VC++ 6.0 Resource Editor Considered Harmful 
Author Message
 VC++ 6.0 Resource Editor Considered Harmful

Something {*filter*} changed in the resource editor between 5.0 and 6.0.

I have a rather large project with a rather large number of resources.
The
.RC file is about 256K.  None of it is particularly immune to change.
Whenever I edit a dialog resource, speeds on my 128 MB PPro 200
(admittedly skirting obsolescence) become glacial and processor
utilization remains pegged at 100%.  This was never true under 5.0.

It appears I have two choices.  I can continue to endure long waits
while editing dialogs, or I can experience the joy of splitting my
resources into several smaller files, only one of which can take full
advantage of the perks of the VC environment.

--
Curt Hagenlocher



Thu, 17 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 VC++ 6.0 Resource Editor Considered Harmful

Quote:
>Something {*filter*} changed in the resource editor between 5.0 and 6.0.

>I have a rather large project with a rather large number of resources.
>The
>.RC file is about 256K.  None of it is particularly immune to change.
>Whenever I edit a dialog resource, speeds on my 128 MB PPro 200
>(admittedly skirting obsolescence) become glacial and processor
>utilization remains pegged at 100%.  This was never true under 5.0.

>It appears I have two choices.  I can continue to endure long waits
>while editing dialogs, or I can experience the joy of splitting my
>resources into several smaller files, only one of which can take full
>advantage of the perks of the VC environment.

Actually, we had the same problem using 5.0.  Our largest .rc is about 190K
and editting certain dialogs was a painful experience.  Sometimes, though,
the problem would just go away, but most of the time it was there.
Sometimes would have to sit still for 30 seconds or so waiting for the CPU
to get released and whining over-and-over "what the f*** is it doing?"  This
was on a 133 Pentium here at work.  I also saw this happen on my home PC
(which also happens to be a PPro200 with 128MB just like yours) but not
nearly to the same exent as on the 133.  I recently got my work PC upgraded
to a PII 400 before upgrading to VC++ 6.0, so with that speed I can't
comment on whether the problem still exists in 6.0.  (Haven't done any work
at home on our larger projects for a couple of months)


Fri, 18 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Hungarian Notation Can be Considered Harmful (was Re: GCC/G++ vs Other guys)

2. cast considered harmful?

3. break considered harmful

4. strcat() considered harmful

5. Gotos considered harmful (Dijkstra vs. Knuth )

6. Optimization considered harmful

7. Optimization considered harmful

8. EOF considered harmful

9. bitfields considered harmful?

10. C Problem (or, GOTOs considered harmful)

11. Variable Initialisation Considered Harmful ?

12. Mixed prototyping considered harmful

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software