VS2005 NOT Compatiblke with Vista? Are you serious?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Squishy
  • Start date Start date
gregarican said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. The main criticism I had of previous breaks in compatibility were
like the ones with VB6 to VB.net - where there really was no tool to upgrade
business level applications.

When compatibility must be broken (and sometimes it must), every effort to
assist in a smooth transistion to the new tool should be made. This
includes announcing the incompatibility as soon as Microsoft's development
team knows it will be an issue - not at the time of the public release. It
also includes actually making a real effort to include or upgrade the last
generation apps with the new tool, which Microsoft failed to do in the
VB6VB.Net changeover.
 
Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you coming
*and* going.

Robin S.
----------------------------
 
Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.
 
Hi,

| 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).

Read the thread with subject "No Vista support?" Apparentely it does run ok
in Vista.

The poster says nothing about web apps though. So I think it would be a good
idea to install a VPC and try it.
 
listen, buster

I don't care if it _RUNS_FINE_IN_VISTA_

IS IT SUPPORTED?

CAN WE CALL UP FOR FREE AND GET SUPPORT WHEN THE BRAND SPANKING NEW
SOFTWARE WILL NOT PLAY NICE?

Is it _OUR_ fault that MIcrosoft doesn't have the forethought to test
these products BEFORE SHIPPING?

I'm pissed off that SQL 2005 won't work with Access 2003; and this is
just yet another example of Microsoft demonstrating that they JUST
DONT GIVE A CRAP

IS IT SUPPORTED, IS IT OUT OF THE BOX SUPPORTED?

I DONT NEED EXTRA SOFTWARE, MORE SOFTWARE

WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS INFORMATION THREE MONTHS AGO AND THERE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN A VS PATCH THREE MONTHS AGO

-Aaron
 
I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They told
her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it (or it may
even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use that, she will
have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium M
chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it. I'm
fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's an
Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only have
two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run Vista.
Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
 
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).

I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the company
standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users (and within
reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support VS2003 on Vista
when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good for the customer or
the company.

Let's face it... When you're the only game in town, you have a tendency to
do pretty much what you damn well please. It's the same with hot actors,
world champion boxers and rock stars. Just look at the stupid decisions
they make (Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson.....etc.) when they have no
boundaries.

Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat their
lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also human nature
btw) to get away with as much as you can.

What would have been great for Microsoft's image and customer confidence
would have been to scrap Vista when they started eliminating things like
Win/FS (the supposed core of Vista), admit that they have run into issues
and that they were going to build a new OS, from the gound up, (which would
not be backwards compatible) instead of putting out a warmed over UI change
like Vista.

With a completely rewritten OS, it would be less bloated, faster, and could
have the old problematic code removed and they would be giving people ample
warning that a major OS shift was coming that would require new applications
(or at least a virtual PC app to run XP and thier old apps).

Microsoft is much like a spoiled child. They pretty much do anything they
want because there are no real consequences. They are not here to serve the
customers or to even gain new customers. According to Chris Pratley (who
claims to have been the Group Program Manager for the program managment
teams that designed Word 2007, Publisher 2007 and OneNote 2007) "Our goal is
not to "be used by a lot of people". Our goal is actually to maximize
revenue."
(http://blogs.msdn.com/chris_pratley...-is-now-onenote-2007-and-it-s-in-the-box.aspx)

So, there it is from the horses orafice (so to speak). Microsoft has the
global audience locked up and is not concerned with how many people use its
products, because they know that you MUST use them. Rather, they are
concerned with "maximizing revenue". This helps me to understand why they
keep breaking compatibility to make users buy more software. Microsoft is
just about the almighty dollar.

But...on to something that may actually be useful......

I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It has
a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

Jim Hubbard
 
Jim Hubbard said:
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).
Click to expand...

Well, I think Macs are kind of cool, but I wouldn't buy one because there
are so few jobs writing software for them. :-) That's just economics to me.
I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the
company standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users (and
within reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support VS2003
on Vista when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good for the
customer or the company.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I'm surprised by their decision to do that. They ported
VS6 and VS8, how much more work could it be to port VS7?

MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.
Click to expand...

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."
Scrap Vista and start from scratch
Click to expand...

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP that
worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how doing
that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from scratch, and
in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great book, by the
way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book, although he used to
work for MS.)
instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.
Click to expand...

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed, but
that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would sell
as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50 you can
have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
to run XP and thier old apps).
Click to expand...

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored to
be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes. Some
people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work with
XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and now
their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's QuickBooks). It
took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working with customers
on compatability for a couple of years now. How much frickin' notice do
people need?
Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.
Click to expand...

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public corporation
is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually serving the
customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista and Office 2007
will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and after people get over
the shock, they will like it better than any version they have used before.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.
I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).
Click to expand...

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee puts
up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot, or
standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them to
be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.

Thanks,
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
 
I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.
Click to expand...

I'm writing this on a 7 year old iBook running OS 10.3 (aka Panther). I
got it w/ OS 8.6 went to OS 9.x then OS X. So I don't see the problem
w/ a less-than-3 yr old mac running OS X - P.S. I don't see how a 3 yr
old Mac doesn't have OS X. OS X is has been out more than 3 years.
Someone, as usual, didn't know what he's talking about regarding
Macintosh.

Despite the fact that OS X IS UNIX I can still run my OS 9 apps (but
sorry, not older apps that were not "carbonized" - like you said at
some point there has to be incompatability (i.e. where would you put
the propeller on a jet?)). Yet I have an app that was written for OS 7
and still will run in OS 9 and/or "Classic mode" in OS X. That would
be like a DOS 3.0 app running in Windoze XP.

The next release, OS 10.5 (Tiger) supports the G3 (that's about 10
years of backward compatability) but as a practical matter I think
upgrading a G3 Mac is pointless. Many newer features require newer CPU
guts that the G3 simply does not have.

Macintosh has changed CPUs twice now and OS fundamental overhauls twice
(OS 7 & OS X), w/ nary a hiccup; I don't expect it was a perfect
transition across the board, but you could hear crickets chirp over the
complaints.

The most painful transistion was to OS 7.0 (about 1988). About 20%ish
of apps would not work, and about 50% required modification to work;
but Apple said so up front.
 
If anyone doesn't know what they're talking about, it's the guy at the
Genius bar at the Apple store who told my friend she would not be able to
upgrade her laptop with the next version of the Mac OS that comes out.

I will point out that I wasn't *complaining* about it. I was just saying
that Microsoft gets a lot of crap for this and Apple doesn't. More complex
software requires better hardware enables more complex software requires
better hardware enables more complex software requires better hardware and
so on and so on.

Frankly, I *like* the Macs, and if I could afford 2 computers and had the
space for them, I'd buy one. I don't feel confident enough to install Vista
and Visual Studio and .Net 3.0 and SQLServer on a Mac, but would love to
hear if anybody has gotten that to work!

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
-------------------------------------------------
 
Just a test - I have replied twice to this thread (via Microsoft Communities
newsgroup servers and Windows Mail on a Vista Ultimate PC running Windows
2007) and have not seen the replies posted - nor have I seen any rejections
or errors when posting.

I wonder if there is a thread limit or something that I am not aware
of...... I'd hate to think I'm being censored by Microsoft. Come on....I'm
not *that* important.
 
Jim,

I can see two other responses to this thread, and this message, too. Maybe
you should try a different news server. Or maybe you're censoring yourself.
;-)

Robin S.
-----------------------------
 
Well, I can see it now. Can you?

Comments below...

Robin S.

smerf said:
Well, friends, I am attempting this post from Bellsouth's newsgroup
servers on my old XP machine. Let's see if it works from here (as
Bellsouth servers currently reject ALL newsgroup posts from Windows Mail
on Vista).

(5th try at posting)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, you're right about that. Although it's more like "Here, we did
this, it's going to make your life better. Really. <wolfish grin> Trust us.
</wolfish grin>

Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And
home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a
new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.
Click to expand...

Businesses may not buy "cute", but they do buy when the marketing is good,
and it convinces them that something will help them do X. Even if they
never needed to do X before, they will suddenly feel like they need to do
X.

Most people probably won't care about Vista on a personal machine, but some
will want the latest and greatest. I don't think it's enough to push the
hardware market, but apparently everyone else thinks so, because they were
worried about the impact that Vista's delay would have on people buying new
computers -- apparently they thought people would wait and buy computer
*after* Christmas to get Vista installed on them.

What cracked me up was Dell, etc., giving away upgrade coupons for Vista
with computers purchased before Vista was available to Dell. How many
general users do you know who are going to upgrade to Vista themselves?
For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and
say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't
broke
don't fix it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will take off until there are more apps written to work
for Vista, although I do think it will succeed in the business area because
of the extra security precautions.

That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft knew
aout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the heck
isn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that *is* sort of hard to take. I think SQLServer2005 has some issues
as well. I could envision some kind of turf war, with the VS guys going,
"Hey, our stuff works, fix *yours*!" and the Vista guys responding in the
same way. You'd think some upper-level manager would step in if that was
the case.

But from what I've heard, VisualStudio2005 *does* work with Vista. You have
to install SP-1 for VS2005, and I think there's a specific Vista patch as
well. People have reported that they have it working fine.
People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other
benefit
(sometimes even if there is less).

But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like
friends
and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer
than
Microsoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, you're not responding to shareholders.
You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the
developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd think
their flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS,
wouldn't
you?
Click to expand...

Responded to this above.

It does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning (which
can
be disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision), but
it
is so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds a
virus in the incoming email and alerts me).
Click to expand...

I'll try it out. I deinstalled McAfee, and am happy to report that my
Visual Studio projects are opening up much quicker. That's really annoying,
because I had disabled active scanning in McAfee, and it shouldn't have had
any impact on my opening of documents.
The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and
screwed
up their products. They are bloated and slow.
Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if
they
did - it would probably be compatible with Vista). So, why do we?
Click to expand...

Because companies pay us to,and it's fun. :-)

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
 
I must admit, it's surreal. When you refer to the "Microsoft Communities
newsgroup servers", I assume you're talking about configuring your
newsreader to get the posts from news.microsoft.com?

Frankly, I'd feel a little paranoid if I were you. :-O

So I added news.microsoft.com to my newsreader (OE), and I see this in the
thread where most of our posts are:

(lots of other posts, then)
2/1/2007 1:35 a.m. Robin S. (both)
2/1/2007 6:57 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
2/2/2007 4:51 p.m. Robin S. (both)
2/3/2007 10:45 a.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
2/3/2007 6:54 p.m. Robin S. (both)
2/3/2007 9:41 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
(this is the one that says "its still not happening - i'll try and
reply directly to you)
2/3/2007 9:55 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
3/4/2007 11:25 p.m. smerf (future posted!) (not on microsoft)
(this is the one you couldn't post under your own name)
2/4/2007 9;21 a.m. Robin S (not on microsoft)
3/6/2007 10:53 p.m. Jim Hubbard (future posted!) (not on microsoft)

(insert Twilight Zone music here)

What's with the future posting? Can you give me tomorrow's lottery numbers?

Robin S.
--------------------------------------------
 
Comments below...

Jim Hubbard said:
No. Windows Mail (in Vista, click Start Menu and look for "Windows
Mail") has msnews.microsoft.com as the newsgroup servers. You have to
use a Microsoft Live (the old MS "Passport") account to sign in to the
servers.
Click to expand...

****Is Windows Mail any better than OE? Or is it the same thing,
Vista-ized?
Me? Paranoid?

Look, just because I think Microsoft is censoring my posts, that doesn't
mean they're not.
Click to expand...

****Exactly my point!
Pay careful attention to the Help/About splash screen in Windows Mail.
It says that Vista's UI is covered by its legal crap. Maybe that's why
they censored anything that gives the same look, feel and functionality -
even if its on their last OS.
Click to expand...


****I haven't installed Vista yet. I don't think it will run on my
2-year-old laptop. I'm going to buy a new laptop and then repurpose the old
one as a server. At least, that's my theory.

The future posts were because I posted from my XP machine and had been
messing around with the calendar. I didn't make that stupid mistake on
the Vista PC and I've fixed it on my XP PC.

As far as tomorrows lottery numbers go - I can do even better. I can
tell you who wins - the lottery commission.
Click to expand...

Darn. That's not a lot of help!

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
 
****Is Windows Mail any better than OE? Or is it the same thing, Vista-iz
Click to expand...
Pretty much the same old OE...just the windows have changed from what I have
seen - and the automatic adding of msnews.microsoft.com for thoe with a Live
ID.
****Exactly my point!
Click to expand...

Let's try one more thing. Immediately after I post this, I will try the
post-that-won't again - this time without the paragraph about the XP
transformations.

Jim
(Posted from Windows Mail/Vista)
 
Maybe it isn't censorship. Maybe the post is too long.

I'm trying the paragraphs that I think MS may find objectionable to test for
the censorship thing.....

__________________________________

For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't broke
don't fix it.

(BTW, if anyone reading this wants to make their XP look and feel like
Vista - I've heard this is good -
http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7006 - but I haven't tried it
myself. You can also look at the tweaks on
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/the-poor-mans-windows-vista-no-upgrading-necessary-182597.php
or
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1089/make_xp_look_like_vista_longhorn_free.)
__________________________________

Let's see if this shorter post shows up........

Jim
 
OK - its not censoring for that content.....

Maybe its the length of the message......I'll post the first half here and
the second half in a post immediately following it..

Part I
______________________________

RobinS said:
I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."
Click to expand...

Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how
doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from
scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great
book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book,
although he used to work for MS.)
Click to expand...

I love Joel's work....got the book on my shelf and have actually read it (a
real feat with my schedule).

The problem with Netscape's rewrite is that they didn't have a competing
browser in the market while they did the rewrite, they tried to SELL thiers
(while Microsoft gave IE away) and they had real competition. Microsoft
would still have XP (which many people in businesses will run for the next
2-3 years at least) and they have no competition.
I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would
sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50
you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
Click to expand...

Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.

For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't broke
don't fix it.

(BTW, if anyone reading this wants to make their XP look and feel like
Vista - I've heard this is good -
http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7006 - but I haven't tried it
myself. You can also look at the tweaks on
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/the-poor-mans-windows-vista-no-upgrading-necessary-182597.php
or
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1089/make_xp_look_like_vista_longhorn_free.)



______________________________
 
Back
Top