VS2003 and VS2005
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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 think 2003 will hijack the .sln associations. But beyond that, I've had them working fine alongside.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Funny Love The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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've done it both ways 2005 and 2003 later, and 2003 and 2005 later. Both work fine. When you double click a .sln after installing 2003 after 2005, you get the "Visual Studio Version Selector" it whatever it's called appear to ask you in which app you want to open it. C# files (and what not) do get hi-jacked, but you can restore associations within 2005 if you want to.
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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, 10/26/2001yes
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
I think 2003 will hijack the .sln associations. But beyond that, I've had them working fine alongside.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Funny Love The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
I think 2003 will hijack the .sln associations
I don't know, I think there is some type of version difference there that will make sure the right VS opens the solution.
God Bless, Jason
DavidCrow wrote:
It would not affect me or my family one iota. My wife and I are in charge of when the tv is on, and what it displays. I do not need any external input for that.
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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, 10/26/2001"We". You sound so royal. :~
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Judah Himango wrote:
I think 2003 will hijack the .sln associations
I don't know, I think there is some type of version difference there that will make sure the right VS opens the solution.
God Bless, Jason
DavidCrow wrote:
It would not affect me or my family one iota. My wife and I are in charge of when the tv is on, and what it displays. I do not need any external input for that.
That program - Visual Studio Version Selector - is part of Visual Studio 2005. If VS2003 gets the extensions, it will attempt to open the files itself, then fail when it encounters the 2005-format files. If associated with 2005, solution files' icons get a '7.1' or '8' overlay in the top-right corner, as appropriate (it may even detect VS2002 files but I've never had 2002 and 2005 installed on the same system).
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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, 10/26/2001VS2005 and VS2003 both works fine.
Regards, Satips.
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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've tried installing the VS 2003 after VS2005. It's working fine but I missed the file association and some path variable which has set by VS 2005.
-Sarath_._ "Great hopes make everything great possible" - Benjamin Franklin
My blog - Sharing My Thoughts, An Article - Understanding Statepattern
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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, 10/26/2001 -
I've done it both ways 2005 and 2003 later, and 2003 and 2005 later. Both work fine. When you double click a .sln after installing 2003 after 2005, you get the "Visual Studio Version Selector" it whatever it's called appear to ask you in which app you want to open it. C# files (and what not) do get hi-jacked, but you can restore associations within 2005 if you want to.
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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, 10/26/2001 -
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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've been running VS2003 and VS2005 for a over a year now with no issues.
Grady Booch: I told Google to their face...what you need is some serious adult supervision. (2007 Turing lecture) http://www.frankkerrigan.com/[^]
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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, 10/26/2001 -
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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 think the general concensus is "sure"! Caveat time: If you're using Vista, forget doing ANY kind of web development in VS2003.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
I think 2003 will hijack the .sln associations
I don't know, I think there is some type of version difference there that will make sure the right VS opens the solution.
God Bless, Jason
DavidCrow wrote:
It would not affect me or my family one iota. My wife and I are in charge of when the tv is on, and what it displays. I do not need any external input for that.
Yeah the xml stuff that at least .net apps spit out state which version of the .net framework to use. I think VS would associate the particular frameworks with the version of VS that used them. Not certain. We have VS .net (2000) and 2003 running with no problems. On that note do you guys think it is worth upgrading to 2005, or just wait for 2007? I work at a Cancer center in the physics department. Code simulations, visualization, front end to databases etc. Thanks in advance for any input.
-
I think 2003 will hijack the .sln associations. But beyond that, I've had them working fine alongside.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Funny Love The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Yeah the xml stuff that at least .net apps spit out state which version of the .net framework to use. I think VS would associate the particular frameworks with the version of VS that used them. Not certain. We have VS .net (2000) and 2003 running with no problems. On that note do you guys think it is worth upgrading to 2005, or just wait for 2007? I work at a Cancer center in the physics department. Code simulations, visualization, front end to databases etc. Thanks in advance for any input.
-
We have VS2005 already installed. Can we install VS2003 without hurting VS2005?
"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 too have 6, 03 and 05 running side by side, installed in that order. What I'd like to know is how others feel about their experiences over the last four years with MSDN installations and configurations. Visual Studio 6 has its own version of the MSDN Library (last updated October 2001), which still works beautifully. When I had 02 installed and upgraded to 03, the MSDN Library installer got itself confused or the MSDN Library installer somehow confused Visual Studio 02 and 03 via registry entry updates, because pressing F1 was broken. But that's now ancient history. Most recently, I've found the added manners in which the MSDN Library can be configured are both a help and a hindrance. Searching the web can be great, but I've found it too slow for constant use. For example, when I cannot recall the spelling of an API, having the MSDN Library configured to search the web is overkill and definitely slows me down. But one of the most helpful features was broken or perhaps mis-configured by me, until I added 05 and was careful to configure the latest MSDN Library afterwards. That feature is the 'Sync with Table of Contents' button.
Wes Bell Computer Scientist
-
I think 2003 will hijack the .sln associations. But beyond that, I've had them working fine alongside.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Funny Love The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
What it does is use a single registry reference to the solution name. So, when I added a solution of the same name for 2005, 2003 tries to load that solution complaining that there is a version mismatch. Even though the old solution is still where it was. So that suggests that for a given solution name, only one version can be associated. So forget running two solutions for both versions under the same name unless you want to open it manually. Guess they never thought people would use both.
This statement was never false.
-
What it does is use a single registry reference to the solution name. So, when I added a solution of the same name for 2005, 2003 tries to load that solution complaining that there is a version mismatch. Even though the old solution is still where it was. So that suggests that for a given solution name, only one version can be associated. So forget running two solutions for both versions under the same name unless you want to open it manually. Guess they never thought people would use both.
This statement was never false.
Interesting, thanks Chris.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Funny Love The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
why would you need both? i have both and i don't know why i just like using 2003 more i have 2005 to open projects stuff that 2003 can't. I am just wondering why you would really need both. this is probably a stupid question.
Because one uses .NET 1.1 and the other uses .NET 2.0. There are significant differences between them, and its very often useful to keep 2003 around for legacy stuff.