Well, one example that recently irritated me terribly is the performance of VS2010 - on this laptop I'm using at the moment (which is a perfectly decent machine and runs VS2008 perfectly well) it just doesn't run acceptably. The OS has been rebuilt and just about every tweak possible has been applied - even a quick Google search shows that I'm not the only one having this problem.
Now in the past I've used a lot of different development tools and in those cases there is a loose coupling between things like editors (e.g. emacs, vi) and a particular development platform. Now I rather like VS and C# - but the prospect of buying completely new hardware (work and home) just to make up for deficiencies in Microsoft's tools is driving me crazy.
With .Net you really do have to use Visual Studio - if you don't then you probably have lost 70% of the benefits of the platform. If I was to move (actually move back) to using emacs or something as my main editor I might as well move completely to JavaScript, CouchDB and node.js - which was a direction I was moving in anyway for my own projects.
It's a fair point, but I think that has mainly to do with the developers Microsoft are targeting. Buying new hardware every two years costs next to nothing compared to the salary of developers almost anywhere in the world.
Of course, having to buy hardware isn't a huge problem, but it is just an example of a growing feeling that I've had with using a Microsoft stack - that you are completely dependent on the whims of one supplier and if they do something that causes you grief you really have no choice.
However, I find myself tripping up because I'm using the wrong language's syntax or intricacies of library functions often enough with the portfolio of languages I work with already.
I need to know .Net for work. The idea of adding yet more platforms and more variations on the same theme just to be able to play doesn't appeal.
I have a very ordinary Atom netbook in my desk drawer.
With VS2010 (Express) and SQL Server 2008 (also Express) installed and being happily used periodically. SQL Server is a little slow if you're doing anything very ambitious with it but it's fine for routine work, VS runs as well as anything does on the netbook.
Just a personal opinion but I don't find it unacceptably slow or even noticeably slower than VS2008, which I've also worked with.
I suspect your issue may not be purely with VS2010.
For me VS2008 was a dog and 2010 flies. I have had plugin perf issues though, but the core IDE has had good perf. At least for WPF and Silverlight apps.
FWIW, I find 2010's performance to be about on par with 2008, not that that's saying much. Since it does more, I'm reasonably happy. Maybe it depends on your video card, or your multicore-ness?
Now in the past I've used a lot of different development tools and in those cases there is a loose coupling between things like editors (e.g. emacs, vi) and a particular development platform. Now I rather like VS and C# - but the prospect of buying completely new hardware (work and home) just to make up for deficiencies in Microsoft's tools is driving me crazy.
With .Net you really do have to use Visual Studio - if you don't then you probably have lost 70% of the benefits of the platform. If I was to move (actually move back) to using emacs or something as my main editor I might as well move completely to JavaScript, CouchDB and node.js - which was a direction I was moving in anyway for my own projects.