[narshe]

I understand the complexity issue, and how large corps deal with that stuff... There are other ways you can chunk that stuff up though. Maybe you don't have a choice.

I don't think you can fault Visual Studio for not handling that many projects well.

[spongle]

Agree but we don't have much of a choice. The cost and risk associated with cleaning it up is actually more expensive than leaving it.

Visual Studio would do fine if it was a 64-bit binary. The memory ceiling of 32-bit processes is the problem. People have been calling for 64-bit Visual Studio for a long time.

That is their fault.

[narshe]

Yes, 64 bit would be nice. There are a lot of complexities that go along with that though. No plugins would work. There is a reason that browsers aren't 64 bit and flash will never be updated to 64 bit.

It's possible, just a ton of work, and everyone will have to come along. This was a huge issue with Vista. MS introduces a new way of doing thing, and all the software vendors don't update their drivers to work with it, and now it's MS's fault for having a crappy OS. They will need to make the transition at some point, and the sooner the better IMO.

So I agree with you, but someone on your project should have started refactoring before it got out of hand. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, and this happens to most projects at corporations. The business doesn't want to pay for something that doesn't make them money. What they never realize is how much money it will save them down the road. One team I was on built in 1/4 of our sprint time dedicated to refactoring things. It was just a part of the business cost so they didn't have to know or worry about it. It worked pretty well for the most part.