I suggest you ...

Create x64 version of Visual Studio

I have to load some huge projects that would benefit of using access to full available RAM

1,334 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    amselemamselem shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • JonathanJonathan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        So here in 2015 I still get "Design view is unavailable for x64 and ARM target platforms."

        Fact: Most developers are developing in x64.
        Fact: They HATE having to change their configuration JUST TO MAKE A SMALL GUI CHANGE
        Fact: Microsoft is refusing to do what it takes to solve this problem for their users. They just say "we don't want to do it" and they don't, because they can just do that. They can look us poor developers square in the eyes and say "What are you going to do? Write code in C++ in another IDE?" then laugh at us from behind their fortress of cash.

      • FartFaceFartFace commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        @rrinaldi that was over 3 years ago now.

        it'd be nice to get a x64 build since the entire industry has made pretty big steps in that direction since that article was written.

      • Jon MillerJon Miller commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        One reason I would like a 64-bit version of Visual Studio is to support the editing of large XML files. I had a ~400 MB file that I wasn't able to load the other day. When Visual Studio attempts to load it, it consumes a lot more than just 400 MB. It would be great if Visual Studio were able to page the data in as necessary. I'm guessing this is pretty much impossible though, due, to the fact that the file needs to be parsed. It's too bad that Visual Studio isn't 100% implemented in .NET. If it were, I would assume it would be easier to run as 64-bit. Of course, it would probably consume more RAM that way as well.

      • Rob AinscoughRob Ainscough commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate


        So is Microsoft admitting that their development tools are only for small to medium sized projects? So for larger projects that can't be "split" (and should not be split), my options are.... ?? elsewhere?

        Is that really a revenue source and positive exposure Microsoft don't want? I have a hard time understanding that.

        I can understand the need to improve the performance of VS 11 as VS 10 is at some situations unusable because of it's performance problems (especially loading XAML in the designer) ... but I don't understand how opening up more addressable RAM would not benefit VS 11 both at a performance level and at a project/solution size level?

        Can we be provided with the statistical data that demonstrates "most of our users would not see a direct performance or reliability benefit...". The developer community I work/operate in, every single one of my developers would benefit from a x64 VS 11 native application. I don't think my situation is unique ... standard business applications that grow over time incorporating and joining related global aspects of business operations. I certainly doubt what we do as being a minority.


      • Visual Studio TeamAdminVisual Studio Team (Product Team, Microsoft) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Thanks to everybody for the suggestion and related comments. We are committed to improving the overall performance and reliability of Visual Studio and understand that improving memory utilization is a key component to meeting your expectations here.

        After reviewing telemetry on memory utilization, the scale of typical data sets loaded in Visual Studio, and hardware trends across our user base, we determined that one of the most effective ways to improve memory utilization across our entire user based would be to directly focus our efforts on overall memory reduction and improving scalability of key pieces of the product working with large data sets. While creating an x64 version of Visual Studio would unlock a virtually unlimited amount of memory to the Visual Studio process, most of our users would not see a direct performance or reliability benefit from this change alone. (For a more detailed explanation of some of the trade-offs here, see the link @rrinaldi has provided below, written by one of our former architects - Rico Mariani).

        I’d like to encourage you to download and try out the currently released Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview, which contains a large number of the changes we’ve designed to reduce the amount of memory consumed by Visual Studio, and also improve performance and scalability for specific actions that work with large data sets (Solution Build, for example). If you load and work with your large projects using the VS11 Developer Preview, you should see an improvement in memory utilization. We plan to continue with this approach of reducing overall resource utilization for the remainder of the product cycle, and will not be investing in an x64 version of Visual Studio at this time.

        If you have any other thoughts or concerns, or if you are not seeing improvements with the VS11 Developer Preview, please do let us know. We are continuing to invest here, and need your feedback to ensure we are investing in the right areas.

        Nathan Halstead
        Visual Studio Program Manager

      • Jan RiegerJan Rieger commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        My biggest problem with the x86 IDE are the designers: We are developing and compiling for 64 Bit. Mostly even c# projects have to be compiled specially for x64.

        But: the designer for windows forms is not able to load and display user controls from these assemblies! So the designer is useless for us.

      • lostlost commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        It works pretty good in Wow64. Large solutions should be splitted into lesser ones, otherwise you get a mess in developer heads.

      • Oha OohOha Ooh commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        VS alone uses more RAM than it would need to, but it gets really messy when you install ReSharper. Then it would really be great to have a 64-bit version.

        @Dmitri: No, /largeaddressaware only enables use of 3GB of user mode address space if your 32-bit Windows is booted with /3GB or 4GB of user mode address space on 64-bit Windows.

      • freeflyfreefly commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Please change the settings to x64 platform as default, when visual studio is installed on a 64bit machine !!!!

      • JaredParJaredPar commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        @Jon, there is already an x64 version of the debugger. It comes into play whenever you debug a managed application which is running as a 64 bit process. It sounds though like you're asking for ENC in 64 bit. If so take a look at this more specific user voice request


      • Jon DavisJon Davis commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        x64 version of the .NET debugger! Bigger benefit in my opinion is EnC support working by default without having to switch the project over to x86!!

      Feedback and Knowledge Base