If only everyone was as thoughtful as you and listed their system specs when they claimed some modern software was "too slow".
But I dread running MPlabX to test a few lines of code. Over 1 minute to get a blank page, then another minute or so for 'parsing projects' and 'background scanning' that leaves no CPU time left for what I want to do.
But I dread running MPlabX to test a few lines of code. Over 1 minute to get a blank page, then another minute or so for 'parsing projects' and 'background scanning' that leaves no CPU time left for what I want to do.You must be either running on something too ancient to class as a vaguely modern machine,or something is broken or badly configured.
I just tried a a clean+build on MPLABX 4.05 and XC32 on a project that generates 100K of code takes 9 secs on my X220, introduced 5 years ago, which can be had on ebay for £200 or less, with an SSD, maybe £100 tops.
A make with a change to one source file takes under 2 seconds
I just tried a a clean+build on MPLABX 4.05 and XC32 on a project that generates 100K of code takes 9 secs...
A make with a change to one source file takes under 2 seconds
...on my X220, introduced 5 years ago, which can be had on ebay for £200 or less, with an SSD
Just for kicks, it took 17 seconds for me to cold-boot MPLABX and let it finish background scanning of projects.
MPlabX is bloatware, and is slow even on relatively modern hardware. But it's not all Microchip's fault. Users were asking for a Linux version, so they did it the only way they knew how - with Java. Instant performance hit. Of course people noticed, but they had an answer - "Just buy a new PC with 10 times faster CPU and 5 times more RAM!". "What, still too slow? Run it in Linux off an SSD!".
I am currently working on a program written in Borland Turbo C++. The editor is a little clunky and doesn't support the mouse wheel, but apart from that it's amazing! 3 seconds after clicking the project icon I am editing the source code. 1 second to compile and run in the debugger. On an 'ancient' Pentium D CPU with a 'mere' 1GB RAM running 'obsolete' Windows Xp. Heaven!
But I dread running MPlabX to test a few lines of code. Over 1 minute to get a blank page, then another minute or so for 'parsing projects' and 'background scanning' that leaves no CPU time left for what I want to do. Finally it gets to the point where I can start typing in some code, but no! Typing the first character triggers some other process that freezes the cursor for a few seconds. Open a file, change project settings, compile, debug - everything seems to need an annoying amount of time get started. And during all this time MPlabx is sucking up more and more memory - over 500MB to do pretty much the same stuff that MPlab 8.92 does in 150MB. You can't say that isn't bloatware.
I uninstalled Atmel Studio 6 because I kept running out of patience waiting for it to start up. Now Microchip is talking about integrating Atmel parts into MPlabX. Get ready for more bloat!
That 'under £200' computer might cost me over NZ$700 once freight and customs duty was paid, then I would have to spend time setting it up. And it probably won't run Xp so I would have to get used to using an OS that I don't like. Why should I invest that kind of time and money (which I can't afford right now) just to program a $1.50 chip?
If you are fine with using very old OS and hardware, and older software, and it works for you, that's great. But if you want to run modern software, don't complain that a PC made in the last 10 years is necessary.
If you are fine with using very old OS and hardware, and older software, and it works for you, that's great. But if you want to run modern software, don't complain that a PC made in the last 10 years is necessary.
Why?
It's just a fact of life, get over it. There is no reason for a vendor to put in any work to support very obsolete hardware when new hardware is cheap.
I'll add my experience that MPLAB X and IPE are clunkers.
My computer is less than 5 years old. Nothing special, because I don't play games on it or do video editing. icore 5 3GHz win 7 64bit. 4 measly GB RAM. Maybe RAM is the problem?
No. If this thread extracts what exactly is needed to run MPLAB X / netbeans on Windows, maybe that would be the best thing to come out of the thread.
When I am up for the 8 hours of work involved in transferring over to a new system, I would keep those in mind. SSD and 16GB RAM is on my list.
It also seems like icore 7 vs 5 is a big difference, per some of the responses. Maybe more effect than an SSD.
When you have mulltiple projects open , it's not immediately obvious which file belongs to which project -Mouseover the tab shows the path, but it needs to be more obvious to avoid accidentally editing the wrong file, like changing the tab colour for the selected project
OMG how horrible! firstly it is very very super slow apparently due to it's Java base, ...
No problems here, probably because I use Linux. Windows & Java is not a good combination imho.
On Linux, Java runs like a rocket.
Apart from that, the XC compilers can be slow due to the license checking mechanism.
For the XC16 and XC32 compilers this can be easily fixed with a little editing described somewhere else
on this forum. Nice side effect is that you will be able to use higher optimization settings.
MPLAB X must be total bloatware!!