Time Machine.
-
Just remember that VS2003 will not install on VISTA! We've tried it and then knew we had to stay with XP for another (good) reason. For our project, there is no reason to "move on" to a newer version of Visual Studio. Outside of using the VS 6 serial port control, we have everything we need in VS2003 -- we actually had it all in VS6, but my partners said we "had" to catch up with the rest of the world. For what it's worth: I still use FORTRAN and have no problem with COBOL. Now C is language for OS writers and masochists.
Charles Wolfe C. Wolfe Software Engineering
The project is installed on my home desk top still running xp. No body else in the office still has a copy of vs2003. I have become the VB guru. I actually can't do it in the office because the firewalls prevent me from reaching this server. It is the only project running this because it is on another companies server which is why it is in VB. I am sticking with XP because I still have other clients running something called DATAEASE which I support.
-
-
Why?
Jammer wrote:
I've just been reassigned to a new project
Jammer wrote:
VS2003
That kinda argues that it's not a new project.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
atleast u got to work on WPF. I am stuck with 1.1 since I started off. My client refuses to move forward even to 2.0 On top of that VS 2008 has so many gr8 features for development which too I am missing on
-
It's not that bad. The whole "unscrew-the-top-of-my-head-and-rotate-my-cerebral-cortex-90°" thing at each switch gets to be routine after a while.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I spend my day switching back and forth between VS2008/C#/.NET/WPF and VS2003/C++/MFC. and they wonder why I twitch...
Software Zen:
delete this;I, too, switch between 03 & 08. The story goes, however, that all installed apps are .NET 1.1, so 2003 is for support. Meanwhile, I'm converting (not just w/ oldsyntax) anything useful to full compatibility w/3.5, so there will be no pain. Also, I made a fine crib sheet of things-to-do when converting [after the original import does its thing]. Odd as it seems, a big hope is to 'force' .NET 2.0 usage for any new development requests. We'll see how that works out. There are many comforting things in 03 - probably a testament to how humans (and humanoid like entities) adapt to the situation and then begin to develop feelings for it. Crap! Did I just type that? Maybe I have been doing this too long.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment. Sadder still, if that's where you need to find it." - Balboos HaGadol
-
I just came off a job using VS2008 and BizTalk and the closest thing here to .net is vb.net 2003 that is still in the box /sigh.
It's not my fault you suck.
-
Jammer wrote:
've just spent the last 1.5 years working with WPF ... I've just been reassigned to a new project ... that requires me to ... install ... urgh! ... VS2003 ...
great! they didn't ask you to work on visual studio 5 or cobol :-)
ThatsAlok great! they didn't ask you to work on visual studio 5 or cobol
Or VC++ 1.5, which is what happened to me back in 2004. X|
Kevin
-
Just search at the top of the screen "Why WP sucks" and you will see why some people (like JSOP ) will envy you!
hopingToCode wrote:
and you will see why some people (like JSOP ) will envy you
Yeah, but JSOP moans about everything. :laugh:
Kevin
-
After reading all the other posts, I just had put one of my own in here. A program was written waaaaay back in 1992, running on a DOS box. It was a set of compiled Quick BASIC .exe files. It was so well written, and the processes that it was conrolling and monitoring so stable that it has been sitting in the corner of the computer room since then. Well, finally some of the hardware that it interfaced with could no longer be repaired. This meant new equipment, and some changes to the program controlling it. I have to thank the original programmer, now many years gone. The code was almost 50% comments, and the variable names very descriptive. He also thoughtfully packaged up the program and compiler (MS Quick BASIC 4.0, from 1987!!!) While I did used to code quite a bit in QBasic, that was many, many years ago. It almost took me longer to "remember" how to navigate (no mouse support) the program and recall some of the tricky bits that it did to make the changes. After three weeks I was a pro again! I did fully comment the changes, I even documented the changes in a log file I found (last updated in Jan of 1994). I did bring the project into a bit of the modern age by making an offline copy of the entire set of data files and burning them to a set of CD's. (not that the hardware it runs on even thinks about CD's, it still has a pair of 40MB HD's and a 5.25" floppy drive) It probably will not be touched agin for years, but I feel good that the next software Archeologist that had to deal with it is in no worse position that I was. :)