Bring Back the Visual Studio Installation Customization Options
We'd like to have all of the options back to customize Visual Studio. We'd probably like to have more granular installation customization, but at the very least, let us customize the installation.
We’ve added customization back in to the installation, so I’m going to close this item out.
Doug Turnure – Visual Studio PM
I once heard this saying: "A missing option is a bug." Win10 is a bug, because there are missing many more options in the startmenue. But this is another story.
I don't need SQL Server. But why do I have to install it????
Can't believe there's no customization in the installer. What were they thinking !?
Over 3GB for the Express Version with tons of added stuff and interdependencies that easily break and cannot be fully removed from your system! This is not the stuff for hobby or first-time programmers. Microsoft, what were you thinking?! Once Studio's footprint returns to <1GB, I'll give it another go.
This was one of the dumbest ideas Microsoft has come up with! Don't make me install what I don't need, use, nor what! Now I got all this extra cramp...WTF.
Can't find it either in VS for Windows Desktop Express!
really? Where is it?
Sorry, but if only 10% use customized install, this is enough reason to offer that!
Especially business installations need to limit vs installs
I downloaded VS 2012 Express and tried to install. After 20 minutes, I cancelled the installation. I actually just wanted to install VC++ and I don't care about C#, VB, SQL and so on. Later, I run a VC++ 2008 Express Installation and it is installed within 5 minutes. Even VC++ 2010 Express installation also can be installed within 8 minutes.
It is really take too long to install VS 2012 Express. The first impression is not really that good. I don't even want to install it.
New suggestion for installation customization options:
The only responses from the VS team on language options have been fairly evasive. I believe this points to a decision made from on high by non-technical folks. If there were a good, technical requirement for it they would make it plainly known.
This to me is very similar to the conversation involving "ALL CAPS" menus (that doens't bug me at all, incidentally) where we get some hand-waving explanation in a blog post while others find usability studies conducted by Microsoft that show the opposite of the information being presented.
See also: The fact that Visual Studio Express for Desktop is even a thing. What reason is there for not planning for something like this beginning? There has been no technical reason made available.
I really love the tools Microsoft is making, but the total lack of transparency on some of the most puzzling decisions is really worrying to me for future projects and tools. I've heard horror stories about the management/decision structure in Redmond and I feel like a lot of what I pointed out above is just the tip of the iceberg that we are getting to see.
Why would options (languages, SQL Server, etc.) that worked fine in VS 2010 even be removed or touched in the first place?? I know forcing VS to have a Metro look was mandated from on high, was forcing all languages to be installed also mandated??
There's a post at the Visual Studio blog regarding this very topic: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/visualstudio/archive/2012/06/04/setup-improvements-for-visual-studio.aspx
Pent Ploompuu commented
The customization options in the RC are not even close to VS 2010. With all checkboxes unchecked, it still installs some 22 programs of which maybe 4 or 5 are actually required (can't know for sure, cause the names are very cryptic). And then there are all these VS components that I've not asked for like VC, VB.NET, F#, dotfuscator...
Andrew McDonald commented
I agree with Heath, the RC changes aren't enough. I unticked all optional components and still ended up with a huge list of stuff for SQL Server etc. in Programs and Features:
Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Multi-Targeting Pack (I don't do any .NET stuff)
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Command Line Utilities
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Data-Tier App Framework
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Data-Tier App Framework (duplicate entry)
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Express LocalDB
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Management Objects
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Management Objects (x64)
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Native Client
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Transact-SQL Compiler Service
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Transact-SQL ScriptDom
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 T-SQL Language Service
Microsoft SQL Server Data Tools - enu (11.1.20424.00)
Microsoft SQL Server Data Tools Build Utilities - enu (11.1.20425.00)
Microsoft SQL Server System CLR Types
Microsoft SQL Server System CLR Types (x64)
Microsoft System CLR Types for SQL Server 2012
Microsoft System CLR Types for SQL Server 2012 (x64)
Microsoft Web Deploy dbSqlPackage Provider - enu
Prerequisites for SSDT
SQL Server Data Framework Tools - enu
WCF RIA Services V1.0 SP2
I don't need SQL Server, except the Compact edition for VS Intellisense - why is all that installed automatically? And why does that WCF thing merit a Start menu folder filled with nothing but web links and a EULA? Microsoft themselves had to extend the Start menu with things like text search and most-used lists because users' menus were becoming bloated and unwieldy. Stopping the rot at source would be a good start...
I'd hate to be a SQL developer with all that to comprehend anyway. What's the difference between "Microsoft SQL Server System CLR Types" and "Microsoft System CLR Types for SQL Server 2012"? The words mean the same thing! And clearly it would be an order of magnitude cleaner to have just a single entry for "Microsoft SQL Server 2012", featuring all the other options as tickboxes inside the setup program. You know, just like in the good old days!
Futhermore, let's examine the "Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 11.0" folder. With all the optional components unticked it's shrunk nicely from 2.88 GB at Beta to 1.56 at RC on my machine, but that's still too large.
Personally I'm a C++ programmer, but if I wasn't I'd be annoyed at a useless 933 MB 'VC' folder. And within it there's still 253 MB dedicated to ARM libs I'll probably never need, the same amount for x64 libs I might not need yet, and 40 MB dedicated to ATL libraries I certainly don't want.
Elsewhere, I don't even know what "DIA" stands for, but there's an SDK for it wasting a bit of space. I don't do any .NET work, so no need for "PreEmptive Solutions" (Windows or perhaps even VS Setup actually had the temerity to promote this app into the "most used programs" bit of my Start menu after installation, removing something else I actually used!) And the contents of "Team Tools" seem like they should be individually tickable too.
Now the second elephant, "Common7\IDE". With no .NET intentions, do I really need these "PrivateAssemblies" and "ReferenceAssemblies" folders? They're massive. Weirdly, in the former, SpaceMonger shows me significant amount of space dedicated to a list of American states in some "States_by_County" subfolder. American states, in a programming IDE! There's also "CommonExtensions" and "Extensions". Not sure why there are two, but if they're called "extensions" their contents should be individually optional, not occupying 120 MB of space.
And don't think the "Windows Kits" folder doesn't deserve the same analysis. There are all sorts of folders there for WinRT stuff, Arm, x64, etc. that users might not need.
The customization options provided are very sparse. No option to not install C++, VB.NET? This is somewhat disappointing.
Today I was install RC...
I unselect all the install options and spend half of hour waiting (hispec machine with ssd) for things i don't want to install.
Then they took another hour from my preciouss life for uninstall this whole mess
Dean J. commented
Microsoft will quickly say (especially Somasegar) that Visual Studio is about giving developers the option to create software in whatever platform they choose. Well how about giving those same people the ability to choose which components of VS to install. Pease don't force a full install.
Rudi Larno commented
Yes! Remove the Installation Customization Options and just install the most basic shell, and then do this: http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/2035455-use-nuget-to-install-most-of-the-components
Please! The ASP.NET MVC Team is sort of using this style and it is working great to deliver faster and better support and tooling.
Please bring back customization options. The survey you ran asked us about customization, please don't let our answers be wasted.
Vladimir Rech commented
Please! Bring back install customization! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! Please! (Mother's day causing effects :-p)