A while back Microsoft took a poll on MSBuild users to see what they would most like added in the next build 4.0/VS2010. Overwhelmingly (and even more overwhelming is that they were shocked and did not expect the #1 choice because they are experts at it and therefore everyone else must also be) debugging (or the ability to actually get a project working and keep one's job) was #1. Who'd of "thunk it" right? But ironically, it did not make it in the product despite the fact 7 other lesser desired features did. So, a n MS Development lead, Dan Moseley, seeing his marketing department's demonstration in the practice of "Full Metal Jacket Moronics" decided to step in and develop one on his vacation. He did a pretty decent job http://blogs.msdn.com/b/visualstudio/archive/2010/07/06/debugging-msbuild-script-with-visual-studio.aspx[^]. I remind you, he was on vacation! But, it did not make it into the release formally so it is somewhat incomplete, but mercifully, Dan did leave it in the product, you have to use a backdoor trick to get into debugging. Far better than nothing, I can tell you that. Kudos, Dan! You are our hero! Now, back to the geniuses that progress into Marketing where the customer's interests are "all" they care about. They added 7 of the 15 top requested features (though #1 was not one of them). What is peculiar is that if Dan could get it working this well, on his own initiative, and it being the #1 care-about, then why was it not the #1 feature to have appeared in new VS2010 since it was low hanging fruit so to speak? [WARNING! Marketing pseudo logic commentary and staunch sarcasm follows this warning!!] Did the customer-careabouts-are-most-important focus change and they instead they insisted on hiring icon consultants to get new colors for Visual Studio icon or something far less meaningful and that override the time and money to get the customers what they need? Who in MS Marketing said "We can't do it this release, the customers don't want it as much and that's why the voted it #1 because they want these lesser interesting features first, and besides, its too doable! Take it off the 2010 feature list! I am in Marketing and I know what I am doing! Have you not seen the new VS icon! I, that's right I pro

Ed, These are good suggestions. What you have illustrated is what I wanted. The only problem is that VS 2005 converts them on open so that they are whatever type it can recognize from the file's internal data. If it sees the InitializeComponent then it converts it to a component. But that would probably do what I am looking to do. Thanks for the suggestions. Jim

You just may be right. Bummer...

Hi Christian, I don't see a place to do that with the C# editor. So its obvious that Microsoft realizes there a is a preference between the code/design views. Double clicking has always opened CPP files, including dialog and control files in the old VS's. Of course they were separated in those days. It was a good idea to integrate them into Solution Explorer. I am hoping there is a registry settings or something if not comprehended in the Options. I figure it was an oversight. Of course this is not "earth-shattering", I mean all you have to do is right click and navigate down the menu, its just an annoyance when you are deep in concentration. Jim

I have a question that I hope somebody has figured out. Visual Studio 2005 is definately a productive environment, that goes without saying, but there are a occasionally annoyances that you wonder what they were thinking. My annoyance question is how do you cause double-click to "View Code" in solution explorer rather than "View Designer". I have been using the environment for about three years now and I can't and I still can't get used to this being the default option. Its not that it is such a big deal in and of itself but I am forever double-clicking to edit the code and then I get the designer that I didn't want, which I have to close and then reopen the same node with "View Code". Double click is instinctive for open so I don't use the buttons. Is there a way to change the option to open in "View Code" when double clicking? I (like most probably) have a 10:1 ratio of editing code versus UI. There are times you want to edit the forms/controls, of course, but, that is the exception. Anyone know a way to change this? Is it possible? Thanks, Jim

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

rittjc wrote: Dead is figurative. Um, no duh.

Um, yea duh. I was using it figuratively therefore it was figurative. Why would you disagree with what I said I meant? Are you just being argumentative?

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

rittjc wrote: An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event. Except your dates was over 20 years off. That's not even close to instantaneous as you suggested I insinuated.

My dates were right on since I was talking about the early 80s when Unix was the premier OS. I should know I was there. I never said anything about the original date of Unix. Go back and read carefully, then answer. So many of your responses here seems to indicate that you think a standard and an open standard are the same thing. Windows is a standard, not an open standard. Therefore it has absolute definition and you can design to it. Linux is an open standard. It is chaotic and has a new release every other week. I don't need poorly tested changes coming out in my OS on a regular basis also with security patches that force me to upgrade this potentially buggy code. I havent upgraded my Windows XP2 since I got it two years ago. Yes, a 1000 programmers will look at Linux releases and find the bug and fix it, but it crashed my system before that time and makes me upgrade again and again. I don't have to rely on fly by night drivers for an OS that is needlessly cryptic to debug. You make a big mistake when you say I have never installed and worked with Linux. You seem to think there are millions of businesses out there using Linux on their desktops. There are not that many radicals in business IT departments out there. Linux is a decent file server with a wannabe desktop personna. That's not bigoted that is a commonly known fact. Don't go quoting anecdotes of where someone managed to get Linux to work for them. We are talking out OSs as a mainstream commodity not some as some fringe application of it. Sometimes the truth hurts especially a zealot like yourself. Your comment that Unix was "not made for idiots" is a bit over the top. Not only is it a baseless claim and arrogant, anyone that would use an obsolete OS that had decades to evolve but is nothing more than a glorified file/web server (same as Linux which is simply an 80x88 knockoff of Unix and why there was a threat of a lawsuit) should never refer to developers and admins of other OS's as idiots.

I certainly wish you the best. Jim

JCParker wrote:

I guess you are right. But FYI I turn down more jobs than I take. I only take jobs that intrigue me. I have been programing for more than 40 years. I do all right as a dinosaur, make more than many programers I know who are much younger.

I would hope you would make more money than people just getting into the business after being in it for 40 years. But you do stand the risk of that market drying up. The relative rarity of Linux skills it was makes the costs high for development. But logically that makes the price of the app more expensive to the end user. To me OSS is like socialism trying to operate like capitalism. It is inevitable that some ideological concept is going to be compromised and lead to a sort of hypocrisy. In this case the "budget OS" has too expensive applications. It's like the telecommunications companies giving away a free phone or satellite disk companies give away the receiver equipment for their service. Free is never really free. That’s was Microsoft’s argument and it is valid. Even the programming world is driven by supply and demand. Jim

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

Get your facts straight. Neither of them are dead.

Dead is figurative. It simply means no future no growth.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

No, Unix came about way before the 80s. Get your facts straight.

An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event. Unix was the primary OS when I started in the early 80s. It is not significantly different than it was 30 years ago.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

Wrong again. Unix/Linux is used in a lot of professional instances that are not hobbies. For example, do you enjoy watching movies? Render farms use it a lot to save money, SGIs use a variant, and the list goes on. There's more, Google, Yahoo, etc. use it. Get your facts straight.

I am talking about application development. You don't use Linux to develop professional applications. It’s a decent file server, I have already stated that. If all you do is file servers, you can settle for Linux without taking a lot of risk, especially if you already are Linux savvy. That’s the reason Google/Yahoo use it. I am surprised they haven’t moved to the Microsoft servers, since they are faster especially as you increase the number of processors. They are equally secure (Windows 2003 had less (5) major CERT problems than the latest (at the time) RedHat Linux (11) when it was first released). The comparisons of Unix to DOS were similar to comparison of the IBM PC to the Mac. The Intel 8088 architecture with its hideous segmented architecture was grossly inferior to the Mac’s Motorola 68x00 linear addressing processor. But, Apple got its butt waxed because IBM had use of a visionary named Bill Gates who was insightful enough to develop a basic interpreter and release it with the OS so people could actually start using a computer for solving problems, in an easy to understand language, not just managing files. This was and is the difference. A successful platform is all about getting developers in the game so that they can get end users in the game (who bring their money with them). Unixizers loved lording their knowledge of a complex OS and mocking Windows developers. I remember this very well. I was there friend. But Windows developers started using the computer for more than a file server. This took the myopic Unixizers by surprise and rapidly made them obsolete. It is the same principle as the Palm to the other Pocket PC type competitors.

JCParker wrote:

At this time and this is an argument used by Microsoft defending these claims, Linux is the most usable alternative to Microsoft's Desktop operating system. I will also admit that I use Solaris as a desktop and for some environments, it is a better fit than Windows.

I am aware that Microsoft uses this argument. That's because it is a valid argument. This should be readily apparent by the fact that Corporate America is not interested in Linux. It is too risky and costly. No one would bet their business on an ideology. Unix had its chance unopposed and it failed because it was a world run by bigots and technocrats that have an aversion to business sense. Linux is a dead body stood up and walked by zealots in hopes that someone will consider it alive. It is not driven by the commercial markets therefore it has no structure and backbone of support other than someone that goes home at night and types on his computer to hack out something in between games of Halo. As a file server it had appeal until they figured out that most Linux admins are specialists in the Linux world, and motivated by idealism rather than the profit of the company. Just look at the way they mock the market leader in operating systems as though some obscure technical advantage would somehow be perceived at preferential. This is what is meant by a technocrat. Reasonably good at technology with no earthly idea how to use it in the real world or what the point of businesses are in the first place. Businesses are not interested in drumbeaters jousting windmills.

JCParker wrote:

When Microsoft produced Windows, the system was designed for ease of use and with the goal that anyone could use it. Other systems were designed with different goals, by other programers, thus with different results.

They took the same approach to the developer. This is why Microsoft rose to the top. They had apps that anyone could develop. This is a pariah in the OSS world. They don't want everyone using their software. They want businesses to depend on a set of esoteric programmers that can charge them more for their rarity of skills. The technology is driven by the capitalist businesses, not by some idealist illusion of nobility. Corporate America is not interested in the vilification of Microsoft by a bunch of script kiddies. Why should I settle on an OS that guarantees it will always be chasing the leader and one that is in the ha

Thanks Eric. That is a very inelegant solution. Looks like I am stuck with using it. Surprizing that there is not a better way. What if the end user does not have ADO 2.7 on his machine? Great job finding that buddy! It confirms the problem and at least offers a solution, elegant or not. Thanks again.

Have you thought about using XPath?

Hi Candy, Try using an update query: "UPDATE targetTable SET targetTable.targetColumn = NULL" Where targetTable is the table that contains the column, targetColumn which is the column you want to delete the data from. Jim

"Unix/Linux was never created for the average user." And hence the reason both died a rapid and mericless death. When I started developing 20 years ago, we used assembler and it was "cool" to do something so complex that no one could understand it. This was how you got your reputation. This was the era when Unix (father of Linux) was developed. This is laughed at in this day and age because efficency is everything. This is also why both have sucked hind tit to Windows for these years. This is also why the use of Linux is considered a "hobby". I witnessed the Unix biggots who believed themselves to be above the others because they learned a convoluted obsolete environment. Their punishment was unemployment and finding a job where they were the neophites. Pride goes before the fall.

Hmmm...isn’t Microsoft a monopoly regardless of the existence of Linux? I think the whole gist of the original rant is that people don't have the time to wade through the esoteric world of OSS where source code is considered the documentation and standards are open because everybody has their own. It is not practical to use open source in professional development. No company could possibly afford the time to do even a simple task. Sure there are people who spend their whole life and free time learning to use Linux, and true can find a file or search through it in a nifty fast way but that has nothing to do with real professional development. Time is money and OSS/Linux is the most expensive option by a huge margin. I will gladly pay $500 for a programming environment and $100 in the operating system rather than thousands of hours and massive amounts of dev dollars just to say I didn't pay for the OS. Open source was a failure out of the starting blocks for that very reason. Technocrats know very little about practicality and care even less about the usability/understandability of their creations. It all comes down to dollars and cents. Pay either a single $600 fee or recurring $50-$75 per hours to drudge through sparse and convoluted documentation and experimentation just to get the job done. I tried it and even “inhaled” but it wasn’t for me. I don’t know any serious OSS/Linux developers. That would make a good poll here at CP: “How many professional Linux or Open Source Software developers do you know?” a) None b) One c) All five of them :-D -- modified at 23:14 Monday 19th June, 2006

You can't get there from here...I always found that statement ironic. You hear it a lot when asking directions. It is like the problem I am having in creating a new Access database from ADO.NET programmatically. First, you need a connection. This connection needs a connection string. The connection string has to have the path of the new database or it gripes about no Data Source. But when you put the new database name and path connection string it complains that the Data Source does not exist. How do you do this? Any gurus know how to do this? My plan was to: OdbcConnection myConn = new OdbcConnection("Provider=blah..blah"); OdbcCommand myCommand = new OdbcCommand("CREATE DATABASE MyDbPath", myConn); myComm.Open(); myCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); ... How do you get there from here? Thanks in advance! -- modified at 22:48 Monday 19th June, 2006