VS2005 NOT Compatiblke with Vista? Are you serious?!

[Squishy]

I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and got
errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft...... please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is a
joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will
not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms of
support for these products.

Is this even legal?

[Jim Hubbard]

"gregarican " <gr*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ q2g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...

>I think it's funny how some critics slammed Microsoft for holding up
certain things with crutches such as Windows 9x, Visual Basic 6, etc.
backwards compatibility. But then when Microsoft finally takes a stand
and tries to clean up its act by not letting backwards compatibility
drag itself down they are slammed too. Having a product out for 3
years and then introducing new technology that (perhaps even by
design) might not be 100% backwards compatible isn't necessarily A Bad
Thing. After all we are talking about innovation, security, etc.

I agree. The main criticism I had of previous breaks in compatibility were
like the ones with VB6 to VB.net - where there really was no tool to upgrade
business level applications.

When compatibility must be broken (and sometimes it must), every effort to
assist in a smooth transistion to the new tool should be made. This
includes announcing the incompatibility as soon as Microsoft's development
team knows it will be an issue - not at the time of the public release. It
also includes actually making a real effort to include or upgrade the last
generation apps with the new tool, which Microsoft failed to do in the
VB6VB.Net changeover.

[RobinS]

Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you coming
*and* going.

Robin S.
----------------------------
"gregarican " <gr*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ q2g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...

>I think it's funny how some critics slammed Microsoft for holding up
certain things with crutches such as Windows 9x, Visual Basic 6, etc.
backwards compatibility. But then when Microsoft finally takes a stand
and tries to clean up its act by not letting backwards compatibility
drag itself down they are slammed too. Having a product out for 3
years and then introducing new technology that (perhaps even by
design) might not be 100% backwards compatible isn't necessarily A Bad
Thing. After all we are talking about innovation, security, etc.

On Jan 29, 10:03 pm, Dennis <Den...@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote:

>And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well
as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior
versions
incompatible.. .let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista
and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:

Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2
days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is
available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

"unknown" wrote:- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[gregarican]

Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote:

Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you coming
*and* going.

Robin S.
----------------------------"gregarican " <greg.kuj...@gm ail.comwrote in message

news:11******** **************@ q2g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...

I think it's funny how some critics slammed Microsoft for holding up
certain things with crutches such as Windows 9x, Visual Basic 6, etc.
backwards compatibility. But then when Microsoft finally takes a stand
and tries to clean up its act by not letting backwards compatibility
drag itself down they are slammed too. Having a product out for 3
years and then introducing new technology that (perhaps even by
design) might not be 100% backwards compatible isn't necessarily A Bad
Thing. After all we are talking about innovation, security, etc.

On Jan 29, 10:03 pm, Dennis <Den...@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote:

And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well
as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior
versions
incompatible... let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista
and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:

Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2
days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is
available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

"unknown" wrote:- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

"Jesse Houwing" <je***********@ nospam-sogeti.nlwrote in message
news:eE******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP03.phx.gbl. ..
| You can always run a VPC with Windows XP and VS2003. Though I'm fairly
| sure you'd need two separate licenses for that (or an MSDN subscription
| of course).

Read the thread with subject "No Vista support?" Apparentely it does run ok
in Vista.

The poster says nothing about web apps though. So I think it would be a good
idea to install a VPC and try it.
--
Ignacio Machin
machin AT laceupsolutions com

[aaron.kempf]

listen, buster

I don't care if it _RUNS_FINE_IN_V ISTA_

IS IT SUPPORTED?

CAN WE CALL UP FOR FREE AND GET SUPPORT WHEN THE BRAND SPANKING NEW
SOFTWARE WILL NOT PLAY NICE?

Is it _OUR_ fault that MIcrosoft doesn't have the forethought to test
these products BEFORE SHIPPING?

I'm pissed off that SQL 2005 won't work with Access 2003; and this is
just yet another example of Microsoft demonstrating that they JUST
DONT GIVE A CRAP

IS IT SUPPORTED, IS IT OUT OF THE BOX SUPPORTED?

I DONT NEED EXTRA SOFTWARE, MORE SOFTWARE

WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS INFORMATION THREE MONTHS AGO AND THERE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN A VS PATCH THREE MONTHS AGO

-Aaron

[RobinS]

I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They told
her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it (or it may
even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use that, she will
have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium M
chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it. I'm
fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's an
Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only have
two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run Vista.
Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican " <gr*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ m58g2000cwm.goo glegroups.com.. .

Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote:

>Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating
system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you
coming
*and* going.

Robin S.

[Jim Hubbard]

The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).

I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the company
standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users (and within
reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support VS2003 on Vista
when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good for the customer or
the company.

Let's face it... When you're the only game in town, you have a tendency to
do pretty much what you damn well please. It's the same with hot actors,
world champion boxers and rock stars. Just look at the stupid decisions
they make (Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson.....etc.) when they have no
boundaries.

Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat their
lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also human nature
btw) to get away with as much as you can.

What would have been great for Microsoft's image and customer confidence
would have been to scrap Vista when they started eliminating things like
Win/FS (the supposed core of Vista), admit that they have run into issues
and that they were going to build a new OS, from the gound up, (which would
not be backwards compatible) instead of putting out a warmed over UI change
like Vista.

With a completely rewritten OS, it would be less bloated, faster, and could
have the old problematic code removed and they would be giving people ample
warning that a major OS shift was coming that would require new applications
(or at least a virtual PC app to run XP and thier old apps).

Microsoft is much like a spoiled child. They pretty much do anything they
want because there are no real consequences. They are not here to serve the
customers or to even gain new customers. According to Chris Pratley (who
claims to have been the Group Program Manager for the program managment
teams that designed Word 2007, Publisher 2007 and OneNote 2007) "Our goal is
not to "be used by a lot of people". Our goal is actually to maximize
revenue."
(http://blogs.msdn.com/chris_pratley/...n-the-box.aspx)

So, there it is from the horses orafice (so to speak). Microsoft has the
global audience locked up and is not concerned with how many people use its
products, because they know that you MUST use them. Rather, they are
concerned with "maximizing revenue". This helps me to understand why they
keep breaking compatibility to make users buy more software. Microsoft is
just about the almighty dollar.

But...on to something that may actually be useful......

I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It has
a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

Jim Hubbard

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote in message
news:2L******** *************** *******@comcast .com...

I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They told
her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it (or it
may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use that, she
will have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium M
chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it. I'm
fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's an
Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only have
two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and
viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run Vista.
Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican " <gr*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ m58g2000cwm.goo glegroups.com.. .

>Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote:

>>Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating
system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you
coming
*and* going.

Robin S.

[RobinS]

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateadd ress.netwrote in message
news:CB******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).

Well, I think Macs are kind of cool, but I wouldn't buy one because there
are so few jobs writing software for them. :-) That's just economics to me.

I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the
company standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users (and
within reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support VS2003
on Vista when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good for the
customer or the company.

I agree with that. I'm surprised by their decision to do that. They ported
VS6 and VS8, how much more work could it be to port VS7?

<snip>

MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."

Scrap Vista and start from scratch

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP that
worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how doing
that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from scratch, and
in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great book, by the
way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book, although he used to
work for MS.)

instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed, but
that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would sell
as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50 you can
have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?

they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
to run XP and thier old apps).

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored to
be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes. Some
people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work with
XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and now
their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's QuickBooks). It
took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working with customers
on compatability for a couple of years now. How much frickin' notice do
people need?

Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public corporation
is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually serving the
customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista and Office 2007
will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and after people get over
the shock, they will like it better than any version they have used before.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.

I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee puts
up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot, or
standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them to
be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.

Thanks,
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.

[Bob Jones]

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They

told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.

I'm writing this on a 7 year old iBook running OS 10.3 (aka Panther). I
got it w/ OS 8.6 went to OS 9.x then OS X. So I don't see the problem
w/ a less-than-3 yr old mac running OS X - P.S. I don't see how a 3 yr
old Mac doesn't have OS X. OS X is has been out more than 3 years.
Someone, as usual, didn't know what he's talking about regarding
Macintosh.

Despite the fact that OS X IS UNIX I can still run my OS 9 apps (but
sorry, not older apps that were not "carbonized " - like you said at
some point there has to be incompatability (i.e. where would you put
the propeller on a jet?)). Yet I have an app that was written for OS 7
and still will run in OS 9 and/or "Classic mode" in OS X. That would
be like a DOS 3.0 app running in Windoze XP.

The next release, OS 10.5 (Tiger) supports the G3 (that's about 10
years of backward compatability) but as a practical matter I think
upgrading a G3 Mac is pointless. Many newer features require newer CPU
guts that the G3 simply does not have.

Macintosh has changed CPUs twice now and OS fundamental overhauls twice
(OS 7 & OS X), w/ nary a hiccup; I don't expect it was a perfect
transition across the board, but you could hear crickets chirp over the
complaints.

The most painful transistion was to OS 7.0 (about 1988). About 20%ish
of apps would not work, and about 50% required modification to work;
but Apple said so up front.

On 2007-02-01 03:35:37 -0600, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam. yah.nonesaid:

I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium
M chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it.
I'm fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's
an Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only
have two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest
version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run
Vista. Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican " <gr*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ m58g2000cwm.goo glegroups.com.. .

>Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote:

>>Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you coming
*and* going.

Robin S.

[RobinS]

If anyone doesn't know what they're talking about, it's the guy at the
Genius bar at the Apple store who told my friend she would not be able to
upgrade her laptop with the next version of the Mac OS that comes out.

I will point out that I wasn't *complaining* about it. I was just saying
that Microsoft gets a lot of crap for this and Apple doesn't. More complex
software requires better hardware enables more complex software requires
better hardware enables more complex software requires better hardware and
so on and so on.

Frankly, I *like* the Macs, and if I could afford 2 computers and had the
space for them, I'd buy one. I don't feel confident enough to install Vista
and Visual Studio and .Net 3.0 and SQLServer on a Mac, but would love to
hear if anybody has gotten that to work!

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
-------------------------------------------------
"Bob Jones" <ro****@jonesho use.comwrote in message
news:45******** **************@ roadrunner.com. ..

>I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.

I'm writing this on a 7 year old iBook running OS 10.3 (aka Panther). I
got it w/ OS 8.6 went to OS 9.x then OS X. So I don't see the problem w/
a less-than-3 yr old mac running OS X - P.S. I don't see how a 3 yr old
Mac doesn't have OS X. OS X is has been out more than 3 years. Someone,
as usual, didn't know what he's talking about regarding Macintosh.

Despite the fact that OS X IS UNIX I can still run my OS 9 apps (but
sorry, not older apps that were not "carbonized " - like you said at some
point there has to be incompatability (i.e. where would you put the
propeller on a jet?)). Yet I have an app that was written for OS 7 and
still will run in OS 9 and/or "Classic mode" in OS X. That would be like
a DOS 3.0 app running in Windoze XP.

The next release, OS 10.5 (Tiger) supports the G3 (that's about 10 years
of backward compatability) but as a practical matter I think upgrading a
G3 Mac is pointless. Many newer features require newer CPU guts that the
G3 simply does not have.

Macintosh has changed CPUs twice now and OS fundamental overhauls twice
(OS 7 & OS X), w/ nary a hiccup; I don't expect it was a perfect
transition across the board, but you could hear crickets chirp over the
complaints.

The most painful transistion was to OS 7.0 (about 1988). About 20%ish of
apps would not work, and about 50% required modification to work; but
Apple said so up front.

On 2007-02-01 03:35:37 -0600, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam. yah.nonesaid:

>I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium
M chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it. I'm
fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's an
Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only
have two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest
version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and
viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run
Vista. Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican " <gr*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******* *************** @m58g2000cwm.go oglegroups.com. ..

>>Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam. yah.nonewrote:
Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating
system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you
coming
*and* going.

Robin S.