VS2005 SP1, are they kidding?
-
Actually if scroll down here http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbrun/vistasupport.aspx[^] you will find that the mfc42.dll and the old C runtime ships with Vista, while mfc70, mfc71 and mfc80 (as well as newer CRTs) don't. So someone might come to the conclusion that parts of Vista are build with VS6, but not with VS2003, VS2003 or VS2005.
That would be Wordpad. It's not really updated much from Windows XP (though it does call SetProcessDPIAware). There probably are others, but I believe it was their use in Wordpad and in Microsoft Management Console that caused them to be added to Windows File Protection in Windows 2000.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
If you look at the architecture of WPF the underlying part is unmanaged code (MIL, Media Integration Layer), only at the top is managed code. But Microsoft still says the new desktop is build on WPF, in my eyes just to mislead people to make them believe it is build on .NET. I wonder if the native API will ever be exposed of not, maybe they leave all options open for themselves.
The impression I get is that it will all be exposed to unmanaged access but I'm willing to bet that: 1. Tool support will be superior for managed applications. 2. Development will be a lot easier for managed applications.
Kevin
-
ABuenger wrote:
Visual Studio 2005 SP1 will run on Vista but will likely have a few compatibility issues.
That's an oxymoron. It's compatible but it may have issues... I guess it's not that freakin' compatible then, is it?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I don't see what's oxymoronic about it.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
It's compatible but it may have issues...
No, he said it will run but may have [compatibility] issues. VS 2005 runs on XP but has issues, i.e., it's buggy.
Kevin
-
It's freak'in scary when Microsoft's products won't run on Microsoft's OS, that makes me wonder how the hell it is we're all supposed to get our stuff running on the OS without "issues" ... What a comforting feeling ... :~
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTLDouglas Troy wrote:
It's freak'in scary when Microsoft's products won't run on Microsoft's OS
It's happened quite a few times in the past, especially in pre-release stuff.
Kevin
-
It all works (well, seems to)! They're just saying they're not going to take support calls or any proactive measures to fix issues, which is frickin' ridiculous. Likewise for SQL Server 2000. I mean, if they want Vista to fail, a surefire way is to tell developers that their tools won't work. Consequence: the developers don't upgrade to Vista, don't have experience with it, don't write apps which take advantage of Vista's new features, so users have no reason to upgrade.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Mike Dimmick wrote:
It all works (well, seems to)! They're just saying they're not going to take support calls or any proactive measures to fix issues, which is frickin' ridiculous.
A reasonable attitude would be for MS to apply their support cycle policy for applications through any new OS versions. This is usaully about 10 years for full exhaustion. So, for example they should keep applying VS 2003 patches through 2013 (if that's the cycle for VS 2003? Perhaps it isn't?)
Kevin
-
Mike Dimmick wrote:
It all works (well, seems to)! They're just saying they're not going to take support calls or any proactive measures to fix issues, which is frickin' ridiculous.
A reasonable attitude would be for MS to apply their support cycle policy for applications through any new OS versions. This is usaully about 10 years for full exhaustion. So, for example they should keep applying VS 2003 patches through 2013 (if that's the cycle for VS 2003? Perhaps it isn't?)
Kevin
Yes, if they apply the lifecycle policy correctly, Mainstream Support for VS 2003 would end in 2008 and Extended Support in 2013. That's what this page[^] says, anyway. Instead they're effectively ending it a year early for Mainstream Support and 6 years early for Extended Support. If I had a support contract I would be very angry. Well, I'm still very angry, but I don't have anyone to shout at (directly).
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Mike Dimmick wrote:
For 'supported' read 'we won't take support calls'. It does not mean that VS will not run. It will.
If VS2005 has issues under Vista, do you really believe that VS2002 and VS2003 will run just fine?
ABuenger wrote:
If VS2005 has issues under Vista, do you really believe that VS2002 and VS2003 will run just fine?
Probably not, but VS6 is probably fine. They didn't really start buggering up the product line until the .NET versions and managed code. (What ever happened to C, C++ and the large base of existing code? Do they really think that everyone abandons their code every 5 years or so and starts new products written from scratch?) :~
-
"Pending feedback from you on this beta, our plan is to ship the final version in the next 3-4 months." "Visual Studio 2005 SP1 will run on Vista but will likely have a few compatibility issues. We are working with the Vista team to understand those, to provide workarounds where possible and also work on providing you with a set of fixes beyond SP1." "However, we will not support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio .NET 2003 as development environments on Windows Vista." http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx[^]
This means that if we want to continue to be effective developers we will need to own a copy of both visual studio 2003 and whatever they come up with for vista...at least for a few years...then they will probably tell us that they no longer suport any of the old windows and only suport vista :( I hate Microsoft
Pablo Sometimes I think there's no reason to get out of bed . . . then I feel wet, and I realize there is.
-
"Pending feedback from you on this beta, our plan is to ship the final version in the next 3-4 months." "Visual Studio 2005 SP1 will run on Vista but will likely have a few compatibility issues. We are working with the Vista team to understand those, to provide workarounds where possible and also work on providing you with a set of fixes beyond SP1." "However, we will not support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio .NET 2003 as development environments on Windows Vista." http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx[^]
Well, why would I want them to? Would it bother me? No, .NET 2003 on XP Pro works nicely for me (I even reinstalled Studio 6) and I see no reason to upgrade. This whole business seems to be focussed primarily on creating new versions that just require more capacity without adding much, after all, every time a new version comes about we start processing files and the like while we did that 30 years ago allready. Where is the growth in the vertical direction? C'mon industry, stop reinventing the wheel over and over again and making us pay for it, create something that requires less capacity and that provides the blocks that were before and the blocks that were created with the previous version; that would be progress.
-
Mike Dimmick wrote:
For 'supported' read 'we won't take support calls'. It does not mean that VS will not run. It will.
If VS2005 has issues under Vista, do you really believe that VS2002 and VS2003 will run just fine?
Nice of Microsoft to admit that VS 2005 "has some issues under VISTA". Do you think that they will admit that VS2005 has some issues full stop. I have never used a less stable "released" application in my entire life. The entire suite is still beta software on XP, never mind on VISTA. And having to wait another 4 months for the service pack? Makes you want to write JAVA!!
-
ABuenger wrote:
If VS2005 has issues under Vista, do you really believe that VS2002 and VS2003 will run just fine?
Probably not, but VS6 is probably fine. They didn't really start buggering up the product line until the .NET versions and managed code. (What ever happened to C, C++ and the large base of existing code? Do they really think that everyone abandons their code every 5 years or so and starts new products written from scratch?) :~
pwhittemore wrote:
Do they really think that everyone abandons their code every 5 years or so and starts new products written from scratch?
The article Fire and Motion[^] from Joel Spolsky explains it pretty well.
-
It's really starting to look like the inmates are in fact running the asylum.
Somasegar wrote:
Visual Studio 2005 ... provides a first-class development experience for developers.
Anyone who believes that doesn't actually work with it every day. It has first-class features, when they work right, but it definitely has 3rd-class stability.
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
-
Chris Meech wrote:
Where did it say that VS6 would no longer build on Vista?
I don't know wheter or not VS6 will run and build on Vista, but if he says VS2002 and VS2003 isn't supported and he doesn't even mention VS6 I assume they don't even care about. But I don't want to start rumors here. For me personally VS6 + VS2005 would be fine. I also find it interesting that he mentions .NET 1.1 and 2.0 but not 1.0, so I assume that 1.0 applications won't run, or at least they don't care.
VS2003 is working fine on Vista for us. However, the latest Windows SDK will not work with it, so for all intents and purposes it is deprecated for new development. If you want to write for the new APIs (including the Win32 ones) you'll need VS2005. .NET 1.0 and 1.1 should work fine.
Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
"Pending feedback from you on this beta, our plan is to ship the final version in the next 3-4 months." "Visual Studio 2005 SP1 will run on Vista but will likely have a few compatibility issues. We are working with the Vista team to understand those, to provide workarounds where possible and also work on providing you with a set of fixes beyond SP1." "However, we will not support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio .NET 2003 as development environments on Windows Vista." http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx[^]
-
"Pending feedback from you on this beta, our plan is to ship the final version in the next 3-4 months." "Visual Studio 2005 SP1 will run on Vista but will likely have a few compatibility issues. We are working with the Vista team to understand those, to provide workarounds where possible and also work on providing you with a set of fixes beyond SP1." "However, we will not support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio .NET 2003 as development environments on Windows Vista." http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx[^]
Out of curiosity I registered, downloaded and tried to install it. Well, except for the fact the installer eats up 389Mb of memory it does nothing else. No window, Wo CPU activity, nothing.... :confused:
