By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
439,993 Members | 1,947 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 439,993 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

VC++ Net 2002 - 2003 upgrade

P: n/a
Tim
Is there a way to upgrade from Visual C++ Net 2002 to
Visual C++ Net 2003? The 2002 version does not provide
a Windows Forms Designer. I can't find any upgrade package
on Microsoft's website.

Thanks,
Tim
Nov 17 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
36 Replies


P: n/a
Tim wrote:
Is there a way to upgrade from Visual C++ Net 2002 to
Visual C++ Net 2003? The 2002 version does not provide
a Windows Forms Designer. I can't find any upgrade package
on Microsoft's website.


You have to buy Visual Studio .NET 2003. If you hadn't waited so long,
there was a $29 upgrade price, but that offer's now expired, AFIAK.

-cd
Nov 17 '05 #2

P: n/a
Tim
>-----Original Message-----
Tim wrote:
Is there a way to upgrade from Visual C++ Net 2002 to
Visual C++ Net 2003? The 2002 version does not provide
a Windows Forms Designer. I can't find any upgrade package on Microsoft's website.
You have to buy Visual Studio .NET 2003. If you hadn't

waited so long,there was a $29 upgrade price, but that offer's now expired, AFIAK.
-cd


cd,

Thanks for the response.

It's outrageous to have to pay twice for the
product, to obtain a feature that should have
been included in the first place.

Thanks,
Tim

Nov 17 '05 #3

P: n/a
Yup, that expired in September.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ho...3/default.aspx

You'll now have to get the normal upgrade which costs heaps.

"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cp*****************************@mvps.org.nospam >
wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Tim wrote:
Is there a way to upgrade from Visual C++ Net 2002 to
Visual C++ Net 2003? The 2002 version does not provide
a Windows Forms Designer. I can't find any upgrade package
on Microsoft's website.


You have to buy Visual Studio .NET 2003. If you hadn't waited so long,
there was a $29 upgrade price, but that offer's now expired, AFIAK.

-cd

Nov 17 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Tim" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:04****************************@phx.gbl...
-----Original Message-----
Tim wrote:
Is there a way to upgrade from Visual C++ Net 2002 to
Visual C++ Net 2003? The 2002 version does not provide
a Windows Forms Designer. I can't find any upgrade package on Microsoft's website.
You have to buy Visual Studio .NET 2003. If you hadn't

waited so long,
there was a $29 upgrade price, but that offer's now

expired, AFIAK.

-cd


cd,

Thanks for the response.

It's outrageous to have to pay twice for the
product, to obtain a feature that should have
been included in the first place.

But there was a *very* special price for the first 6 months, $29 for 7
CDs...

Too bad you missed that.
Bo Persson


Thanks,
Tim

Nov 17 '05 #5

P: n/a
Tim
-----Original Message-----

"Tim" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:04****************************@phx.gbl...
>-----Original Message-----
>Tim wrote:
>> Is there a way to upgrade from Visual C++ Net 2002 to
>> Visual C++ Net 2003? The 2002 version does not provide >> a Windows Forms Designer. I can't find any upgrade package
>> on Microsoft's website.
>
>You have to buy Visual Studio .NET 2003. If you hadn't

waited so long,
>there was a $29 upgrade price, but that offer's now

expired, AFIAK.
>
>-cd
>


cd,

Thanks for the response.

It's outrageous to have to pay twice for the
product, to obtain a feature that should have
been included in the first place.

But there was a *very* special price for the first 6

months, $29 for 7CDs...

Too bad you missed that.
Bo Persson


I was not aware of the offer.
In any event this appears to be an offer for the
Visual Studio upgrade, not the standalone Visual C++
upgrade.

I guess I took it for granted that there would be a way
to upgrade. Of all the software products I have purchased
in the past, I never encountered this type of "no upgrade"
policy.

In my opinion, Visual C++ .NET 2002 is an incomplete
product. I still think its outrageous that there is no
upgrade path available.

Happy New Year!

Thanks,
Tim
Nov 17 '05 #6

P: n/a
I totally agree. VB has had a form designer since version 1.0.
Nov 17 '05 #7

P: n/a
Actually this pisses me off so much I'm going to do everything I can to get the upgrade for free. Can anyone tell me what security there is on the upgrade?
Nov 17 '05 #8

P: n/a

"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:0E**********************************@microsof t.com...
Actually this pisses me off so much I'm going to do everything I can to

get the upgrade for free. Can anyone tell me what security there is on the
upgrade?

You mean against piracy?

The installation requires you to have (installed or as a CD) the previous
version. The CDs also carries the usual text "Do Not Lend or Make Illegal
Copies of This Software", assuming that a programmer would respect the works
of other programmers.

Other than that, nothing.

Bo Persson
Nov 17 '05 #9

P: n/a
This stuff about respecting other programmer's work is the usual microsoft spin. I respect their work (otherwise I wouldn't pay for it or use it in the first place) but my issue with with their pricing policy.

Despite the sales jargon, 2003 is a minor upgrade. There are some additional tools and improvements (even though 98% compatibility to the C++ standard is 2% too low if you ask me). If I write software and make some additions a year later I would not dream of charging my customer the price of the whole lot again. That's what Bill is expecting. It's his market power at work. If there was a viable alternative I'd use it.
Nov 17 '05 #10

P: n/a
"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8**********************************@microsof t.com...
If there was a viable alternative I'd use it.


This comment speaks volumes about the current state of affairs. If to create
a standards compliant C++ compiler ("a viable alternative" as you put it)
with all the bells and whistles was an easy, inexpensive proposition for
which there was a high return on investment than there would be more of
them.

It ain't. There ain't. You get what you pay for. :-)

Regards,
Will

Nov 17 '05 #11

P: n/a

"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
This stuff about respecting other programmer's work is the usual microsoft spin.

No, the development tools have never been copy protected. You are allowed to
install as many copies as you like, as long as they are used by a single
person.
I respect their work (otherwise I wouldn't pay for it or use it in the first place) but my issue with with their pricing policy.
Despite the sales jargon, 2003 is a minor upgrade.


Right. So I upgraded about a year ago, and payed the $29 upgrade cost.
Cheap!

It's hardly MS' fault that you missed the 6 months worth of "Special Upgrade
Offer".
Bo Persson
Nov 17 '05 #12

P: n/a
I don't understand why there was a $29 upgrade and now there's none. I was using MFC exclusively during that time and so I did not even notice that there was time limit on the upgrade (i.e. I didn't have any reason to go looking for something that was missing). Good for you that you got it but that does not make me feel any better. Upgrades have been available since version 1.0 of EVERYTHING and why has Bill all of a sudden abolished it for this product. The only reason I can imagine is either he does not think he has to bother (ie. arrogance) or he's excercising market power (ie. arrogance again).

William, you are absolutely right. I tried to used the free Borland command line compiler with a free IDE etc etc but the time it took me to not even get it near working was simply not worth it.

Key in "hate microsoft" on google and have a look at the number of hits. I got 730,000. There's someone out there who hates microsoft because of about every product that they do.
Nov 17 '05 #13

P: n/a
William DePalo [MVP VC++] <wi***********@mvps.org> wrote:
[...] If to create
a standards compliant C++ compiler ("a viable alternative" as you put it)
with all the bells and whistles was an easy, inexpensive proposition for
which there was a high return on investment than there would be more of
them.

It ain't. There ain't. You get what you pay for. :-)
Despite the fact that in general you are
right, in particular, there is Comeau
which is as close to the standard as it
gets and comes for US$50.
Regards,
Will


Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
Nov 17 '05 #14

P: n/a
Hi Nick,

There is an upgrade price. For the Pro edition, the estimated retail prices
are: upgrade price $549 and full price $1079.

More information is available on
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/howtobuy/pricing.aspx

Ronald Laeremans
Visual C++ team
"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7D**********************************@microsof t.com...
I don't understand why there was a $29 upgrade and now there's none. I was using MFC exclusively during that time and so I did not even notice that
there was time limit on the upgrade (i.e. I didn't have any reason to go
looking for something that was missing). Good for you that you got it but
that does not make me feel any better. Upgrades have been available since
version 1.0 of EVERYTHING and why has Bill all of a sudden abolished it for
this product. The only reason I can imagine is either he does not think he
has to bother (ie. arrogance) or he's excercising market power (ie.
arrogance again).
William, you are absolutely right. I tried to used the free Borland command line compiler with a free IDE etc etc but the time it took me to not
even get it near working was simply not worth it.
Key in "hate microsoft" on google and have a look at the number of hits. I

got 730,000. There's someone out there who hates microsoft because of about
every product that they do.
Nov 17 '05 #15

P: n/a
"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message:
This stuff about respecting other programmer's work is the usual microsoft spin. I respect their work (otherwise I wouldn't pay for it
or use it in the first place) but my issue with with their pricing
policy.
Despite the sales jargon, 2003 is a minor upgrade. ...


To me, the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is huge. I think of 7.0 as
an old broken compiler and 7.1 as a first-rate modern compiler.

Jonathan
Nov 17 '05 #16

P: n/a
Jon

This is getting better and better. So what you are telling me is that I paid full price for a "old broken compiler". Thanks, you've made my night

nick
Nov 17 '05 #17

P: n/a
Ron

Why would I want to pay $US549 for an upgrade for the pro edition when I only paid about $AUS250 for the std edition? If I'd wanted the pro edition in the first place I'd have bought it. At that price the MSDN membership would have also made sense and I would have gotten the upgrade for free, apparently

I only want C++. I don't want all the rest. I'm not interested in an upgrade regardless of price.
Nov 17 '05 #18

P: n/a
Nick <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Ron,

Why would I want to pay $US549 for an upgrade for the pro edition
when I only paid about $AUS250 for the std edition? If I'd
wanted the pro edition in the first place I'd have bought it. At
that price the MSDN membership would have also made sense and I
would have gotten the upgrade for free, apparently.

I only want C++. I don't want all the rest. I'm not interested in
an upgrade regardless of price.


You do realize that VC std doesn't come
with an optimizing compiler, don't you?

It is sad there is no VC pro. Ron, will
we have one for Whidbey?

Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers

Nov 17 '05 #19

P: n/a
> To me, the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is huge. I think of 7.0 as
an old broken compiler and 7.1 as a first-rate modern compiler.
7.1 is a new broken compiler.

After all, this is supposedly the 8th iteration (or so) of the product.

Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message:
This stuff about respecting other programmer's work is the usual

microsoft spin. I respect their work (otherwise I wouldn't pay for it
or use it in the first place) but my issue with with their pricing
policy.

Despite the sales jargon, 2003 is a minor upgrade. ...


To me, the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is huge. I think of 7.0 as
an old broken compiler and 7.1 as a first-rate modern compiler.

Jonathan


--
Bret Pehrson
mailto:br**@infowest.com
NOSPAM - Include this key in all e-mail correspondence <<38952rglkwdsl>>
Nov 17 '05 #20

P: n/a

"Bret Pehrson" <br**@infowest.com> wrote in message
news:40***************@infowest.com...
To me, the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is huge. I think of 7.0 as an old broken compiler and 7.1 as a first-rate modern compiler.
7.1 is a new broken compiler.

After all, this is supposedly the 8th iteration (or so) of the

product.


Of course it's not perfect; no compiler is -- so by your standards all
are broken. By more reasonable standards VC7.1 is first rate.

Jonathan
Nov 17 '05 #21

P: n/a
I expect a subsequent version to be better and less buggier than the previous.
Microsoft doesn't agree. Look at the history of MSVC. Without fail, the .0
version is extremely buggy and insufficient, the follow on revisions slowly get
better until the next .0 release.

I don't expect perfection in a product, but I do expect consistent progression
(w/o excessive regression).
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:

"Bret Pehrson" <br**@infowest.com> wrote in message
news:40***************@infowest.com...
To me, the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is huge. I think of 7.0 as an old broken compiler and 7.1 as a first-rate modern compiler.


7.1 is a new broken compiler.

After all, this is supposedly the 8th iteration (or so) of the

product.


Of course it's not perfect; no compiler is -- so by your standards all
are broken. By more reasonable standards VC7.1 is first rate.

Jonathan


--
Bret Pehrson
mailto:br**@infowest.com
NOSPAM - Include this key in all e-mail correspondence <<38952rglkwdsl>>
Nov 17 '05 #22

P: n/a
Jonathan Turkanis <te******@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
[...]
7.1 is a new broken compiler. [...]
Of course it's not perfect; no compiler is -- so by your standards all
are broken. By more reasonable standards VC7.1 is first rate.


I wouldn't consider a C++ compiler "first
rate" if it fails to do two phase-parsing
on templates. Also, for my taste it ICEs
far to often for beeing first rate.
That isn't to say that VC didn't come a
loooong way since VC6.
Jonathan


Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
Nov 17 '05 #23

P: n/a
I'd settle for just a COMPLETE product. It seems to me that there were a bunch of stuff that didn't happen to be ready for 7.0 and so they left them out and now we have to buy the whole lot again to get the bits that should have been in there in the first place

I'm not really a sophisticated user. If I get executable C++ code out the end I'm happy. The time it takes to write the code is more important to me than whether it is compiled in one or two phases. That's why I want the forms designer (and the other tools in 7.1).

The other thing that annoys me is the year versioning. 2003 and 2002 sound like 7.0 and 8.0. What's wrong with the old fashioned way.
Nov 17 '05 #24

P: n/a

"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:72**********************************@microsof t.com...
I'd settle for just a COMPLETE product. It seems to me that there were a bunch of stuff that didn't happen to be ready for 7.0 and so they left them
out and now we have to buy the whole lot again to get the bits that should
have been in there in the first place.
I'm not really a sophisticated user. If I get executable C++ code out the end I'm happy. The time it takes to write the code is more important to me
than whether it is compiled in one or two phases. That's why I want the
forms designer (and the other tools in 7.1).
The other thing that annoys me is the year versioning. 2003 and 2002 sound

like 7.0 and 8.0. What's wrong with the old fashioned way.

The names were decided by the marketing department, they have no real value.

The C++ compiler calls itself version 13.1 for the 2003 edition. Not that
there has ever been 13 versions...
Bo Persson
Nov 17 '05 #25

P: n/a
Bo Persson <bo*@gmb.dk> wrote:
[...]
The names were decided by the marketing department, they have no real value.
They are indeed bad and stupid. How often
is it called "Visual C++ .NET 2003" here
and how often VC7.1? And how often were
people confused between 2002/2003? It's
easy to be confused, compared to 7/8.
The C++ compiler calls itself version 13.1 for the 2003 edition. Not that
there has ever been 13 versions...
I think the compiler started counting with
MSC for DOS.
Bo Persson


Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
Nov 17 '05 #26

P: n/a

"Hendrik Schober" <Sp******@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:Oo**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Jonathan Turkanis <te******@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
[...]
7.1 is a new broken compiler.

[...]
Of course it's not perfect; no compiler is -- so by your standards all are broken. By more reasonable standards VC7.1 is first rate.


I wouldn't consider a C++ compiler "first
rate" if it fails to do two phase-parsing
on templates. Also, for my taste it ICEs
far to often for beeing first rate.
That isn't to say that VC didn't come a
loooong way since VC6.


Okay, I'm not going to argue about the definition of 'first-rate'. ;-)

Let me put it this way. I haven't yet written any tricky
template-based code which I haven't been able to make work correctly
on VC7.1. (I'm not talking about sample programs to test
conformance -- I mean real-world code which I need for some project.)
I can say this only for three other compilers: gcc3.2+, Intel 7.1+ and
como 4.3.3. That puts VC7.1 in the top four in my book.

I'm aware of problems with VC7.1's conformance, but so far they
haven't tripped me up.

Jonathan
Nov 17 '05 #27

P: n/a
Remember, long ago MSVC was really the C compiler from Lattice...

Hendrik Schober wrote:

Bo Persson <bo*@gmb.dk> wrote:
[...]
The names were decided by the marketing department, they have no real value.


They are indeed bad and stupid. How often
is it called "Visual C++ .NET 2003" here
and how often VC7.1? And how often were
people confused between 2002/2003? It's
easy to be confused, compared to 7/8.
The C++ compiler calls itself version 13.1 for the 2003 edition. Not that
there has ever been 13 versions...


I think the compiler started counting with
MSC for DOS.
Bo Persson


Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers


--
Bret Pehrson
mailto:br**@infowest.com
NOSPAM - Include this key in all e-mail correspondence <<38952rglkwdsl>>
Nov 17 '05 #28

P: n/a
Bret Pehrson <br**@infowest.com> wrote:
Remember, long ago MSVC was really the C compiler from Lattice...
Was it? I wasn't using MSC back then.
[...]

Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
Nov 17 '05 #29

P: n/a
Jonathan Turkanis <te******@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, I'm not going to argue about the definition of 'first-rate'. ;-)
<g>
Let me put it this way. I haven't yet written any tricky
template-based code which I haven't been able to make work correctly
on VC7.1.
Great. But what does that by itself mean?
I can say, I have written no template code
that I was not able to get work correctly
on VC6. The questions remain: _Why_ didn't
I write it? -- because it wouldn't work --
and How long did it take? -- too long for
too much of the code. [...]

If I'm cornered with different errors spit
out by VC, CW and GCC I usually cook up a
sample and play with Comeau until I got it
done after the book. _Then_ I try to make
the other compilers accept the code. Now,
the interesting thing about this is that,
most of the time, once I got the code the
way it used to be, it is a lot easier to
make the rest of the compilers accept it.
The biggest problem is to get there when
all you have is broken compilers that ICE
on simple syntax errors.
This is where Comeau shines. It is (almost)
100% conforming (so much that I have yet to
find a compiler vendor that wouldn't accept
a bug report if you argue with "but Comeau
does/doesn't accept the code") and it does
produce great error messages.
While you can get your work done with just
about any other compiler, it does take
longer. And it hurts more.
I'm aware of problems with VC7.1's conformance, but so far they
haven't tripped me up.
Missing two-pahes lookup is a PITA if you
write library code. It is stupid to have
your users find silly syntax errors in your
code. I always check my code with CW before
I release it, even if it is meant to be used
with VC only, since CW does check non-
dependend names.
Jonathan


Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
Nov 17 '05 #30

P: n/a

"Hendrik Schober" <Sp******@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:Om**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Jonathan Turkanis <te******@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, I'm not going to argue about the definition of 'first-rate'. ;-)

<g>
Let me put it this way. I haven't yet written any tricky
template-based code which I haven't been able to make work
correctly on VC7.1.


Great. But what does that by itself mean?
I can say, I have written no template code
that I was not able to get work correctly
on VC6. The questions remain: _Why_ didn't
I write it? -- because it wouldn't work --
and How long did it take? -- too long for
too much of the code. [...]


Okay, that way didn't work. :-) One more try: I've never been forced
to abandon any technique requiring a high degree of
standard-conformance because I couldn't get it to work on VC7.1. This
is in contrast with all previous versions of VC, Borland 5.x, CW8.0
and some previous versions of the other compilers we discussed.
This is where Comeau shines. It is (almost)
100% conforming (so much that I have yet to
find a compiler vendor that wouldn't accept
a bug report if you argue with "but Comeau
does/doesn't accept the code") and it does
produce great error messages.
While you can get your work done with just
about any other compiler, it does take
longer. And it hurts more.
I share your affection for Comeau. I'm not sure I always like its
error messages, though.
I'm aware of problems with VC7.1's conformance, but so far they
haven't tripped me up.


Missing two-pahes lookup is a PITA if you
write library code. It is stupid to have
your users find silly syntax errors in your
code. I always check my code with CW before
I release it, even if it is meant to be used
with VC only, since CW does check non-
dependend names.


Fair enough. But I never make silly syntax errors. ;-)

Jonathan

Nov 17 '05 #31

P: n/a
Jonathan Turkanis <te******@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
[...]

Okay, that way didn't work. :-) One more try: I've never been forced
to abandon any technique requiring a high degree of
standard-conformance because I couldn't get it to work on VC7.1. This
is in contrast with all previous versions of VC, Borland 5.x, CW8.0
and some previous versions of the other compilers we discussed.
Yes. I agree with this.
[...]
code. I always check my code with CW before
I release it, even if it is meant to be used
with VC only, since CW does check non-
dependend names.

Fair enough. But I never make silly syntax errors. ;-)


Wow. Need a job? :)
Jonathan


Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
Nov 17 '05 #32

P: n/a

"Hendrik Schober" <Sp******@gmx.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:us**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Bret Pehrson <br**@infowest.com> wrote:
Remember, long ago MSVC was really the C compiler from Lattice...


Was it? I wasn't using MSC back then.


That's where the confusion started. The Lattice C was version 2.x, so when
MS introduced their first own compiler, it was already version 3.0!

That series ran for a lot of versions, up to 8.0 I guess.

Then they turned Visual, using numbers 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 5, and 6. No version 3
this time!

And it continues. :-)
Bo Persson
Nov 17 '05 #33

P: n/a
Bo Persson <bo*@gmb.dk> wrote:
[...]
Remember, long ago MSVC was really the C compiler from Lattice...
Was it? I wasn't using MSC back then.


That's where the confusion started. The Lattice C was version 2.x, so when
MS introduced their first own compiler, it was already version 3.0!

That series ran for a lot of versions, up to 8.0 I guess.

Then they turned Visual, using numbers 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 5, and 6. No version 3
this time!


<confused>
And it continues. :-)
Yeah. Confusion, too. :)
Bo Persson


Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
Nov 17 '05 #34

P: n/a
Most likely there will not be a VC Pro edition for Whidbey. Most likely
however the optimizing compiler will be part of VC Standard. None of the 2
is 100% certain yet.

Ronald

"Hendrik Schober" <Sp******@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Nick <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Ron,

Why would I want to pay $US549 for an upgrade for the pro edition
when I only paid about $AUS250 for the std edition? If I'd
wanted the pro edition in the first place I'd have bought it. At
that price the MSDN membership would have also made sense and I
would have gotten the upgrade for free, apparently.

I only want C++. I don't want all the rest. I'm not interested in
an upgrade regardless of price.


You do realize that VC std doesn't come
with an optimizing compiler, don't you?

It is sad there is no VC pro. Ron, will
we have one for Whidbey?

Schobi

--
Sp******@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers

Nov 17 '05 #35

P: n/a
Hi Nick,

If you look at many products that have low end and full editions in these
price ranges (e.g. Adobe PhotoShop and PhotoShop Elements to give an example
from a very different field), the low end edition does generally not have
upgrade pricing whereas the full edition does.

Ronald

"Nick" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF**********************************@microsof t.com...
Ron,

Why would I want to pay $US549 for an upgrade for the pro edition when I only paid about $AUS250 for the std edition? If I'd wanted the pro edition
in the first place I'd have bought it. At that price the MSDN membership
would have also made sense and I would have gotten the upgrade for free,
apparently.
I only want C++. I don't want all the rest. I'm not interested in an

upgrade regardless of price.
Nov 17 '05 #36

P: n/a
Ron

You must think that I'm a moron! You are trying to pass off VC++.net as a "low end", cut down or lite version of the whole .net development environment. Where in the name "VC++ .net standard" is the word "lite". How could anyone imagine that C++ is "low end"

There's a difference between a product suite (eg. Office) a bundle (eg. Norton Security products in one box) and a product (Photoshop). The pro version could be called a bundle or suite but you (or your head-up-their-ass marketers) cannot convince me that STANDARD edition is actually a lite edition

I didn't buy a lite version, I don't want a lite version I want C++ with visual studio with all the tools

Microsoft, more than any other company has molded the PC software market. Now it seems that you are changing the rules to suit yourselves. This is the sort of behaviour that ends up in court. (And declining market share

I'm still furious.
Nov 17 '05 #37

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.