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?

 

[Hayden Kirk]

There is a patch for 2005.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Should we apply the patch before installing or just ignore installation
errors and apply the patch after?

 

[clintonG]

They must have a lot of chemtrails around Redmond, those people have become
FUBAR.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=-88043838&z=17&l=0&m=h

 

[Jim Hubbard]

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.

 

[Guest]

There is a patch for 2005.

The list of unresolved issues is still huge!

 

[Smokey Grindel]

beta? it's been out for a while now as RTM

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.

 

[Smokey Grindel]

It runs fine if you dont use UAC, if you are a full permission admin it
works perfectly.. the Vista patch fixes some of the UAC issues

 

[Jim Hubbard]

The list of unresolved issues is still huge!

Is there a list of VS2005/Vista issues somewhere?

I assume it is best to avoid using VS2005 on Vista for any production stuff
at this time - correct?

 

[Jim Hubbard]

To answer my own question....the postings at
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=274496 seem to indicate that
you should install VS2005, then SP1 then the Vista patch.

I still haven't found a complete listing of Vista/VS2005 problems though.

 

[Guest]

Is there a list of VS2005/Vista issues somewhere?

I assume it is best to avoid using VS2005 on Vista for any production
stuff at this time - correct?

Here it is:

Visual Studio on Windows Vista

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa948853.aspx

I would avoid using VS.NET on Vista until VS.NET 2005 SP1 Update for
Windows Vista is final.

 

[William LaMartin]

According to the information at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa948853.aspx, things do not look
as good for Visual Studio 2003 users.

Although I have used VS 2005 since it was available, I still have a number
of web sites where pages were created using VS 2003. I have only changed
two of the sites over to VS 2005, but it now looks like I am going to be
forced to port all of them to VS 2005 if I ever want to change my main
development computer to VISTA. This is not a trivial amount of work.

 

[Jesse Houwing]

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).

Jesse

* William LaMartin wrote, On 1/29/2007 5:34 PM:

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Stephany Young]

Well you just do that!

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!

 

[William Stacey [C# MVP]]

| Well you just do that!

Agreed.

 

[Guest]

heh! Knock yourself out!

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

 

[gregarican]

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.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

If you do choose that path, I strongly suggest looking into REALbasic.

REALbasic will allow you (in the $600 professional version) to compile apps
that run on Linux, Mac and Windows from the same source code.

The Linux version (compiles apps for Linux only) is free.

www.realbasic.com