No Vista support?

[smerf]

First of all, I tried installing VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM and
Vista told me that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista. How the hell can
that happen? I thought one of the main ideas of .Net was portability.

Then, when I looked around some more, I saw that VS2002 and VS2003 will NOT
be supported on Vista. What the hell? That violates Microsoft's own terms
of support for both of those products!

It is clear that Microsoft does NOT want people to develop code to support
their OSs. Otherwise, why would they kick us in the ass every time we turn
around?

 

[Laurent Bugnion [MVP]]

Hi,

First of all, I tried installing VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM and
Vista told me that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista. How the hell can
that happen? I thought one of the main ideas of .Net was portability.

..NET runs on Vista. It's "only" Visual Studio that doesn't. Besides, a
patch should be delivered soon.

<snip>

Greetings,
Laurent

 

[Mark Rae]

Besides, a patch should be delivered soon.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...6a-10b7-4c05-b81c-5863284503cf&displaylang=en

 

[Oliver Sturm]

.NET runs on Vista. It's "only" Visual Studio that doesn't. Besides, a

patch should be delivered soon.

.... and while I've seen the official Microsoft statements about this as
well as a number of user reports of problems, I haven't actually seen any
issues myself. I'm running VS with Administrator privileges and I
understand that some would like to see this necessity eliminated, but
otherwise it's been working just fine for me.


Oliver Sturm

 

[Jim Hubbard]

What version of Vista? I get the incompatibility messages when installing.

I stopped the install as I did not want to damage my Vista Ultimate 32 bit
RTM.

I still don't know if we should ignore the errors and install, then patch or
patch the OS then install the Visual Studio IDE.

And, when we patch, which patch do we use? The BETA Vista Service Pack 1
(at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...6A-10B7-4C05-B81C-5863284503CF&displaylang=en)
or the Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2005 Team Suite Service Pack 1 (at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...ab-e2d4-4c96-b39d-37baf6b5b1dc&DisplayLang=en)
or some other patch that I haven't seen?

Geez people.....REALbasic is looking better all the time.

 

[Oliver Sturm]

Hello Jim,

What version of Vista? I get the incompatibility messages when installing.

Maybe I wasn't clear - I got an incompatibility message once, before I
clicked it away. I think it wasn't there originally when I installed
Vista, the RC at that time. But when I upgraded to RTM I got a message,
but I just got rid of it and VS has continued to run just as well as it
did before the RTM upgrade.

I stopped the install as I did not want to damage my Vista Ultimate 32 bit
RTM.

Personally I wouldn't think it should damage your installation, but please
don't understand my comments as encouragement to disregard the warnings
you see. Microsoft doesn't call Vista RTM/VS 2005 (without patches) a
supported combination, and even if I don't see any problems I'm sure they
are still there.

I still don't know if we should ignore the errors and install, then patch
or patch the OS then install the Visual Studio IDE.

I don't know that, I haven't tried going this way.

And, when we patch, which patch do we use? The BETA Vista Service Pack 1
(at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...6A-10B7-4C05-B81C-5863284503CF&displaylang=en)
or the Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2005 Team Suite Service Pack 1 (at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...ab-e2d4-4c96-b39d-37baf6b5b1dc&DisplayLang=en)
or some other patch that I haven't seen?

Don't know either, sorry. It's not by choice that I haven't tried so far,
rather due to lack of time - but either way I haven't installed any
patches so far.

Geez people.....REALbasic is looking better all the time.

If only ease of installation on a new OS was the only criterion


Oliver Sturm

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Laurent,

In my idea are you not giving an answer on the question but on the
introducing to that.

This was in my idea the main part of the question.

Then, when I looked around some more, I saw that VS2002 and VS2003 will NOT
be supported on Vista. What the hell? That violates Microsoft's own terms
of support for both of those products!

It is clear that Microsoft does NOT want people to develop code to support
their OSs. Otherwise, why would they kick us in the ass every time we turn
around?

I have no answer on that.

Cor

Hi,

First of all, I tried installing VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM
and Vista told me that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista. How the
hell can that happen? I thought one of the main ideas of .Net was
portability.

.NET runs on Vista. It's "only" Visual Studio that doesn't. Besides, a
patch should be delivered soon.

<snip>

Greetings,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

 

[pvdg42]

First of all, I tried installing VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM
and Vista told me that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista. How the hell
can that happen? I thought one of the main ideas of .Net was portability.

Then, when I looked around some more, I saw that VS2002 and VS2003 will
NOT be supported on Vista. What the hell? That violates Microsoft's own
terms of support for both of those products!

It is clear that Microsoft does NOT want people to develop code to support
their OSs. Otherwise, why would they kick us in the ass every time we
turn around?

Load SP1 and the Vista patch. It works fine.

 

[Laurent Bugnion [MVP]]

Hi Cor,

Laurent,

In my idea are you not giving an answer on the question but on the
introducing to that.

I don't have a strong opinion or a technical expertise on the rest of
the question. I thought, however, that it was important to point out
that applications developed in .NET on Windows XP will run on Windows
Vista without problems. If this is guaranteed, then developing on Vista
is less critical.

This was in my idea the main part of the question.



I have no answer on that.

Cor

I also don't have an answer (especially not on the "kick in the ass"
part). I'm used to trim text that is not relevant to my answer. That was
marked clearly in my reply with a <snip> sign.

Greetings,
Laurent

 

[Kevin Spencer]

I have installed both Visual Studio 2005 and the SP1 patch on my Vista
Ultimate System, run it as Administrator, and have had no problems with it
either.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Software Composer
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

The shortest distance between 2 points is a curve.

 

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

HI,

| Hi,
|
| smerf wrote:
| > First of all, I tried installing VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM
and
| > Vista told me that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista. How the hell
can
| > that happen? I thought one of the main ideas of .Net was portability.
|
| .NET runs on Vista. It's "only" Visual Studio that doesn't. Besides, a
| patch should be delivered soon.

IIRC I read somewhere that VS 2003 will not run on Vista, IMHO this is a
shame, I'm still developing/mantaining apps in 1.1

I hope at least that they run fine under Vista

 

[Oliver Sturm]

Hello Ignacio,

IIRC I read somewhere that VS 2003 will not run on Vista, IMHO this is a
shame, I'm still developing/mantaining apps in 1.1

Yeah, I read that, too - or rather, it said that VS 2003 is not a
supported development platform on Vista. My VS 2003 runs nicely on Vista -
I haven't done any heavy development in it, but it compiles, debugs and
runs applications without any glitches I would have seen so far.

I hope at least that they run fine under Vista

I believe they're supposed to, yes.


Oliver Sturm

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Hello Ignacio,


Yeah, I read that, too - or rather, it said that VS 2003 is not a
supported development platform on Vista. My VS 2003 runs nicely on
Vista - I haven't done any heavy development in it, but it compiles,
debugs and runs applications without any glitches I would have seen
so far.

Debugging can't be done unless you're administrator, i.o.w disable the
extra security build in vista. If you do that, what's the point of
using vista over XP?

If MS says 'our product X isn't supported on platform Y', they will do
so for a reason

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Oliver Sturm]

Hello Frans,

Debugging can't be done unless you're administrator, i.o.w disable the
extra security build in vista.

Sure, I've stated before on this thread that I'm running VS as an
administrator on Vista - I don't regard it as a bug that I have to do
that, although I see your point.

If you do that, what's the point of
using vista over XP?

Well, I've noticed a few changes in Vista apart from the introduction of
UAC.

If MS says 'our product X isn't supported on platform Y', they will do
so for a reason

Of course. That (main) reason being that they also sell to nuclear power
stations and they want to avoid costly law suits. Of course everybody has
to make up his own mind in a matter like this - my position is that the
statement "it's not supported" doesn't mean it doesn't work in a majority
of cases.


Oliver Sturm

 

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

Hi,

| Hello Ignacio,
|
| >IIRC I read somewhere that VS 2003 will not run on Vista, IMHO this is a
| >shame, I'm still developing/mantaining apps in 1.1
|
| Yeah, I read that, too - or rather, it said that VS 2003 is not a
| supported development platform on Vista. My VS 2003 runs nicely on Vista -
| I haven't done any heavy development in it, but it compiles, debugs and
| runs applications without any glitches I would have seen so far.
|

That is a good distinction, between "it does not run" and "it is not
supported".

| I believe they're supposed to, yes.

I will install a VPC this weekend to try to run my apps, it would be a BIG
problem if they do not run nicely

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Well, I've noticed a few changes in Vista apart from the introduction
of UAC.

heh, yeah, ok, but these eat resources away as well. If you look
closely at:
1) you're in VS.NET all day working on code on XP
vs.
2) you're in VS.NET all day working on code on Vista

what's the difference if you use Administrator on both? IMHO not much.

Of course. That (main) reason being that they also sell to nuclear
power stations and they want to avoid costly law suits. Of course
everybody has to make up his own mind in a matter like this - my
position is that the statement "it's not supported" doesn't mean it
doesn't work in a majority of cases.

Well, look at it this way: if you have on your dev box Windows XP, and
you need to use vs.net 2003, are you going to upgrade your windows XP
to vista? If so, you should be very sure you can do your job tomorrow,
as it otherwise will result in a reinstall of XP.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Oliver Sturm]

Hello Frans,

heh, yeah, ok, but these eat resources away as well. If you look
closely at:
1) you're in VS.NET all day working on code on XP
vs.
2) you're in VS.NET all day working on code on Vista

what's the difference if you use Administrator on both? IMHO not much.

Oh I don't know.... or maybe I agree with that statement. But that's not
what I do - work in VS all day -, there are lots of other things I do. And
as a general purpose OS I have found a number of things in Vista that I
really like. Plus of course it's a more modern OS in many ways - I don't
have the need to know and understand every single change that has been
made in the OS code to appreciate that clever people have been investing a
lot of time in low level functionality to make things more stable, more
secure, maybe more performant, more compatible... in the same way I don't
doubt that a new model Merc will be a "better" car than an older model. I
might not like the new look, but I'm not going to doubt that the technical
advances of a few years will benefit me in some ways if I'm an advanced
user.

Well, look at it this way: if you have on your dev box Windows XP, and
you need to use vs.net 2003, are you going to upgrade your windows XP
to vista? If so, you should be very sure you can do your job tomorrow,
as it otherwise will result in a reinstall of XP.

No, I agree - but that's a totally different thing. What's more, there's
no better way to preserve development and build environments than virtual
machines. I've been using VMWare since their first version (nearly 8
years? Unbelievable!) and at last count I had some 38 VMs preserved - even
special machines for certain projects. Some of these were originally
installed in a VMWare running on a Linux machine, but they're still
available today should I need them.


Oliver Sturm