKDefrag running on my machine, you do. Therefore by it's very essence your machine has bloat that mine does not.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 17:09:10

Rich -- he's running the defragger as his screensaver. You know, instead of drawing a maze of fancy pipes. It's started when he _doesnt_ use his computer. If that is your definition of bloat, I assume you delete all default wallpapers and screensavers, themes and sounds in windows?

gnud 2009-01-08 12:00:05

A daily defrag with JKDefrag hardly takes any time, and hardly moves anything around. Little and often is definitely best here.

slim 2009-01-15 13:09:11

+3 A:

Have you considered closing all programs that you're not using, including IM programs, extra tabs in the browser, etc?

I made a new user on my windows xp machine with nothing except the IDE and the manual on the desktop, and it improved the speed of the machine a lot.

Consider using google chrome for web browsing instead of Firefox if you want to save resources, its a lot more lightweight than FF.

Tweak the settings of your IDE to tone down features which might be helpful but which you don't use as much.

Click Upvote 2009-01-07 14:57:01

+6 A:

I have kept Windows XP machines running for several years, with no real problems.

Here's the maintenance that I've found useful:

1 - A boot time defragmenter

2 - Regular defrags of my disks

3 - If possible, keep two drives, one as a "boot" disk, one as an "applications / documents" disk

4 - Run a registry cleaner every 6 months or so

5 - Run spybot every month or so

6 - Be vigilant about un-installing applications that I don't use any more

7 - Every once in a while, manually go through my list of running services and verify that they should be running

JosephStyons 2009-01-07 14:57:17

+2 A:

Hehe - slow computer syndrome.

I actually have a PC with a 1GHz processor and 768MB RAM that is my slow computer for testing. On the principle that if it works OK on that PC it should be OK. However, I digress...

I have a custom toolbar on my taskbar. In it, I keep some shortcuts to batch files that start and stop sets services. If I am not using SQL Server, I can stop all of its services quickly and start them similarly fast later on. As I work on Windows and web applications, I have similar shortcuts for starting and stopping IIS and some other custom services that we use for routing and for engineer scheduling.

Also, I prevent all of the non-essential services from starting in the first place. This has the benefit of speeding up any VPCs I may be using too.

Also, defragment often.

BlackWasp 2009-01-07 14:57:43

+2 A:

I would first disable all startup items you don't need. Run msconfig from the start menu, and go to the startup tab. Disable anything you don't think you need. This will include anything from apple and adobe.

Defrag your computer with a 3rd party tool such as JKDefrag. It not only defrags your files, like the built-in windows one, but also moves all your files to the center of your harddrive so they are easier to retrieve.

Change your virtual memory usage to a static value. Also move it to a hard drive that is seperate from the one your OS is on, if possible. Let me know if you need instructions on how to do this.

I have a startup script that clears out all of the .net temporary folders. They tend to get a little bloated, depending on the type of project you are working on. Keeping this folder as small as possible makes a huge difference.

AaronS 2009-01-07 15:01:39

Changing your virtual memory to a static value is approx the worst advice you could give. The rest is all pretty useless on any modern machine.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:15:36

If you're using virtual memory, you need to buy more memory.

2009-01-07 15:28:13

Remember that the original poster said he was using an old PC that probably doesn't have a lot of ram. Setting virtual memory to a static value prevents windows from dynamically resizing it whenever it wants to, thus creating a lot of unnecessary IO.

AaronS 2009-01-07 17:43:25

@AaronS: Virtual memory does not work the way you think it does. You should never set your virtual memory settings manually.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 17:49:23

Buying more memory should be an especially trivial problem on an old machine. Spend $30 on newegg and you'll have all the memory you can use.

2009-01-07 18:25:08

@belgariontheking: Or you could set your virtual memory up manually and slow your machine down more and then cry about Windows and what a hog it is. You know.. Whatever.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 19:00:36

Do you have a link showing that setting virtual memory manually is a bad thing? Most of the resources I've found point to the opposite.

AaronS 2009-01-07 21:14:38

@AaronS: Assuming you are smarter than Windows is a common theme among many forums and news groups, but it is bad idea. This is common knowledge.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 21:41:37

I'm assuming something that is common knowledge is posted somewhere. Do you have any links that discuss this and shows that it's bad to manually set it? I'm curious to see why it's bad. In a few of my official Microsoft training classes back in the day, manually setting it was recommended.

AaronS 2009-01-08 02:09:44

I would give you a vote up for the msconfig (I have about 50 processes running at max). In my eyes most computers bog down because of the endless stream of useless helper processes.Also disabling services of programs that are not in use can help, but this usually requires a bit of research.

borisCallens 2009-01-15 11:23:53

If your non-static VM swap file ever expands (e.g due to runaway process) AND your disk happens to be badly fragmented at the time, THEN you get a zillion little bits of swap file all over your disk and your big files can't find contiguous space ever again. I set static swap size too.

timday 2009-02-10 21:04:54

+7 A:

Keep the PC dedicated to development. No games. No media players. No email checkers/readers. No IM. It helps to have a second PC I keep nearby for those things, and use Synergy to share a keyboard and mouse between them.
I use the SysInternals AutoRuns tool to pear down unnecessary programs/services from starting up.
Keep the disks defragmented. I have a scheduled task that does this overnight, every day.
Limit the number of running apps. I do my best to focus on one or two tasks at a time, and when I'm done, close the programs rather than minimize them. For example, if I'm doing database work, I'll have my SQL Developer app running, but not VS. Vice-versa for when I'm coding. I also make heavy use of the Quick Lanuch bar for apps like my text editor, Office apps, browser, etc. so the programs are handy without having to keep them running all the time.
I use a VM for trials of new software, freeware, tools, etc., before actually installing them on my PC. If I decide to use the software I'll then install to the PC.

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 15:04:10

No email and IM? That is a bit over the top. If your computer cannot handle at least IM, email, IDE and a music player, it is not worth the silicon it contains.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:14:21

What the hell? I hope you hold your disk defragged... think you meant defragmented!

BeowulfOF 2009-01-07 15:16:46

Rich, I have those apps running on a second PC.

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 15:20:01

@patrick: That is fine for you, but it is ridiculous all the same for anyone else. Get a real primary dev machine and this wouldn't be at all interesting to you.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:21:57

Rich, I can only work with what my employer gives me, so I have to find ways to make due with what I have. Luckily I was able to scrounge an old PC from our QA lab to use as a second machine for admin stuff and keep my dev pc lean and mean.

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 15:24:16

@Patrick: Time for a new employer I would say.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:29:02

Rich, you hiring ;)

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 15:39:35

Explain to your employer how much more productive you would be with a better machine. Of course, that might not be true...

Liam 2009-01-07 15:41:30

@Patrick: Not anyone who wouldn't stand up for themselves and insist on the proper tools to get their job done.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:44:11

Liam, I actually like having multiple machines; more screen real estate, I can run long jobs on the other PC, use it for remote access to other systems while keeping my dev desktop visible. It would be nice to have more modern machines though...

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 15:45:04

@Patrick: How does that allow 'more screen real estate'? Running multiple monitors on a single PC is way more effective than that.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:52:07

To the naysayers of multiple machines, it is actually nice (I have a Windows box and a Linux box at work). And the point isn't that the machine is underpowered, it's that you aren't filling your primary dev machine with junk that will make a bloated mess out of the registry.

Steve S 2009-01-07 16:14:01

An alternative to multiple machines might be a VM for e-mail and similar non-dev tasks.

Steve S 2009-01-07 16:15:58

Rich, PC #1 is a docked laptop w/monitor = 2 screens. PC #2has 1 monitor = 1 screen. All 3 monitors are arranged side by side with Synergy allowing use of single keyboard and mouse. Voila! More screen real estate.

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 16:18:09

@Steve S: "a bloated mess out of the registry"? If you make a mess out of the registry installing outlook and trillian, you really shouldn't be using a computer. Also, why on earth would you be paying attention to your registry? Are you still using Win98 or something?

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 16:52:35

@Patrick: I still don't see how that is more screen real estate. I run three external monitors on my laptop, plus the laptop screen when I am feeling cramped. What advantage would there be to having an external machine?

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 16:53:36

Rich, not everyone has a laptop that can run three external monitors. I'm making due with what I have. Without the second PC I'd only have two screens. Plus with the second PC I can off-load long running tasks and not use all my meager laptop's resources.

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 17:17:48

@Patrick: Any laptop can run three monitors, I certainly have nothing special as far as laptops, but the point is the same, one properly set up computer is more productive than two.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 17:24:08

Rich, how can I run three monitors off my laptop?

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 17:27:31

@Patrick: I use this (triplehead2go): http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/ There might be better alternatives now, I haven't looked much.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 17:32:20

Thanks Rich, that looks useful :)

Patrick Cuff 2009-01-07 17:36:25

@Patrick: I think it was <300 bucks when I bought it a few years ago.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 17:45:05

@Rich: Updates for applications get installed over time; not every app cleans up after itself. And Whether it's the registry's fault or not, WinXP machines STILL slow down with time and use (hence the original question).

Steve S 2009-01-07 18:07:14

@Steve S: If you are installing and uninstalling enough bad apps on your dev to 'slow it down with time' then you are doing something drastically wrong. The problem is definitely not XP, it is a PEBKAC issue.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 18:10:12

@Rich: Take it easy. It's not like I go out and grab BonziBuddy or anything. Even without adding new apps, updates (to commonly used apps) and continual use just seem to wear over time. There are ways to mitigate this, but very few users have the luxury of avoiding ANY system changes for a year.

Steve S 2009-01-07 18:22:50

@Steve S: What you are saying is not true at all though, you are trying to pose your specific user caused problems as Windows problems. Many people use Windows everyday for regular work and dev work and never have these issues. So I invite you to examine your behavior instead of blaming Windows.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 18:27:21

@Rich: I'm sorry. I do not mean to attack Windows. I find that many users do see an eventual slowdown. In most cases it's not a big deal and the machine is still very usable. In a few cases (almost always caused by the user, as you claim) it is a hindrance.

Steve S 2009-01-07 18:41:12

@Steve S: Yes, and many users also regularly download malware. Lowest common denominator and such...

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 18:46:47

+1 for the Synergy recommendation.

jammus 2009-01-08 11:39:30

+4 A:

I personally don't find that my computer has any noticable slowdowns that accumulate over the years. Just try to resist installing every piece of software under the sun. Just install what you need to get the work done. If you need to test out certain software that you don't plan on keeping around, just install it on a virtual machine so it doesn't clog up your actual computer.

Kibbee 2009-01-07 15:06:56

Solid advice. Knowing how to use a computer is really paramount here...

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 15:12:10

What about updates? What about changing requirements?

Steve S 2009-01-07 18:11:54

@Steve S: Are you suggesting updates are causing your computer to slowdown? Please provide an example of an update that causes the issues you are describing.

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 18:29:05

@Rich: No one update (and not Windows updates). Just cumulative software updates.

Steve S 2009-01-07 18:40:41

@Rich: Actually, drivers can be a big culprit. But of course, if it ain't broke... ...but unfortunately, sometimes drivers are broken.

Steve S 2009-01-07 18:42:46

@Steve S: That doesn't make any sense. How are driver updates (or any updates for that matter) causing your computer to regularly slow down with time?

Geoffrey Chetwood 2009-01-07 18:47:50

+1 A:

I keep one PC dedicated to development work. I don't install anything not related to development on it. I defragment the hard drives on it every few months (using PerfectDisk) and haven't had to nuke it for over a year now, everything still runs great.

All my personal stuff, word processing, email, etc. is done on a Mac Mini. I've had that for a year and a half now. Installed and uninstalled all sorts of stuff on it. Just installed Leopard on it (upgrade, not fresh install). Still seems highly responsive.

Ferruccio 2009-01-07 15:15:51

+1 A:

I do web programming, so I use a linux box to run all servers and scripts. So I kept my Windows computer only for development, and test stuff directly from Linux box.

That way worked better for me also using mac as the developer machine. So when the Linux box gets slow I just backup databases and servers configurations and reinstall. That's the best way I found.

Of course, this is not a good configuration for desktop development.

Leandro Ardissone 2009-01-07 15:27:08

+2 A:

Here is another approach to consider. I do not run anything in my development environment that may corrupt or infect it. No email, no web browsing except for testing the site under development, no non-development apps - nothing. If you think about it, it is crazy to do otherwise - do you really want to risk building an app in an infected environment and then distribute your (now infected) application or site to hundreds or thousands of other people?

To do this I create a virtual machine and then completely configure my development environment and tools before saving it to an external hard drive. If it ever slows down, I'll be able to just replace it (source code shouldn't be an issue if you are using an off-platform repository as I do). Since replacing the dev machine has no impact on email, favorites, app data, etc. due to my policy of running nothing but development apps, it is a very low-time-cost solution. Since I don't run much that could slow it down, I haven't had to replace it yet, either.

Of course, this still leaves open the possibility that the computer running the VM will slow down. For that, you have much excellent advice elsewhere among these answers. Not to mention the fact that, if you ever do have to replace your machine, you'll save the time needed to reconfigure your development tools.

I wanted to recommend this approach because it will solve your problem and because I think it offers significantly enhanced security for your development efforts.

Mark Brittingham 2009-01-07 15:48:29

+1 A:

The #1 reason you have a slow computer is disk access. Reduce the changes for it to hit the disk and you'll be fine.

Free up the HD space to at least 30% free, then defrag. HD's that are full fragment more and become slow.
Open up "msconfig" and remove EVERYTHING that you don't know you need, i know, this sounds extreme. but 90% of the time you won't break anything or miss what you removed. Go to the services tab and do the same thing for "None microsoft" services.
Don't use Outlook. This was surprising to me, Outlook on my machine was a huge resource hog, I've switched to Thunderbird and found my machine and especially my email much faster now.
If you have less then 2g on XP, or 4g with vista, get more memory. It's cheap.

Jon Clegg 2009-01-07 16:29:32

+2 A:

Not sure if the virtualized windows is a realistic solution for you, but I have to support phihag's suggestion.

I always assumed that virtualized hosts would be slower than physical, and in some cases that has been proven out. However, I recently started switching my development environment (my laptop) to Linux, but I still had some Windows dependencies. I installed VMware WorkStation 6 on Ubuntu (Hardy) and I was astonished how fast my Windows XP guest was.

It starts up (and shuts down) way faster than my physicals do.
The usability is excellent and all the apps are very responsive.
Any time I install new software, I always take a snapshot before hand.
The allocated C: drive is always as big as I need it and no bigger. I can resize it whenever I want. I do use a shared directory to the Linux file system mapped to my D: drive which is obviously huge, but a lot of MS software requires the C: drive.
The memory allocation to the guest is ridiculously low (256 M most of the time, sometimes I need a bit more).
The graphical presentation is excellent. If I full screen the guest, you would never know this was actually a Linux laptop.
USB devices and stuff works fine. So does iTunes (my most serious Windows dependency).
There is an option to hide the desktop and simply run windows apps seamlessly on the Linux desktop so simultaneous development on Linux and Windows works quite nicely.

So it was $189, but it was worth every penny. I have also heard good things about VirtualBox but have not tried it.

Nicholas 2009-01-07 16:42:01

I second this post, and can say that VirtualBox if fast, in my experience faster than VMWare, though it lacks the "unity" feature. Comes in two versions open-source (no usb support) PUEL with usb support. Given the advances of 2.1 i think its worth a look...(and its free as in beer)

ethyreal 2009-01-07 16:53:37

Use dual boot and dedicate one OS purely for the development (my scenario uses Windows Server 2008 for that).

Media, movies, games, office apps etc should be used in non-dev OS only.

This will keep the development environment as lean as possible.

Rinat Abdullin 2009-01-07 17:53:52

+2 A:

Don't use antivirus, or at least turn off live scanning but keep your scheduled daily scan.

weiran 2009-01-13 14:52:09

I cannot recommend that. Better turn of on-the-fly-scanning for reads, and make sure it is enabled for all writes. An additional periodic scan is a good idea, too. Turning off scan-on-read avoids 90% of the performance penalty that comes with on-demand-scanning, and keeps the shield up since new stuff must be written to disk at some point before it can be read :)

TheBlastOne 2010-08-18 13:40:00

+1 A:

Installing/uninstalling software clutters the system over time. I'm using revouninstaller now to remove programs. It also removes all leftover registry keys and directories/files.

2009-02-08 12:21:29

Keep all your important files on a separate internal HD.

I use a Raptor 74Gb for my OS and a cheap 400Gb for my files.

Bite the bullet and reformat every 6 months.

Really forces you to keep a clean system.

KevBurnsJr 2009-02-10 20:18:09

Even though I wasn't looking for the "reformat" answer: Good point about keeping important files in a designated area.

Ola Eldøy 2009-02-11 08:24:48

I installed an Mtron SSD in tandem with my Raptors: SSD for source files. What a difference this makes.

GregC 2009-05-21 05:08:37

My development machine got broken after half of the year so the problem was easily solved by buying a new one.

A good practice is to install the software you need and then make a snapshot of the system partition (partition image). After a long time you find it refreshing just to recover from the image, spend under an hour restoring your settings for a few apps and your favourite wallpaper and then just enjoy the virgin system environment. :)

I realize it may not be suitable for all cases, but for me it works. This solution addresses the problem with the minimum of efforts.

User 2009-02-10 20:26:35

I use Hyper-V and do my development on a VM. This has the added benefit of letting me debug on different OS's (Windows and Linux), including both 32- and 64-bit versions, and hardware configurations - boxes with little memory, or no disk, or a low bandwidth NIC. I can even snap a user's disk to an image and reproduce it right on my dev box.

Hyper-V doesn't have to emulate I/O either (at least for most OS's), so it's really fast.

fatcat1111 2009-02-10 20:40:55

+1 A:

When using Visual Studio 2005 there is a trick that keeps them from slowing down:

Go to %HOMEPATH%\Local Settings\ApplicationData\Microsoft\WebSiteCache
Check if there is a huge amount of sub directories (I once had 10,000 of them!!!)
If so: remove them
Remove all permissions from the WebSiteCache directory

After that everything works fine and VS2005 should start faster

rstevens 2009-02-10 20:57:11

I found 30K directories on mine. Microsoft Connect promises this to be fixed in VS2008.

GregC 2009-05-21 05:07:21

When I switched from VS2005 to VS2008 i just left my WebSiteCache directory with no permissions. So I can't confirm if the bug is really fixed in VS2008 :-)

rstevens 2009-05-21 08:25:27

It's vaguely related...

I try to set clr.microsoft.com and rad.msn.com to resolve to 0.0.0.0 in my hosts file. This keeps Visual Studio and Live Messenger from going to slow servers.

GregC 2009-05-21 03:35:24

+1 A:

I try to not get viruses or spyware. My machines never have really slowed down. A lot of slow down is caused by user error.

Gromer 2009-05-21 03:42:15

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

How do you keep your Windows development machine from slowing down?

related questions