VB.Net vs VB6 performance

**The Grim Reaper** · Nov 20 '05, 08:48 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

I've experienced the opposite... things are much faster/smoother with .NET
and Windows Forms.
Granted, upgrading a project from VB6 to .NET creates a slower program, but
after months of painful.. I mean a few minutes of careful upgrading, things
speed up nicely.
Just to compare speeds, I'm on P3 2.6 GHz, 512Mb RAM, XP Professional and
VS.NET 2003. It wouldn't suprise me at all if anyone's had slower
performance on any OS older than Win 2K, or on processors less than 1.5 GHz.
_______________ _______________ ____
The Grim Reaper

"David Schwartz" <dave@hr-symphony.com> wrote in message
news:%23QetLO$T EHA.3660@tk2msf tngp13.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> For those of you who have used both VB6 and VB.Net, how would you say
> performance compares (specifically for Windows Forms apps)? I have found
> that forms display much more slowly in VB.Net. I'm wondering has anyone[/color]
had[color=blue]
> a problem with this, where users and/or managers complain about the slower
> UI?
>
>[/color]

**Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]** · Nov 20 '05, 08:48 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

David,
My experience has been poorly written VB.NET applications perform worse then
well written VB6 applications. On the same token well written VB.NET
applications perform better then poorly written VB6 applications. Further I
find that well written VB.NET applications perform about the same as well
written VB6 applications...

Oh! I find its easier & faster to write well written VB.NET applications,
then it is to write well written VB6 applications. As the framework handles
& offers a lot of things for you, such as global exception handlers and full
OOP.

I have seen reports, but have not really noticed it myself, that the start
up time may be slower for a VB.NET app.

The following articles provide information on writing .NET code that
performs well.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/fastmanagedcode.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/highperfmanagedapps.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/vbnstrcatn.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dv_vstechart/html/vbtchperfopt.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/dotnetperftechs.asp

Hope this helps
Jay

"David Schwartz" <dave@hr-symphony.com> wrote in message
news:%23QetLO$T EHA.3660@tk2msf tngp13.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> For those of you who have used both VB6 and VB.Net, how would you say
> performance compares (specifically for Windows Forms apps)? I have found
> that forms display much more slowly in VB.Net. I'm wondering has anyone[/color]
had[color=blue]
> a problem with this, where users and/or managers complain about the slower
> UI?
>
>[/color]

**Sarah Smith** · Nov 20 '05, 08:48 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

I agree. Windows .Net apps, especially MDI apps with child forms
containing many controls are very slow.

In fact, there is little to compare with VB5/6. They are much faster
when it comes to displaying, and refreshing forms. (and more
reliable). VB.Net can sometimes be so slow on a screen refresh (like
when moving a window) some controls are not redrawn correctly.

I started porting a VB6 client/server app to VB.Net, and used many of
the new graphics features of the controls (labels, buttons, panels
etc), to help make the app more visually pleasing, but also easier to
use, and less ambiguous.

I quickly found that the performance went down like the titanic! - so
I quickly went about removing all of the graphical features I had
added, and set my self a new goal - Make It As Boring As Possible!

I think a more accurate performance test, would be Java GUI apps vs.
VB.Net.

I've also noticed that the performance seems to be better on a
development machine (with visual studio .net installed), than on an
end user machine with only the framework installed.

SS.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:45:31 -0400, "David Schwartz"
<dave@hr-symphony.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>For those of you who have used both VB6 and VB.Net, how would you say
>performance compares (specifically for Windows Forms apps)? I have found
>that forms display much more slowly in VB.Net. I'm wondering has anyone had
>a problem with this, where users and/or managers complain about the slower
>UI?
>[/color]

**Cor Ligthert** · Nov 20 '05, 08:49 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

Hi Sarah,

A nice written message and in my opinon a very good explanation.

However, would there be a stop in software development while the hardware is
going everytime faster and faster.

This had been as well when the graphical monitor started. Using programs for
a 25X80 monitor was much faster. Those programs are hardly used anymore.

Just my thought about this question.

Cor

**David Schwartz** · Nov 20 '05, 08:52 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

Cor, I agree that software development should move ahead as hardware
performance does, but given a mixed user environment (not always using the
latest, fastest hardware), how can you sell management on using VB.Net over
VB6 when forms with a decent number of controls display much more slowly in
..Net?

"Cor Ligthert" <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote in message
news:uTXGPgFUEH A.3332@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi Sarah,
>
> A nice written message and in my opinon a very good explanation.
>
> However, would there be a stop in software development while the hardware[/color]
is[color=blue]
> going everytime faster and faster.
>
> This had been as well when the graphical monitor started. Using programs[/color]
for[color=blue]
> a 25X80 monitor was much faster. Those programs are hardly used anymore.
>
> Just my thought about this question.
>
> Cor
>
>[/color]

**Cor Ligthert** · Nov 20 '05, 08:53 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

Hi David,

You cannot until you show by instance a nice docked form, with some tooltips
on it or whatever, and they start asking you if that can be done in VB6 and
you tell the price for that. Than that is after you. That has always been.

Why is graphics needed Dos is so fast, windows is much slower
Why is a mouse needed my keyboard is fast enough
And you cannot explain, however when you ask the same person now if he will
go back to that Dos screen without is mouse and use Wp51 he ask you if you
are crazy.

This will always stay a problem with development.

A horse needs no petrol, however it it therefore the best overall way to
travel.
(Although there are places where it is probably still the best).

Cor

**Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]** · Nov 20 '05, 08:54 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

* "Cor Ligthert" <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> scripsit:[color=blue]
> You cannot until you show by instance a nice docked form, with some tooltips
> on it or whatever, and they start asking you if that can be done in VB6 and
> you tell the price for that. Than that is after you. That has always been.[/color]

Mhm... In matters of UI, I don't see /very/ big advantages at the
moment. Sure, Unicode support is a nice thing, but for most "little
tools" it's not required at all.
[color=blue]
> Why is graphics needed Dos is so fast, windows is much slower
> Why is a mouse needed my keyboard is fast enough[/color]

LOL!!!

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

**Sarah Smith** · Nov 20 '05, 08:54 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

I don't think your comparison of DOS to Windows is the same at all.

VB.Net and VB6 are basically offering the same thing - Windows apps!

VB.Net, VB6/5/4/3 etc and Delphi and other such dev tools are trying
to offer rapid developement (compared to C/C++) without the much more
steep learning curve of C/C++, yet at the same time, maintain a decent
user experience by way of performance.

The DOS screen and Word perfect 5.1 are the user experience end.

Windows does offer a much better interface for end users. All GUIs do.

But VB.NET seems to offer much more to the developer, than the end
user.

Remember, end users aren't interested in the language the application
was written in, they only care about the speed, the looks and how well
the application functions.

When the speed and looks start to break down, the application starts
to function badly!

SS.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:56:57 +0200, "Cor Ligthert"
<notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hi David,
>
>You cannot until you show by instance a nice docked form, with some tooltips
>on it or whatever, and they start asking you if that can be done in VB6 and
>you tell the price for that. Than that is after you. That has always been.
>
>Why is graphics needed Dos is so fast, windows is much slower
>Why is a mouse needed my keyboard is fast enough
>And you cannot explain, however when you ask the same person now if he will
>go back to that Dos screen without is mouse and use Wp51 he ask you if you
>are crazy.
>
>This will always stay a problem with development.
>
>A horse needs no petrol, however it it therefore the best overall way to
>travel.
>(Although there are places where it is probably still the best).
>
>Cor
>[/color]

**Cor Ligthert** · Nov 20 '05, 08:54 PM

Re: VB.Net vs VB6 performance

[color=blue]
> Remember, end users aren't interested in the language the application
> was written in, they only care about the speed, the looks and how well
> the application functions.
>
> When the speed and looks start to break down, the application starts
> to function badly!
>[/color]
As was often told by the Mainframe people in the 80's when the PC started
to replace the mainframe terminal.

I cannot look in future, however I believe in dotNet and VB.net is for me
only a kind of cement to use that. VB6 cannot use it.

Cor

VB.Net vs VB6 performance

VB.Net vs VB6 performance

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment