Visual Studio Service Pack 5 released
-
Oh great! And you tell me this just after (and i mean JUST after) I finished installing SP4 which I downloaded last week (took eleven hours with our crappy UK phone lines - DSL? You'd be lucky to get 56k over here :(). I think i'll leave this one until I need it. The only reason I got SP4 was because I needed it to install the processor optimisation. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
Eleven hours... :eek: Man! Why? :confused: You may ordering CD. Or ask somebody to download this for you, or... but eleven hours... SlavoF "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." --Confucius
-
Microsoft has released Service Pack 5 for Visual Studio 6.0 Grab it here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/sp/vs6sp5/default.asp
Color me confused, but did anyone see in the readme for the thing as to why one would bother with this? I read the readme and the knowledge base files on what was changed, but all the stuff revolves around database stuff, even the ATL fixes. I've been running SP3 and SP4 and haven't had any problems.
-
Eleven hours... :eek: Man! Why? :confused: You may ordering CD. Or ask somebody to download this for you, or... but eleven hours... SlavoF "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." --Confucius
Quite simply, because BT (British Telecom) are to put it politely complete *$#%*#$ @&$#!~%$ and won't open up the local loop, meaning they have a monopoly. Cheers, Peter Pearson
-
Read the error again. It warns you about not having MDAC 2.6 not 2.5 and it is not manditory that you have it installed unless you will need mdac for SQL Server 2000. MDAC 2.6 can be downloaded from Microsoft if you need it. Actually, it is all explained in the install directions. Too bad almost nobody reads them. :)
Actually that is exactly what I did. I do try to look through the release notes when things don’t go as one expects. The release notes I found said the following: 4.1. Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5 requirements The following products are required for this service pack: · Microsoft Data Access Components 2.5 4.2. Installing Microsoft Data Access Components 2.5 Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.5 is required for Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5. If you do not have MDAC 2.5 installed, you must install it before installing the service pack. The Service Pack Setup will inform you if you must install MDAC 2.5. Because MDAC 2.5 is a system component, you must install a language version matching your system's language setting. If you inadvertently install a language version that does not match your system's language setting, reinstall the appropriate MDAC 2.5 for your system's language setting. To install MDAC 2.5 · From an Internet download Download the service pack for your system's language setting. The MDAC 2.5 setup executable is downloaded as part of Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5. To install MDAC 2.5, run MDAC_typ.exe from the folder to which you have downloaded the service pack. The key words there are: “The MDAC 2.5 setup executable is downloaded as part of Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5. To install MDAC 2.5, run MDAC_typ.exe from the folder to which you have downloaded the service pack.” When in tried this it failed. What I did was then go to the MS site, find the other MDAC 2.6 download, and install it. That worked and the SP5 stuff installed correctly. It appears that the install instructions are not completely accurate on this point. Ed Dixon
-
Eleven hours... :eek: Man! Why? :confused: You may ordering CD. Or ask somebody to download this for you, or... but eleven hours... SlavoF "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." --Confucius
I think the quote from Peter's reply sums it up: Quite simply, because BT (British Telecom) are to put it politely complete *$#%*#$ @&$#!~%$ and won't open up the local loop. British Telecom are losing money, and they stand to lose even more money in the future when this 'mobile phone' craze that has hit the UK (and presumably the rest of the western world) falls back on itself - you heard it here first. They offer phones at below cost prices via their BT Cellnet service, and then never actually make profit (or make very little). They are spending huge amounts of money on this Cellnet service (equivalent to the GNP of a small country), and as such do not have enough money to invest in the proper services British Telecom should be doing – they should leave mobile phones to the other specialist companies which aren’t funded (in part) by me. About two years ago BT hired American technicians to upgrade certain telephone exchanges to prepare for the new (although now quickly ageing) high speed technologies, but they paid too little and got what they paid for – shoddy work. They are now desperately trying to catch up. Only the major areas (if that is the right word) such as London, Manchester, etc, now have access to telephone exchanges that support high-speed connections, and even then they are ridiculously overpriced. Non-important areas, like Exeter where I am, probably wont get the local exchanges upgraded till at least 2005, which is quite simply unacceptable. The nearest supporting exchange to Exeter is covering the Avon (Bristol) area, and this is run by British Telecom (there are some other companies offering better services, but only in these important areas). Bristol is around 100 miles from Exeter, so it would cost me around £1,500,000 to have a cable laid between there and Exeter, and then I’d have to subscribe to their service at ridiculous rates anyway. Just using their normal service, it has cost me around £1.50 to write this reply - about 50 mins (hey, I had to spell check it too you know) :(. (Downloading SP4 cost me ~£19.80) The big problem with being in a non-important area is that it’s not just British Telecom who rates you as unimportant. The UK’s most recently launched television station has no plans to broadcast to the southwest. I think this must be because in corporate London they just presume that everybody in the southwest is a sheep farmer, and thus they would not get an ‘audience’. This is simply not true, and it’s this attitude which really makes me mad :mad:.
-
Oh great! And you tell me this just after (and i mean JUST after) I finished installing SP4 which I downloaded last week (took eleven hours with our crappy UK phone lines - DSL? You'd be lucky to get 56k over here :(). I think i'll leave this one until I need it. The only reason I got SP4 was because I needed it to install the processor optimisation. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Color me confused, but did anyone see in the readme for the thing as to why one would bother with this? I read the readme and the knowledge base files on what was changed, but all the stuff revolves around database stuff, even the ATL fixes. I've been running SP3 and SP4 and haven't had any problems.
-
can u tell me, from where can we get processor optmisation. Is it from MS. Cheers Kaykay
-
Color me confused, but did anyone see in the readme for the thing as to why one would bother with this? I read the readme and the knowledge base files on what was changed, but all the stuff revolves around database stuff, even the ATL fixes. I've been running SP3 and SP4 and haven't had any problems.
Well, you should still use the latest service pack for development if you plan on distributing your code. You don't know if your end user might have installed an app that updates the base files or not, so you should make sure your program runs on it.
-
Well, you should still use the latest service pack for development if you plan on distributing your code. You don't know if your end user might have installed an app that updates the base files or not, so you should make sure your program runs on it.
This is probably true, and if I was doing something that uses DB stuff, I probably would, but there doesn't seem to be any other fixes to MSVCRT, MFC, or ATL. It doesn't seem like a super-important service pack like SP3 was (and SP4 to some degree). Plus you can always link static or else ship the dlls you need in your exe folder. --------------------------------------------- Todd Wilson (tw@nopcode.com) www.nopcode.com ICQ: 5638028 "I picked up a Magic 8-Ball the other day and it said 'Outlook not so good.' I said, 'Sure, but Microsoft still ships it.'"
-
This is probably true, and if I was doing something that uses DB stuff, I probably would, but there doesn't seem to be any other fixes to MSVCRT, MFC, or ATL. It doesn't seem like a super-important service pack like SP3 was (and SP4 to some degree). Plus you can always link static or else ship the dlls you need in your exe folder. --------------------------------------------- Todd Wilson (tw@nopcode.com) www.nopcode.com ICQ: 5638028 "I picked up a Magic 8-Ball the other day and it said 'Outlook not so good.' I said, 'Sure, but Microsoft still ships it.'"
Hmm.. I don't think you quite understand my point. Suppose you compile and link your application against SP4, then ship it to your customer. That customer installed some other program that installed SP5 first (or even after you install your software). Do you really want your customer to call you up and yell at you because of a problem that you didn't know about in SP5 with your app, simply because you didn't deem it "worth it" to check? Yes, you can statically link, and that will solve the problem for some types of apps, but you can't statically link MFC ActiveX controls for instance. Shipping the SP4 versions of the MFC DLL's in your apps directory will only work with Windows 2000, not ME/98/95/NT4. Theoretically, your apps shouldn't break from an SP upgrade, but there could be a bug in your app (or a bug in the SP) which causes it to. You owe it to your customers to at least test it.