Visual Studio 2017 Release Candidate available for download
-
It's been available since about October 2016.
Follow my adventures with .NET Core at my new blog, Erisia Information Services.
like you said, its kinda old news, still looking forward to final product
-
Cornelius Henning wrote:
and removes some that don't meet release requirements
Said no Office product (Word, Excel) release note ever.
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
I think I sense a slight sarcasm there. But then, I remember two ways of handling fairly similar situations. One was a TI calculator I bought sometimes in the 1980s: There was a loose errata sheet tellign customers to remove page 57 and 58 from the manual (- we didn't succeed in impelemnting these functions). That certainly indicates that TI is a company that does not delay writing of documentation to the last minute. The same can be said about that other company, making a 16 bit minicomputer. This was in the late 1970s when machines were made from siple components, or chips with a few logic gates. After 500 copies of the documentation was printed and ready to be shipped with the computers, it was discovered that the technical writer hadn't grasped the idea of the use of a stack pointer (called the base register in that machine), and described the calculation of base relative addressing incorrectly. So the company had to make a choice: Either ditch 500 copies of documentation, or build the logic to work as described. They chose the latter, so they avoided the hassle of errata sheets (it would take a small pile of them, all the examples and stuff considered) and also leaving an impession of a badly managed company where one department does not know what the other one was doing. That left them with a machine where the compiler had to generate 4-5 extra instructions for every function entry point to do the proper updates of the base register. The company made all system software (compilers and stuff) themselves, so very few outside the company were aware of the perverted base register logic. I'd rather deal with a company that admits that 'Sorry, we didn't succeed with this', issuing errata and cancelling functionality, rather than one who tries to cover it up when they foul it up. If you find it too hard to live with functionality that is being tried out in a beta release, but is not completed for the official release (and omitted), then the solution for you is never to look at beta releases but wait for the official release. The entire purpose of a beta is to try out whether something works properly. If 'no' is not an acceptable answer, then the beta wouldn't serve any real purpose.
-
I think I sense a slight sarcasm there. But then, I remember two ways of handling fairly similar situations. One was a TI calculator I bought sometimes in the 1980s: There was a loose errata sheet tellign customers to remove page 57 and 58 from the manual (- we didn't succeed in impelemnting these functions). That certainly indicates that TI is a company that does not delay writing of documentation to the last minute. The same can be said about that other company, making a 16 bit minicomputer. This was in the late 1970s when machines were made from siple components, or chips with a few logic gates. After 500 copies of the documentation was printed and ready to be shipped with the computers, it was discovered that the technical writer hadn't grasped the idea of the use of a stack pointer (called the base register in that machine), and described the calculation of base relative addressing incorrectly. So the company had to make a choice: Either ditch 500 copies of documentation, or build the logic to work as described. They chose the latter, so they avoided the hassle of errata sheets (it would take a small pile of them, all the examples and stuff considered) and also leaving an impession of a badly managed company where one department does not know what the other one was doing. That left them with a machine where the compiler had to generate 4-5 extra instructions for every function entry point to do the proper updates of the base register. The company made all system software (compilers and stuff) themselves, so very few outside the company were aware of the perverted base register logic. I'd rather deal with a company that admits that 'Sorry, we didn't succeed with this', issuing errata and cancelling functionality, rather than one who tries to cover it up when they foul it up. If you find it too hard to live with functionality that is being tried out in a beta release, but is not completed for the official release (and omitted), then the solution for you is never to look at beta releases but wait for the official release. The entire purpose of a beta is to try out whether something works properly. If 'no' is not an acceptable answer, then the beta wouldn't serve any real purpose.
I was merely referring to the gazillion features in Office products of which most users use about ten :) I'm all for scrapping functionality that doesn't work (properly). Some languages and frameworks I use(d) should've gotten rid of some functionality a loooong time ago. But then again, I also understand that when some functionality is there and you want users to upgrade the last thing you should do is make your product not backwards compatible. But all in all I'm looking forward to VS2017! :D
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
See here for the release notes for the January 27 release: Visual Studio 2017 Release Notes[^]
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
-
It's been available since about October 2016.
Follow my adventures with .NET Core at my new blog, Erisia Information Services.
-
Yep.
Follow my adventures with .NET Core at my new blog, Erisia Information Services.
-
:( Due to circumstances beyond my control I'm stuck on vs 2010.
Tom
I know that feeling. Until last year we used VS2003 and FW1.1. We upgraded to VS2015 and FW4.6.1. To avoid problems as described in one of your answers I've made a new solution, imported every project separately and solved the reported problems one by one before importing the next project (and regularly made a backup :) ).
-
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
VS2017 just suxx, it's full of stupid bugs and it's for Win8+ only. Who needs that?? I use Win7 and it's more than enough for any app development. Even Android programs can be written using Win7! But not for Microsoft... they push that Spyindows and fail. Double fail when they count developers as a stupids who will follow 'em. Win7+VS2015 - that's latest stable point. Everything beyond just cr@pware from Monstersoft.
-
VS2017 just suxx, it's full of stupid bugs and it's for Win8+ only. Who needs that?? I use Win7 and it's more than enough for any app development. Even Android programs can be written using Win7! But not for Microsoft... they push that Spyindows and fail. Double fail when they count developers as a stupids who will follow 'em. Win7+VS2015 - that's latest stable point. Everything beyond just cr@pware from Monstersoft.
Thanks for the info - i was considering upgrading from 2015 but wont bother now, at least for a while. Bob.
Thornik wrote:
VS2017 just suxx, it's full of stupid bugs and it's for Win8+ only. Who needs that?? I use Win7 and it's more than enough for any app development. Even Android programs can be written using Win7! But not for Microsoft... they push that Spyindows and fail. Double fail when they count developers as a stupids who will follow 'em.Win7+VS2015 - that's latest stable point. Everything beyond just cr@pware from Monstersoft.
-
VS2017 just suxx, it's full of stupid bugs and it's for Win8+ only. Who needs that?? I use Win7 and it's more than enough for any app development. Even Android programs can be written using Win7! But not for Microsoft... they push that Spyindows and fail. Double fail when they count developers as a stupids who will follow 'em. Win7+VS2015 - that's latest stable point. Everything beyond just cr@pware from Monstersoft.
Could you clarify what you mean by "it's for Win8+ only?" MS lists Windows 7 under supported operating systems for VS 2017. Visual Studio 2017 System Requirements[^]
-
Could you clarify what you mean by "it's for Win8+ only?" MS lists Windows 7 under supported operating systems for VS 2017. Visual Studio 2017 System Requirements[^]
Ah, sorry! I keep in mind that people get VS2017 for UWP development also AND THIS requires Win8+. Simple desktop apps can be done even in VS2003 (and VS2017 don't help a lot here). In any case, I have few sure points to NOT use VS2017: 1. VS become more and more "online" (read "able to send 'telemetry' to MS servers") - that's not cool from any side of development. 20 years ago NOBODY fetch telemetry and software was way more quality than now. If telemetry doesn't help MS, they should remove it at all. 2. Looking at current bugs (I'm prof.developer), I count 'em as "stupid" and which cannot appear even in "beta" software. That means "level of mess" in VS design reached maximum that even Release Candidate cannot offer stable experience. Moreover: VS was written long time ago (that still contains legacy sht like "COM"), but it doesn't help to current version - it's still buggy like written from scratch on a previous week! (and written by beginners). Mature product like VS should grow with features, not jumping from bug to bug! MS spreads everywhere how "modular and extensible" VS is, but modular software should be more stable than we see now in VS. So finally I think better to ignore VS completely, until all telemetry will be removed and Win7 users got ability to create UWP programs (inc. Win Mobile).
-
Any idea if this is any different from the RC that got posted to MSDN 6 weeks ago? I'm not seeing anything on there with a newer date.
The one from 6 weeks ago was so quickly changed that it ceased to be an RC and became a beta, or was it a RCC (release candidate candidate, or a MARC--Maybe A Release Candidate)
-
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
Does it need a dedicated datacenter to run? :)
-
Does it need a dedicated datacenter to run? :)
