I suggest you ...

Make the installation of Visual Studio light-weight and fast

What?
Installing Visual Studio takes too long

Why?
There's a lot of stuff that the VS installer installs that I probably never is going to use.

Proposal:
Make modules and packages install when needed. The Office-install has had this option for ages, where you can deceide whether you want to install a feature a) now, b) when needed, or c) never. That way the basic install will probably be a lot faster and it will take up less space on our drives (how many terabytes of never-used-features do you think VS is accumulating worldwide?).

I belive you already have the package system to handle this (nuget), so eat some of your own dogfood and show us that the package system can handle app installs as well :)

1,999 votes
Vote
Sign in
(thinking…)
Password icon
Signed in as (Sign out)
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Kjetil Klaussen shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

We’re delighted to say that Visual Studio 2017 is now released, including a completely revamped installer in response to this and other feedback. The smallest installation of Visual Studio is one-tenth the size of previous versions and takes on average just three minutes to install. Build-to-build upgrades take just a minute or two. You can select a workload of your choice – we won’t install things that you’re not going to use.

To the proposal, we support in-product acquisition of components on demand. You can just hit Ctrl+Q (quick launch), type the feature you want, and we’ll take you straight into an installation experience for that feature.

Thanks for the great feature request – we hope you like Visual Studio 2017! Download it from http://visualstudio.com.

116 comments

Sign in
(thinking…)
Password icon
Signed in as (Sign out)
Submitting...
  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Yes! Please make it more modular!
    I have a VS2013 Ultimate license from my university, and I like some of the extra features, but most of them are useless to me. For example, I don't need Azure, Silverlight, Team Foundation, LightSwitch, and a lot of other components.
    I have a laptop with a 70GB SSD, VS2013 needs about 10GB...

    As a workaround, I can recommend this application: https://totaluninstaller.codeplex.com/

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Yes! Please make it more modular!
    I have a VS2013 Ultimate license from my university, and I like some of the extra features, but most of them are useless to me. For example, I don't need Azure, Silverlight, Team Foundation, LightSwitch, and a lot of other components.
    I have a laptop with a 70GB SSD, VS2013 needs about 10GB...

    As a workaround, I can recommend this application: https://totaluninstaller.codeplex.com/

  • Noel Abrahams commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Why is the VS installer installing language packs in French, Italian other languages? I only want English.

    Waiting 2 hours for an install is absurd.

  • Gerdi Bot commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Please add this. Its such a heavy install. It still includes redistributables for 2005 x86 even though i am on a x64 machine. Now i am sure there are edge cases to have this, but not for what i am doing. And why does it insists to install blend?! I think alot of people are getting to the point where they can feel this product is becoming blotted and heavy. The alternatives of webstorm (who might i add create reshaper , which a lot of those features should be in the IDE by default considering some people pay + $1000 for it )

  • Scott commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I have noticed the exponential increase in file size of Visual Studio installers since 2005. Even recently, I have witnessed ~1 GB increase in file size of Visual Studio Express 2013 installer with the inclusion of Update 2. It's unreasonable to waste bandwidth, time and disk space downloading components that will be of no use to my projects.

    As such, I believe it would be more reasonable if Microsoft will allow the selection of components that one wishes to include in the installer before download. Like this:

    =====================================
    Select components to include in the installer:
    [/] Core installation files (required)
    [ ] Windows phone 8.1 SDK
    [ ] Silverlight
    [ ] SQL
    [ ] ...
    [ ] ...

    File size: 1.2 GB

    [Download now]

    =====================================

  • Petr Vones commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I wish I could get rid of the NuGet at all. It is not acceptable to have a build server to download something from somewhere without any control of that. Especially when an unsigned powershell script is downloaded and executed. The nuget site might be offline, corrupted, compromised etc. Also I don't need tons of target verions of single library (for example log4net 1.1 to 4.0), I just need the exact one.

    As for disk space, it would be much better if Visual Studio provided customizatoin of what to install (like older versions did) instead of almost no option that installs 8 GB of **** without any control of that.

    Having small base framework install and optional high level libraries downloads that are being updated every month might bring "faster release cycle" but from developer's point of view it is rather disaster. It also means end of meaningful documentation and examples.

  • Hannes Kochniß commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Simply speaking: load Vs with VMMap, see all those not immediatly used stuff (F#, Marketing SDK, etc.) you load, and imagine what a better world this would be with true lazy loading of components with their optionmenus etc., also reconsider your awefull probably-somehow-still-partly-COM-based extension system which doesn't seem to have diagnostics to pinpoint bad extensions/addons, and you know what a bloated mess VS is right now. I blame the architect(s) (if there is/are any), modularity is a must in any superbig product like VS.
    In the end, VS should have a loadtime similar to /safemode, where it much more acts like SublimeText 2(not 3 though), loading into a file in 3 seconds on a SSD. That just shows how rotten/interlocked/nonmodular/nonasync/COM-based/outdated the extension and addon core system is. Please fix (and I know it's a LOT of work and may break backward compat, but you could provide a "new API" extensions could hook into).

  • Rudi Larno commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I wish I could edit the item to replace the 'getting from source control' (2011) to using Package Restore (2013), either from an online repo such as nuget.org or myget.org, or having a NuGet server build on top of source control.

    Note: I still see value in storing a version of packages in your source control for an enterprisey project.

  • Adeel commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Visual Studio team this^ OR...

    We have VS, OneNote, Word and WordPad. Please blend then together, make combinations, pick the lightest variant, and call it Notepad. Please develop a newer version of Notepad with tabbing, multiple clipboard and history support, then gift it to Windows Team... and don't worry, Terry Myerson won't frown..

    @Windows Team, Revamping of notepad with aforementioned features, revamping classic calculator and system clock with more skins! would be a welcoming change in the next release.. :)

    Thanks.

  • Jeff Relf commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Amen, I don't want to wait hours for Visual Studio to install 17 giga-bytes of **** I DO NOT WANT on my tiny SSD. I want the text editor, my extensions/macros, the compiler/linker, and little else. No SQL ****, etc. ! ! !

  • anon commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Please post / blog about the usage stats for the different VS shipped tools. The editor, compiler, linker and debugger will likely be 85% of the tools used. Some of the rarely used tools could be put into an install on demand add-on.

  • Joel Miranda commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I concur. For example, I have a VS 10 Pro licence, but often write code with the express edition because it's simpler and more comfortable (VS pro still has some features I cannot do without).

  • Justin Chase commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    The visual studio installer should basically just drop a totally bare bones version of visual studio down in a user folder (not in programs files). It should take seconds to download and a couple more seconds to install. Not this giant monolothic beast we have today full of features I will never use and wish weren't there taking up my time and adding to my confusion.

    After installation, pop up the extension dialog and allow me to pick the features I want ala-carte, which will then be downloaded separately. For example, I will never use VB, I don't want it in VS at all. Make each language a separate optional feature. Getting C#, for example, would just give you Console and Class Library project types by default. If you want to make WPF apps, the templates for that would be available in a separate extension.

    Also forbid any extensions to be shipped that aren't .vsix's. msi installers that are half a gig, take 20 minutes to install, require admin privs, require VS to be closed during installation and pop up console windows in the background, (windows phone SDK's I'm looking at you) are not acceptable. Make the emulators lighter weight and faster to install!

    While you're at it make VS free and charge for each feature separately (or not, for most hopefully). Allow 3rd party extension makers to do the same. Since you're shipping each feature separately, do it on their own time tables, not in one epic annual drop full of surprises. Allow a user to log into VS with their microsoft account and keep track of all of the licenses they have purchased for extensions. Allow a user to have preconfigured feature sets so after they install VS clean they can easily get all of the extensions they want in a single click.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Yes, I agree, microsoft binding too many stuff is very bad. now microsoft can't maintain so many stuff. so many version .net framework, x386, winrt, just shocking for microsoft guys.
    today, microsft's elephant can't dance now.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I Agree this very much,
    VS is too big to install it, take too long to install it, take too long to run it. need too many memory to run it. Too many functions we needn't it. if make it modular then will be better.

  • Chris Beach commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agreed, but care must be taken that in making it modular you don't 'loose' features. Its all right for the old hands...but new comers might not realise what the product can do.

    Installation seems like the best time for most of this.

Feedback and Knowledge Base