Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

[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.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Opinions are like a**holes. Not only does everybody have one, but they all
stink.

That's crap.

Crap.

Crap.

Crap, nobody asked for that.

Crap.

 

[Andrew McDonald]

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.

 

[Bo Persson]

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

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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!
***********************************************

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* 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.

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************

* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):

[of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]

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?

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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!
***********************************************

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/
======================================

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

* 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?

 

[Kevin Spencer]

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]

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.

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.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************

* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):

[of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
message
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?

 

[Alexander Sanda]

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.

Q: What is even worse than a top posting?
A: 1) a 10 Mt thermonuclear blast in your backyard.
2) a magnitude 9.x quake with the epicenter in your kitchen.
3) a top posting with a *full quote*

(I'am not 100% sure about the order, though).

 

[Robert Beaubien]

Well, they seem to be reneging on the $1200 upgrade option. I just called
them and their statement is I can upgrade subscriptions for $3499 by
cancelling the remainder of my "Team System Architect" subscription, OR I
can take advantage of the $1200 upgrade offer and pay $1200 + $2490 to renew
my current subscription (effectively cancelling the remainder of the
subscription too). Not sure how that is a special deal.

Does Microsoft not realize that small programming shops need the entire Team
System because they wear more than one programming hat? I have no problem
spending money on quality software development products, but I don't want to
get screwed in the process.