Hi all,
My development team (10 developers) is going to begin a .NET project. We
are experienced ASP programmers.
I heard of the MSDN Universal Subscription, which ships the
soon-to-be-released VS.NET 2005.
If we subscribe to *one* MSDN Universal subscription, would we be able to
use VS.NET 2005 (as provided on those DVD's) amongst all 10 developers?
Thank you!
22  1406 
Nope. The MSDN subscription is a per-developer subscription. If you have 10
developers you need 10 subscriptions. Even though MSDN often comes with
multiple activations for a product, that's just for the one developer to use
in order to test numerous situations and environments.
Better information is available in the subscription faq at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...aspx#licensing
Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
"Uncle Ben" <sp******@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ev**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Hi all,
My development team (10 developers) is going to begin a .NET project. We
are experienced ASP programmers.
I heard of the MSDN Universal Subscription, which ships the
soon-to-be-released VS.NET 2005.
If we subscribe to *one* MSDN Universal subscription, would we be able to
use VS.NET 2005 (as provided on those DVD's) amongst all 10 developers?
Thank you!
Wow! That would cost a fortune. $2,799 US x 10 = $27,990 US ?
"Mark Fitzpatrick" <ma******@fitzme.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Nope. The MSDN subscription is a per-developer subscription. If you have
10 developers you need 10 subscriptions. Even though MSDN often comes with
multiple activations for a product, that's just for the one developer to
use in order to test numerous situations and environments.
Better information is available in the subscription faq at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...aspx#licensing
Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
"Uncle Ben" <sp******@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ev**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Hi all,
My development team (10 developers) is going to begin a .NET project.
We are experienced ASP programmers.
I heard of the MSDN Universal Subscription, which ships the
soon-to-be-released VS.NET 2005.
If we subscribe to *one* MSDN Universal subscription, would we be able
to use VS.NET 2005 (as provided on those DVD's) amongst all 10 developers?
Thank you!
Not really when you consider what you get. You get server development
licenses for Win 2003, SQL Server, Exchange Server, not to mention one
license of Office to use for personal business use and a bunch of other
licenses for testing, the operating systems to actually test applications
on, and the development suites themselves. Heck, one copy of JBuilder costs
$3500. You can also shop around and usually save a few hundred at least by
shopping around for an online distributor.
Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
"Uncle Ben" <sp******@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e9**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Wow! That would cost a fortune. $2,799 US x 10 = $27,990 US ?
"Mark Fitzpatrick" <ma******@fitzme.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Nope. The MSDN subscription is a per-developer subscription. If you have
10 developers you need 10 subscriptions. Even though MSDN often comes with
multiple activations for a product, that's just for the one developer to
use in order to test numerous situations and environments.
Better information is available in the subscription faq at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...aspx#licensing
Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
"Uncle Ben" <sp******@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ev**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Hi all,
>
> My development team (10 developers) is going to begin a .NET project. We > are experienced ASP programmers.
>
> I heard of the MSDN Universal Subscription, which ships the
> soon-to-be-released VS.NET 2005.
>
> If we subscribe to *one* MSDN Universal subscription, would we be able to > use VS.NET 2005 (as provided on those DVD's) amongst all 10 developers?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
how about buying one universal license ( for the servers etc and a copy of
vs ea ) and 9 copies of vs pro = $9,990
or, not that I would suggest this, do the obvious thing, which I won't
mention ;-)
"Uncle Ben" <sp******@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e9**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Wow! That would cost a fortune. $2,799 US x 10 = $27,990 US ?
"Mark Fitzpatrick" <ma******@fitzme.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Nope. The MSDN subscription is a per-developer subscription. If you have
10 developers you need 10 subscriptions. Even though MSDN often comes with
multiple activations for a product, that's just for the one developer to
use in order to test numerous situations and environments.
Better information is available in the subscription faq at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...aspx#licensing
Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
"Uncle Ben" <sp******@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ev**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Hi all,
My development team (10 developers) is going to begin a .NET project. We are experienced ASP programmers.
I heard of the MSDN Universal Subscription, which ships the
soon-to-be-released VS.NET 2005.
If we subscribe to *one* MSDN Universal subscription, would we be able to use VS.NET 2005 (as provided on those DVD's) amongst all 10
developers?
Thank you!
"gerry" <ge**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... how about buying one universal license ( for the servers etc and a copy of
vs ea ) and 9 copies of vs pro = $9,990
Because the fact that they are ASP developers would imply that they would
all require access to the servers. But that breaks the license agreement
since only the developer with the MSDN subscription is allowed to use the
servers. Only he can use them for development and testing, not the other 9
guys.
Loz.
that would have to be part of their decision but I would think that pro
includes the server software required for most development -
2000/2003/xp/sql servers.
"Lawrence Groves" <lg*****@ducost.deleteme.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... "gerry" <ge**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... how about buying one universal license ( for the servers etc and a copy
of vs ea ) and 9 copies of vs pro = $9,990
Because the fact that they are ASP developers would imply that they would
all require access to the servers. But that breaks the license agreement
since only the developer with the MSDN subscription is allowed to use the
servers. Only he can use them for development and testing, not the other 9
guys.
Loz.
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uR**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Lawrence,
You missed something I think,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/subscribers/compare/
I don't think so.... because Gerry suggested that they buy 9 *Visual Studio
Professional* licenses, not MSDN Professional licenses.
I know that if they went the MSDN route they would be ok. But whether they
could get 9 licenses for $9990 is another question. I don't know the prices
for Professional in $ as I'm not in the US.
Loz.
"gerry" <ge**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... that would have to be part of their decision but I would think that pro
includes the server software required for most development -
2000/2003/xp/sql servers.
That's true for MSDN Pro, but that's not what you were advocating in your
last post. It said Visual Studio, not MSDN.... which is why I commented.
Loz.
you are correct
"Lawrence Groves" <lg*****@ducost.deleteme.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... "gerry" <ge**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... that would have to be part of their decision but I would think that pro
includes the server software required for most development -
2000/2003/xp/sql servers.
That's true for MSDN Pro, but that's not what you were advocating in your
last post. It said Visual Studio, not MSDN.... which is why I commented.
Loz.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote: Not really when you consider what you get. You get server development
licenses for Win 2003, SQL Server, Exchange Server,
Hmm. This is not as good as it sounds. As I understand it, you are only
allowed to use those products in a test lab, and some of them may not
even be exact replicas of the "real" servers (10 connection limit?). If
they were allowed to be used in production mode, the deal would suddenly
be enticing to SMEs with 10 developers.
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Uncle Ben wrote: Wow! That would cost a fortune. $2,799 US x 10 = $27,990 US ?
That's why more and more people are looking at non-MS alternatives. The
current licensing is prohibitive. If your main focus is web applications
you don't really need VS.NET anyway, even if you decide to use ASP.NET
Thing is, the end user isn't going to know whether you created the app
in ASP.NET, Java, Perl/CGI or what ever.
If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as
a glorified text editor. The main thing you gain over standard ASP is
separation of UI/Code and the ability to compile. The main thing you
lose is control over the final code sent to the browser. If you use
VS.NET it pretty much forces you to use "web controls" and you become
stuck with the limitations and quirks of the controls. Some tasks that
are very quick when using W3C DHTML/DOM/CSS become convoluted when
trying to do the same in VS.NET
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Gerry Hickman <ge********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
Not really when you consider what you get. You get server development
licenses for Win 2003, SQL Server, Exchange Server,
Hmm. This is not as good as it sounds. As I understand it, you are only
allowed to use those products in a test lab, and some of them may not
even be exact replicas of the "real" servers (10 connection limit?).
Not just in a test lab - on development boxes as well. You can't use
them in production, but that's fairly reasonable I think.
I don't think there's a 10 connection limit though - what was that on?
I've always just installed the full normal kit (although you can't
install SQL Server Enterprise Edition on a non-server OS).
If they were allowed to be used in production mode, the deal would
suddenly be enticing to SMEs with 10 developers.
But then it would hardly be a developer licence, really. There are
other Microsoft programmes which get you MS software cheaply if you can
show you're developing certain types of products though.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Gerry, If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as a
glorified text editor.
Don't show so obvious that you don't know much from Visual Studio Net and
ASP.Net.
This because there are as I call it always three types of creating an
ASP.NET applications.
Most non VS.Net users know only 2, while the thirth is the most productive.
However to do that effectively you need to use a tool as VS.Net.
Your statement is true when you use Visual.Studio Net to create classic ASP
or those two kind of scripting ASPX methods.
I hope this helps.
Cor
Cor Ligthert wrote: This because there are as I call it always three types of creating an
ASP.NET applications.
Most non VS.Net users know only 2, while the thirth is the most productive.
However to do that effectively you need to use a tool as VS.Net.
Your statement is true when you use Visual.Studio Net to create classic ASP
or those two kind of scripting ASPX methods.
I thought I'd already mentioned compiled code? Or are you referring to
something else?
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: Not just in a test lab - on development boxes as well. You can't use
them in production, but that's fairly reasonable I think.
The problem is that you need central servers. It would be absurd to have
10 developers all targetting 10 separate copies of SQL server and 10
different copies of IIS - they need to collaborate.
I don't see how the current MSDN licensing addresses this?
I don't think there's a 10 connection limit though - what was that on?
I don't know the exact details, but I'm fairly sure there are some
oddities. For example there seems to be something called SQL server
"developer" edition. I'm assuming that's the one you can use for
testing? I'm not convinced it's the same product that you get when you
buy SQL server "Enterprise" edition? I also noticed some products (that
are supposedly identical) are different in that one will ask for a
serial number and the other will just install straight away.
Other examples of differences:
Windows 2000 Server and Pro in MSDN are NOT the same as the retail CDs.
The folder structure is not even the same. It's an issue if you want to
make ISO images for booting.
The main problem (for me) is that I have to maintain two sets of CDs.
Although I'm on volume licensing, I have to be careful not to use the
MSDN CDs for building servers and PCs.
1. There may be subtle differences
2. Microsoft may think they're illegal copies because they'd all have
MSDN serials instead of the retail serials.
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Gerry Hickman <ge********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Not just in a test lab - on development boxes as well. You can't use
them in production, but that's fairly reasonable I think.
The problem is that you need central servers. It would be absurd to have
10 developers all targetting 10 separate copies of SQL server and 10
different copies of IIS - they need to collaborate.
I don't see how the current MSDN licensing addresses this?
I don't think it's an issue if all the developers have MSDN licences. I
don't think you would be legal if you had one licensed developer who
ran the IIS and SQL Server boxes, and then 100 developers who "just"
connected to them - and administered them, etc.
I don't think there's a 10 connection limit though - what was that on?
I don't know the exact details, but I'm fairly sure there are some
oddities. For example there seems to be something called SQL server
"developer" edition. I'm assuming that's the one you can use for
testing? I'm not convinced it's the same product that you get when you
buy SQL server "Enterprise" edition? I also noticed some products (that
are supposedly identical) are different in that one will ask for a
serial number and the other will just install straight away.
The developer edition can be installed on non-server OSes. I haven't
seen anything saying there are any other technical differences
Other examples of differences:
Windows 2000 Server and Pro in MSDN are NOT the same as the retail CDs.
The folder structure is not even the same. It's an issue if you want to
make ISO images for booting.
I believe it's okay to use MSDN media for non-MSDN installations - just
use the non-MSDN licence key when you install.
The main problem (for me) is that I have to maintain two sets of CDs.
Although I'm on volume licensing, I have to be careful not to use the
MSDN CDs for building servers and PCs.
1. There may be subtle differences
I haven't come across any differences when actually installed.
2. Microsoft may think they're illegal copies because they'd all have
MSDN serials instead of the retail serials.
Only if you type in the wrong licence key when you install.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Gerry,
You are right now I read that text over ("the ability to compile").
However that is in my opinion a very strong argument for VS.Net. What in my
opinion conflicts with your sentence. If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as a
glorified text editor
Let me therefore ask it to you in this way, "Did you ever used it in that
compiled way?
I can not believe that somebody who used that including all posibilities to
debug, to create seperate classes etc. would write this.
With what I don't disagree with the other context of that message. VSNet 1.x
is in my opinion a very poor designer tool for a webform (the lack of the
possibilitiy to use frames is for me the most worse) however that designer
part will be one in my idea major improvements in VSNet 2.0 (I never tried
it, only from what I understood from it, so I even don't know if frames will
be integrated).
We can still disagree about that texteditor, everything is personal
preference so as you find it nothing more than a glorified text editor, than
it is just that we have a different opinion about that.
For me is that not any problem.
I found the way you wrote everything beside that texteditor very correct,
and maybe I should have written my response in another way (a mailmessage is
not a spoken word you know) for that than sorry.
Cor
Hi Jon, The problem is that you need central servers.
I don't see how the current MSDN licensing addresses this?
I don't think it's an issue if all the developers have MSDN licences.
It's not to do with what we "think" is reasonable. It's to do with what
is legal under the license agreement, and I've seen nothing in the small
print saying it's OK to set up a central server (Win2k3, Sharepoint,
Exchange, IIS, SQL Server) and have all developers connect and
collaborate? The way I'm reading the license is that each developer can
only install and use their OWN copy of the servers - if true, it's
totally absurd.
I
don't think you would be legal if you had one licensed developer who
ran the IIS and SQL Server boxes, and then 100 developers who "just"
connected to them - and administered them, etc.
No, that would definitely not be allowed. I guess in an environment that
big, all the servers would have production licenses and any dev tools
would be on volume licenses.
The developer edition can be installed on non-server OSes. I haven't
seen anything saying there are any other technical differences
Ah OK. Well that, in itself, implies the code base is not identical.
It's good to know the difference though.
I believe it's okay to use MSDN media for non-MSDN installations - just
use the non-MSDN licence key when you install.
But surely the "Product ID" will still be the "OEM/MSDN" one??
2. Microsoft may think they're illegal copies because they'd all have
MSDN serials instead of the retail serials.
Only if you type in the wrong licence key when you install.
Hmmm, well as above, I'm pretty sure the product ID will be different.
Anyway, I'll look into this, it would be nice to only have to manage ONE
set of CDs!
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Gerry Hickman <ge********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: The problem is that you need central servers.I don't see how the current MSDN licensing addresses this? I don't think it's an issue if all the developers have MSDN licences.
It's not to do with what we "think" is reasonable.
That's not what I meant. I meant that I think it's legal. I don't have
my MSDN licence on me at the moment, but I'll check when I can.
It's to do with what
is legal under the license agreement, and I've seen nothing in the small
print saying it's OK to set up a central server (Win2k3, Sharepoint,
Exchange, IIS, SQL Server) and have all developers connect and
collaborate? The way I'm reading the license is that each developer can
only install and use their OWN copy of the servers - if true, it's
totally absurd.
Yes, but I don't think that *is* the way it's meant. Rather than me
speculating, actually, I suspect your best course is to ask MS. I'm
sure they have a whole department dedicated
> I
don't think you would be legal if you had one licensed developer who
ran the IIS and SQL Server boxes, and then 100 developers who "just"
connected to them - and administered them, etc.
No, that would definitely not be allowed. I guess in an environment that
big, all the servers would have production licenses and any dev tools
would be on volume licenses.
Yup.
The developer edition can be installed on non-server OSes. I haven't
seen anything saying there are any other technical differences
Ah OK. Well that, in itself, implies the code base is not identical.
It's good to know the difference though.
It doesn't imply that the installed code is necessarily different - it
could just be the installer.
I believe it's okay to use MSDN media for non-MSDN installations - just
use the non-MSDN licence key when you install.
But surely the "Product ID" will still be the "OEM/MSDN" one??
I don't think so. (I think OEM is different to MSDN, basically.) I've
certainly had no trouble using a full licence key with an MSDN disc.
2. Microsoft may think they're illegal copies because they'd all have
MSDN serials instead of the retail serials.
Only if you type in the wrong licence key when you install.
Hmmm, well as above, I'm pretty sure the product ID will be different.
Anyway, I'll look into this, it would be nice to only have to manage ONE
set of CDs!
Absolutely. It's what I'm currently doing, and I've certainly had no
technical problems with it. (Whether there's some trace or not I can't
say for sure, of course, but I've never run into problems.)
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
You really need to try VS.Net. If you do then you will never want to go back
to old fashioned asp.
"Gerry Hickman" wrote: Uncle Ben wrote:
Wow! That would cost a fortune. $2,799 US x 10 = $27,990 US ?
That's why more and more people are looking at non-MS alternatives. The
current licensing is prohibitive. If your main focus is web applications
you don't really need VS.NET anyway, even if you decide to use ASP.NET
Thing is, the end user isn't going to know whether you created the app
in ASP.NET, Java, Perl/CGI or what ever.
If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as
a glorified text editor. The main thing you gain over standard ASP is
separation of UI/Code and the ability to compile. The main thing you
lose is control over the final code sent to the browser. If you use
VS.NET it pretty much forces you to use "web controls" and you become
stuck with the limitations and quirks of the controls. Some tasks that
are very quick when using W3C DHTML/DOM/CSS become convoluted when
trying to do the same in VS.NET
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Hi Bill,
I don't know if this was replying to me, but if it was I should mention
I've been using ASP.NET from the first BETAs. I currently have VS.NET
2003, but I don't agree I'd "never want to go back".
The way I see it, ASP/ISAPI is for serious stuff and ASP.NET is for
kiddie stuff. It's attractive to beginners who can't code their own data
grid and can't track their reference counts, but when you want to build
super-lightweight and super-fast components and control the standards
compliance of the generated code with good cross-browser client-side
interactivity, it's time to leave .NET at home.
Bill Guenthner wrote: You really need to try VS.Net. If you do then you will never want to go back
to old fashioned asp.
"Gerry Hickman" wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
Wow! That would cost a fortune. $2,799 US x 10 = $27,990 US ?
That's why more and more people are looking at non-MS alternatives. The
current licensing is prohibitive. If your main focus is web applications
you don't really need VS.NET anyway, even if you decide to use ASP.NET
Thing is, the end user isn't going to know whether you created the app
in ASP.NET, Java, Perl/CGI or what ever.
If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as
a glorified text editor. The main thing you gain over standard ASP is
separation of UI/Code and the ability to compile. The main thing you
lose is control over the final code sent to the browser. If you use
VS.NET it pretty much forces you to use "web controls" and you become
stuck with the limitations and quirks of the controls. Some tasks that
are very quick when using W3C DHTML/DOM/CSS become convoluted when
trying to do the same in VS.NET
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK) This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
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: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
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...
| |
