There seems to be a lot of confusion on the versions of Visual Studio 2005.
My latest blog entry covers the different versions:
Main URL:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/gregorybeamer/Blog/cns!1ptsyfBgfiUmsaQCul95SOyg!141.entry
If the above URL wraps and you want a shorter URL for the entry: http://tinyurl.com/9yxbs
--
Gregory A. Beamer
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
*********************************************** 26  1366 
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me
pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If you
have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you Visual
SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse; This one
lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way while this one
lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the system, but when
MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd overlaps
(and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo
meals, but no combo like *I* want.
I would not disagree with you on this point, but I can understand why the
first release of Whitehorse functionality is fairly well constrained. It is
hard to offer cafeteria plans in software until you have the functionality
finished.
In some ways, the Team offerings are compartmentalized, as you can add
different roles to a single machine. Unfortunately, it is a more expensive
route than just getting Team Suite, so it is not the wisest direction.
Having installers that could add in the different roles would be a nice step
in the direction you envision.
What is nice about Visual Studio 2005 is the fact that the levels are more
flexible than 2003. Express is very lightweight, Standard gives more
flexibility, but is still fairly lightweight, Pro gives you the entire IDE
and Team System Roles and Suite add on functionality.
I would definitely express your feedback to Microsoft. If enough customers
ask for more variety in their happy meals, there is a good chance you will
see these offerings in the future.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ux***************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me
pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If you
have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you Visual
SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse; This
one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way while
this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
"Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote... It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me
pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If you
have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you Visual
SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse; This
one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way while
this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I don't
get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get to the
most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying hundreds
of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience (I
think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the beta
editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database or XML
stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control integration
(but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++ compiler, and
with decent profiling tools including PGO?
--
Andrew
re: Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/expres...c/default.aspx
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on customization.
Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me pick and choose which
individual features I want; this stuff with "If you have *this* version, you get Team
System, but this one gets you Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets
you Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the system, but
when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd overlaps (and
lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo
like *I* want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I don't get to the
advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get to the most expensive bundles in
the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience (I think - no
idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the beta editions!), without web or
mobile development targets, no database or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin
support, source control integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a
64-bit C++ compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
--
Andrew
Close Juan, but not quite. Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
This is Express
without web or mobile development targets,
Still Express
no database or XML stuff,
Still Express
but with full macro and addin support, source control integration
Not in Express
a 64-bit C++ compiler
Not in Express
with decent profiling tools
Not in Express
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ed**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... re: Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/expres...c/default.aspx
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to
modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them
very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly
expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
(I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
--
Andrew
I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products. I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
(evolution, not revolution).
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible. It
is not quite ready for a mold your own version. I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your own,
type of model. It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support the
model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it will
die out.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse;
This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
(I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database or
XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
--
Andrew
Hmm, now there's a marketing idea:
Visual Studio.Net 2005 A La Cart!
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:eD**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products. I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
(evolution, not revolution).
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible. It
is not quite ready for a mold your own version. I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
own, type of model. It will likely get there some day, but it will only
continue if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to
support the model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate
software, it will die out.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to
modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them
very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly
expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
(I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
--
Andrew
Wouldn't it be nice, though, if we could order
our development tools like at a restaurant ?
"What will you have the entree with, sir?"
"Would you like soup?"
"Would you like potatos?"
"And your dessert will be?"
"Would you like coffee?"
"That will be a total of $32.79. Thank you for your order."
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in message
news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Close Juan, but not quite.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
This is Express
without web or mobile development targets,
Still Express
no database or XML stuff,
Still Express
but with full macro and addin support, source control integration
Not in Express
a 64-bit C++ compiler
Not in Express
with decent profiling tools
Not in Express
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ed**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... re: Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/expres...c/default.aspx
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on customization.
Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me pick and choose which
individual features I want; this stuff with "If you have *this* version, you get Team
System, but this one gets you Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one
gets you Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them
one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd
overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo
meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I don't get to
the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get to the most expensive
bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying hundreds of pounds for features
I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience (I think - no
idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the beta editions!), without web
or mobile development targets, no database or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin
support, source control integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a
64-bit C++ compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
--
Andrew
Sure beats saying, "Either you're a developer, an architect, or a QA
engineer...or else you gotta buy the $10k MSDN subscription." And I do
think VS is mature enough (this is not the first iteration. A lot of new
tools got introduced, but the tool is still very VS.Net-like) to sell a la
carte. If they can sell SourceSafe with one and Team System with another,
they can offer them as mix n match (and they have, to an extent, in MSDN,
although the different editions of Visio were fubar'ed so much, I gave up on
that one) I just wish they wouldn't assume you are either on one of 3 roles
or you have to buy a $10k MSDN subscription. And I think the source control
story in this rev of VS is mindboggling. I mean, some use SourceSafe, some
use Team System, some use nothing. I use source control for a *1* person
project, but it seems like that "persona" must not have been on MS' Wall of
Users.
I think it is possible, Kevin, but the delivery mechanism is not there yet.
Many years ago, they started selling cassettes and CDs with the songs you
like, so you end up with your own CD. Today, this has been refined into
services like iTunes. You can now set up your own favorite music out of a
plethora of tunes and put them on an MP3 player.
What if Visual Studio could be divided into tons of different pieces: Basic
UI, full user experience add in, all of the designers as separate installs.
You then have the package versions, but you can also end up with a package
your own with the pieces you desire.
The feasibility of this plan is whether or not sales increase enough to
cover the cost of dividing the packages out to this granularity. If enough
people want this to outweigh the cost of developers separating everything,
it works. On future products, they can be designed as modular, so they are
ready to be packaged in a variety of configurations.
The issue is whether the cost of the delivery mechanism and the cost of
separating out functionality in current products, is worth it. I am not sure
we are ready, but it sounds like a neat idea.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:O5****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Hmm, now there's a marketing idea:
Visual Studio.Net 2005 A La Cart!
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:eD**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products. I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in
the first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of
products (evolution, not revolution).
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
It is not quite ready for a mold your own version. I am not sure the
software industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal,
build your own, type of model. It will likely get there some day, but it
will only continue if it is cost effective, which means enough people
will have to support the model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P
pirate software, it will die out.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
"If you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to
modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them
very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a
newly expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I*
want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
paying hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
(I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
--
Andrew
I think it IS a great idea. Let's define the problem:
Cost
* Redesigning current packages to be modular
* Creating a delivery mechnism (modeled after iTunes, perhaps)
* New environment for delivery mechanism
* Upkeep of mechanism
* Tailoring help for cafeteria choices (not sure if this is necessary, but
full MSDN with each would be a rather heavy bite to swallow).
* Software delivered on media would require custom burning of configurations
(can package all iterations to reduce expense, but that increase initial
expense by creating a matrix of choices)
Savings
* Software that is delivered via web eliminates package costs, but package
costs are small. Perhaps a web only delivery, but uptime has a cost, as
well.
The question is whether or not enough developers/shops would take advantage
of the cafeteria plan and increase sales enough to overcome the costs. It is
not merely having more people use the "build your own" plan, but having
enough to increase sales enough to cover all expenses related to setting
this up.
I love the idea, but I am not sure it is cost effective for Microsoft. One
way to make it cost effective is to have multiple ISVs responsible for the
options and each one profiting from their piece when it sells. This model
benefits the synergy and benefits each member according to the strength of
his offering (capitalism at its best), but I am not sure Microsoft wants to
go this route.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Wouldn't it be nice, though, if we could order
our development tools like at a restaurant ?
"What will you have the entree with, sir?"
"Would you like soup?"
"Would you like potatos?"
"And your dessert will be?"
"Would you like coffee?"
"That will be a total of $32.79. Thank you for your order."
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Close Juan, but not quite.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
This is Express
without web or mobile development targets,
Still Express
no database or XML stuff,
Still Express
but with full macro and addin support, source control integration
Not in Express
a 64-bit C++ compiler
Not in Express
with decent profiling tools
Not in Express
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ed**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... re:
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user
experience
Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/expres...c/default.aspx
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
> "If you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets
> you Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
> Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
> them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice
> to modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made
> them very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like
> a newly expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I*
> want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I
get to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
paying hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user
experience (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've
used all the beta editions!), without web or mobile development
targets, no database or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin
support, source control integration (but not necessarily coming with
SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++ compiler, and with decent profiling tools
including PGO?
--
Andrew
Possible is not the biggest question, so, ultimately, I agree with you
Keith, but there are some practical obstacles (mentioned in my other posts
in this thread). In order to do this, you have two options.
Option 1: Chop the product into small pieces and allow someone to buy
multiple shrink wraps.
Option 2: Create a mechanism of assembling multiple pieces based on user
choices.
In Option 1, you buy as much as you want and it is delivered via normal
retail channels. This adds packaging expense for Microsoft. In Option 2, you
need a delivery mechanism. In both, you have to make sure the product is
torn into granular enough pieces. You may also have to adjust windows
installer to knit together pieces to make it easier for the user to get
their stuff installed. In addition, you have the expense of having tester
employed to test all of the possible combinations on all supported OSs.
Possible? Certainly. But, will it increase profits enough to pay for the
expense? If not, Microsoft is losing money to make a few people happy. This
may be great PR, but it is bad business.
Is the industry ready for this model? AND Are there enough people that want
this type of software to pay for the change?
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Sure beats saying, "Either you're a developer, an architect, or a QA
engineer...or else you gotta buy the $10k MSDN subscription." And I do
think VS is mature enough (this is not the first iteration. A lot of new
tools got introduced, but the tool is still very VS.Net-like) to sell a la
carte. If they can sell SourceSafe with one and Team System with another,
they can offer them as mix n match (and they have, to an extent, in MSDN,
although the different editions of Visio were fubar'ed so much, I gave up
on that one) I just wish they wouldn't assume you are either on one of 3
roles or you have to buy a $10k MSDN subscription. And I think the source
control story in this rev of VS is mindboggling. I mean, some use
SourceSafe, some use Team System, some use nothing. I use source control
for a *1* person project, but it seems like that "persona" must not have
been on MS' Wall of Users.
* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer): [of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse;
This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
(I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database or
XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
You don't.
I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products.
That's crap.
Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.
That does not exist.
I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
(evolution, not revolution).
Crap.
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
Crap.
It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.
Crap, nobody asked for that.
I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your own,
type of model.
Crap.
It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support the
model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it will
die out.
Crap.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
I, for one, much prefer top posting. I don't want to wade through all the
verbage from earlier posts to find out what is new.
Wayne
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no> wrote in message
news:43*****************@news.individual.net... * Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer): [of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or
>> let
>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
>> "If
>> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>> Whitehorse;
>> This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
>> while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize
>> the
>> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid
>> with
>> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
>> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
>
> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I
> get
> to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
> paying
> hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>
> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user
> experience
> (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
> beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
> or
> XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
> integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
> compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
You don't.
I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products.
That's crap.
Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.
That does not exist.
I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
(evolution, not revolution).
Crap.
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
Crap.
It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.
Crap, nobody asked for that.
I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
own,
type of model.
Crap.
It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support
the
model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it will
die out.
Crap.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Option #2 is already possible via Windows Installer. What MS is doing is
stripping down the tool of its niceties, presumably under the guise that
users may not want to pay for all the extra tools, but in the process, they
took out a great deal of the user's choices as to what should or should not
be installed. Were people really complaining that SourceSafe was included
with VS.Net? Maybe if they paid extra for it, but how many people out there
were actually paying for VS.Net + SourceSafe rather than just getting an
MSDN subscription, whereby they *would* have a la carte installation of
various packages (with the caveat of those multiple versions of Visio that
would only work with particular versions of VS.Net). But they've done this
tying in of their definition of a role into the entire MSDN packaging that
has taken away quite a bit of convenience.
Just seems like the marketing folks stayed in the kitchen too long and
turned whatever the dev team was building into cookie dough.
I agree. Top-posting reads a) like email, so it's a more familiar format,
and b) makes groups.google.com a hell of a lot easier to sift through. It
gets kind of stupid, though, when you have people getting abusive over the
format of someone else's post just because it doesn't fit in with their
world view (not picking on Alf P...I've read much worse posts from people
that don't even address the topic of the thread and without a rationale for
their reasoning). It'd be like me going through every group I can find and
correct every spelling & capitalization error. At the end of the day, it's
a waste of time and is largely irrelevant, as it's people's personal
preferences in an unmoderated community format. Post however you want to,
and if someone has a problem with it, tell them to take it to the
moderator(HA!) or stick it up the orifice of his/her choice.
I, too, prefer top posting BUT I trim the message,
leaving only the relevant parts ( hint, hint... ).
;-)
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Wayne Wengert" <wa***********@wengert.org> wrote in message
news:eE**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... I, for one, much prefer top posting. I don't want to wade through all the verbage from
earlier posts to find out what is new.
Wayne
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no> wrote in message
news:43*****************@news.individual.net...* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer): [of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
These aren't arguments. They're just a lot of Crap.
As a conclusion, I'd have to say you're full of Crap.
--
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Opinions are like a**holes. Not only does everybody have one, but they all
stink.
<snip> That's crap.
<snip> Crap.
<snip> Crap.
<snip> Crap, nobody asked for that.
<snip> Crap.
<snip> Crap.
<snip> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote... Andrew McDonald wrote:
Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience
(I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products. I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in
the first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of
products (evolution, not revolution).
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible. It
is not quite ready for a mold your own version. I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
own, type of model. It will likely get there some day, but it will only
continue if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to
support the model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate
software, it will die out.
I agree it would be a major change to the delivery of the suite, but perhaps
it is something worth considering by Microsoft. Visual Studio just seems to
get more bloated with each iteration; each new version contains
proportionally less that is applicable to me. Despite that I consider the
bits I do use the best tools for my job, which means I have to keep buying
the extra bloat - much like with Windows itself and Office.
Going back to my original request list, I don't see why it wouldn't be
reasonable to ship a Visual C++ Professional Edition. Wasn't this done
before VS7, or am I imagining it? The Express Edition is tantalisingly close
to useful, but without the depth for my professional needs, like the source
control integration, 64-bit compiler, and profiling tools. I find it funny
that such features were removed, when they're really not that big a deal and
wouldn't add too much to the package size. In fact I think the new/casual
users, who seem to be the target for this edition, should be taught to use
SCCI and profiling tools anyway - it would make them better programmers. The
64-bit compiler I can understand being left out because it's not essential,
but considering how little it would add to the size it could easily have
been left in. And with that I'd have all the tools I needed; not just me but
my entire company, and without paying for VB, web stuff, databases, etc.
I'd be interested to hear what's important to professional users of the
other languages, but missing from their Express Editions, since I don't know
enough about them to see if there's a case for those as standalone
Professional Editions.
--
Andy
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> skrev i
meddelandet >
Going back to my original request list, I don't see why it wouldn't
be reasonable to ship a Visual C++ Professional Edition. Wasn't this
done before VS7, or am I imagining it?
And it also did cost less. That's not good for MS.
The Express Edition is tantalisingly close to useful, but without
the depth for my professional needs, like the source control
integration, 64-bit compiler, and profiling tools. I find it funny
that such features were removed, when they're really not that big a
deal and wouldn't add too much to the package size. In fact I think
the new/casual users, who seem to be the target for this edition,
should be taught to use SCCI and profiling tools anyway - it would
make them better programmers. The 64-bit compiler I can understand
being left out because it's not essential, but considering how
little it would add to the size it could easily have been left in.
And with that I'd have all the tools I needed; not just me but my
entire company, and without paying for VB, web stuff, databases,
etc.
See, that's why it is bundled. Professionals have to pay more. :-)
I'd be interested to hear what's important to professional users of
the other languages, but missing from their Express Editions, since
I don't know enough about them to see if there's a case for those as
standalone Professional Editions.
Express Edition is totally useless for serious work, but might make
some people buy it instead of pirating the real version.
For me, the 64-bit compiler is the most interesting part. So I will
probably pay for a Professional Upgrade, which I wouldn't do if C++
was available separately. The scheme works!
Bo Persson
Some of the concerns are covered by Window Installer, as long as the pieces
truly are separated in the build. If the build is not separated out, then
the Installer cannot help you out.
As I have stated, I agree with the concept and wish Microsoft would offer
more options. I know you will not see this on initial release, however, and
the feasibility will be more focused on what the market will bear. If third
party tools come out to fill in the niche, MS may well offer more plans to
avoid losing share on extensibility of their own tool. :-)
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eQ**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... Option #2 is already possible via Windows Installer. What MS is doing is
stripping down the tool of its niceties, presumably under the guise that
users may not want to pay for all the extra tools, but in the process,
they took out a great deal of the user's choices as to what should or
should not be installed. Were people really complaining that SourceSafe
was included with VS.Net? Maybe if they paid extra for it, but how many
people out there were actually paying for VS.Net + SourceSafe rather than
just getting an MSDN subscription, whereby they *would* have a la carte
installation of various packages (with the caveat of those multiple
versions of Visio that would only work with particular versions of
VS.Net). But they've done this tying in of their definition of a role
into the entire MSDN packaging that has taken away quite a bit of
convenience.
Just seems like the marketing folks stayed in the kitchen too long and
turned whatever the dev team was building into cookie dough.
* Kevin Spencer: These aren't arguments. They're just a lot of Crap.
As a conclusion, I'd have to say you're full of Crap.
Bullshitter.
No one asked for your "Visual Studio.Net 2005 A La Cart".
That's just crap to divert attention from the facts.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Thank you Alf for your kind remarks. A couple of notes, which I will
purposefully top post for reasons explained in the notes below.
1. I am not a Microsoftie. The only "tie" I have is receiving an award for
answering questions in peer-to-peer support venues, like this one. They pay
me nothing and I do this primarily out of habit, at least for the time
being. Admitedly, Microsoft has been good to MVPs with software, but I would
do it regardless.
2. I prefer to top post unless it makes sense to add inline comments. Inline
comments are best used when someone has something intelligent to say about a
particular item posted and are most useful when they contain detail to back
up the assertions made. If you are simply adding "crap", for instance, I do
not think you are adding anything useful and simply writing crap as an
answer to the post is more appropriate (it saves bandwidth too). :-)
3. I agree with Keith on most of his items, but I do not concur with this: Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.
My reason for disagreement is his statement.
lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the system, but
when
MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd overlaps
(and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo
meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Sounds like he wants a "make your own" combo, which I completely agree would
be a wonderful idea. I am in total agreement, also, that Microsoft should
explore this, as I, too, feel the offerings are a bit too stilted.
4. The point behind the signature is none of us can completely escape the
box. That is the reason it says "think outside the box!" in a box. :-P
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no> wrote in message
news:43*****************@news.individual.net...* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer): [of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or
>> let
>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
>> "If
>> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>> Whitehorse;
>> This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
>> while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize
>> the
>> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid
>> with
>> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
>> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
>
> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I
> get
> to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
> paying
> hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>
> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user
> experience
> (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
> beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
> or
> XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
> integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
> compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
You don't.
I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products.
That's crap.
Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.
That does not exist.
I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
(evolution, not revolution).
Crap.
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
Crap.
It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.
Crap, nobody asked for that.
I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
own,
type of model.
Crap.
It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support
the
model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it will
die out.
Crap.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Yes, we probably should trim out the rest to avoid long strings. And, yes, I
am one who tends to get myopic on my answer and not think about the tail
trailing below. :-)
I still find inline useful when you are in a debate type thread, where you
answer each point, but most of the threads here are not point by point
answers.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I, too, prefer top posting BUT I trim the message,
leaving only the relevant parts ( hint, hint... ).
;-)
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Wayne Wengert" <wa***********@wengert.org> wrote in message
news:eE**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... I, for one, much prefer top posting. I don't want to wade through all the
verbage from earlier posts to find out what is new.
Wayne
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no> wrote in message
news:43*****************@news.individual.net...* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):
[of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie] A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Sir. I don't see any...facts. Just statements of your opinion, without logic
or argument. Are you in advertising or politics, by any chance?
--
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no> wrote in message
news:43*****************@news.individual.net... * Kevin Spencer: These aren't arguments. They're just a lot of Crap.
As a conclusion, I'd have to say you're full of Crap.
Bullshitter.
No one asked for your "Visual Studio.Net 2005 A La Cart".
That's just crap to divert attention from the facts.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Now, *that's* an argument. A set of premises , followed by logical
conclusions.
As Monty Python said, the other format is "abuse." ;-)
--
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:eh**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Thank you Alf for your kind remarks. A couple of notes, which I will
purposefully top post for reasons explained in the notes below.
1. I am not a Microsoftie. The only "tie" I have is receiving an award for
answering questions in peer-to-peer support venues, like this one. They
pay me nothing and I do this primarily out of habit, at least for the time
being. Admitedly, Microsoft has been good to MVPs with software, but I
would do it regardless.
2. I prefer to top post unless it makes sense to add inline comments.
Inline comments are best used when someone has something intelligent to
say about a particular item posted and are most useful when they contain
detail to back up the assertions made. If you are simply adding "crap",
for instance, I do not think you are adding anything useful and simply
writing crap as an answer to the post is more appropriate (it saves
bandwidth too). :-)
3. I agree with Keith on most of his items, but I do not concur with this: Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.
My reason for disagreement is his statement.
lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the system, but
when
MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd overlaps
(and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo
meals, but no combo like *I* want.
Sounds like he wants a "make your own" combo, which I completely agree
would be a wonderful idea. I am in total agreement, also, that Microsoft
should explore this, as I, too, feel the offerings are a bit too stilted.
4. The point behind the signature is none of us can completely escape the
box. That is the reason it says "think outside the box!" in a box. :-P
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no> wrote in message
news:43*****************@news.individual.net...* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer): [of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
"Andrew McDonald" <my*************@no-spam-thanks.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oz****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Keith Patrick" <ri*******************@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or
>> let
>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
>> "If
>> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>> Whitehorse;
>> This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one
>> way
>> while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize
>> the
>> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid
>> with
>> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded
>> menu
>> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
>
> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I
> get
> to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
> paying
> hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>
> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user
> experience
> (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
> beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no
> database or
> XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
> integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
> compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>
***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************
You don't.
I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products.
That's crap.
Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.
That does not exist.
I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of
products
(evolution, not revolution).
Crap.
Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
Crap.
It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.
Crap, nobody asked for that.
I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
own,
type of model.
Crap.
It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support
the
model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it
will
die out.
Crap.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\) |
last post by:
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the versions of Visual Studio 2005.
My latest blog entry covers the different versions:
Main URL:...
|
by: Thom Little |
last post by:
I have ASP.NET websites deployed on a number of servers. Thee were
developed with Visual Studio 2003.
Is it true that Visual Studio 2005 only supports .NET Framework 2.0 and I
will be required...
|
by: Philip Leduc |
last post by:
Hi there,
I am a MS Access VBA programmer trying to get my feet wet using VB.net / SQL
server.
I have SLQ 2000/visual studio 2003 loaded and did get a SQL2005/visual
studio 2005 software...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXI=?= |
last post by:
I have seen the terms Visual Basic 2005 and VB.NET. It seems that sometimes
they seem to be referring to the same thing but sometimes they are not. I
also run into terms like VB9 and VB10.
|
by: bharathreddy |
last post by:
This Article gives an introduction to VSTS Team Foundation & fundamental difference between Visual Source Safe (VSS) and VSTS Team Foundation.
Team Foundation is a set of tools and technologies...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?QU0=?= |
last post by:
Is there a way to work on visual studio 2003 projects using visual studio
2005 without converting, maintaining original code?
Thanks
AM
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
| |
