.NET question - VS.NET 2005

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uncle Ben
  • Start date Start date
U

Uncle Ben

Hi all,

My development team (10 developers) is going to begin a .NET project. We
are experienced ASP programmers.

I heard of the MSDN Universal Subscription, which ships the
soon-to-be-released VS.NET 2005.

If we subscribe to *one* MSDN Universal subscription, would we be able to
use VS.NET 2005 (as provided on those DVD's) amongst all 10 developers?

Thank you!
 
Nope. The MSDN subscription is a per-developer subscription. If you have 10
developers you need 10 subscriptions. Even though MSDN often comes with
multiple activations for a product, that's just for the one developer to use
in order to test numerous situations and environments.

Better information is available in the subscription faq at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/faq/default.aspx#licensing

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
 
Not really when you consider what you get. You get server development
licenses for Win 2003, SQL Server, Exchange Server, not to mention one
license of Office to use for personal business use and a bunch of other
licenses for testing, the operating systems to actually test applications
on, and the development suites themselves. Heck, one copy of JBuilder costs
$3500. You can also shop around and usually save a few hundred at least by
shopping around for an online distributor.

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
 
how about buying one universal license ( for the servers etc and a copy of
vs ea ) and 9 copies of vs pro = $9,990

or, not that I would suggest this, do the obvious thing, which I won't
mention ;-)
 
gerry said:
how about buying one universal license ( for the servers etc and a copy of
vs ea ) and 9 copies of vs pro = $9,990
Click to expand...

Because the fact that they are ASP developers would imply that they would
all require access to the servers. But that breaks the license agreement
since only the developer with the MSDN subscription is allowed to use the
servers. Only he can use them for development and testing, not the other 9
guys.

Loz.
 
that would have to be part of their decision but I would think that pro
includes the server software required for most development -
2000/2003/xp/sql servers.
 
Cor Ligthert said:
Lawrence,

You missed something I think,

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/subscribers/compare/
Click to expand...

I don't think so.... because Gerry suggested that they buy 9 *Visual Studio
Professional* licenses, not MSDN Professional licenses.

I know that if they went the MSDN route they would be ok. But whether they
could get 9 licenses for $9990 is another question. I don't know the prices
for Professional in $ as I'm not in the US.

Loz.
 
gerry said:
that would have to be part of their decision but I would think that pro
includes the server software required for most development -
2000/2003/xp/sql servers.
Click to expand...

That's true for MSDN Pro, but that's not what you were advocating in your
last post. It said Visual Studio, not MSDN.... which is why I commented.

Loz.
 
you are correct

Lawrence Groves said:
That's true for MSDN Pro, but that's not what you were advocating in your
last post. It said Visual Studio, not MSDN.... which is why I commented.

Loz.
Click to expand...
 
Mark said:
Not really when you consider what you get. You get server development
licenses for Win 2003, SQL Server, Exchange Server,
Click to expand...

Hmm. This is not as good as it sounds. As I understand it, you are only
allowed to use those products in a test lab, and some of them may not
even be exact replicas of the "real" servers (10 connection limit?). If
they were allowed to be used in production mode, the deal would suddenly
be enticing to SMEs with 10 developers.
 
Uncle said:
Wow! That would cost a fortune. $2,799 US x 10 = $27,990 US ?
Click to expand...

That's why more and more people are looking at non-MS alternatives. The
current licensing is prohibitive. If your main focus is web applications
you don't really need VS.NET anyway, even if you decide to use ASP.NET

Thing is, the end user isn't going to know whether you created the app
in ASP.NET, Java, Perl/CGI or what ever.

If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as
a glorified text editor. The main thing you gain over standard ASP is
separation of UI/Code and the ability to compile. The main thing you
lose is control over the final code sent to the browser. If you use
VS.NET it pretty much forces you to use "web controls" and you become
stuck with the limitations and quirks of the controls. Some tasks that
are very quick when using W3C DHTML/DOM/CSS become convoluted when
trying to do the same in VS.NET
 
Gerry Hickman said:
Hmm. This is not as good as it sounds. As I understand it, you are only
allowed to use those products in a test lab, and some of them may not
even be exact replicas of the "real" servers (10 connection limit?).
Click to expand...

Not just in a test lab - on development boxes as well. You can't use
them in production, but that's fairly reasonable I think.

I don't think there's a 10 connection limit though - what was that on?
I've always just installed the full normal kit (although you can't
install SQL Server Enterprise Edition on a non-server OS).
If they were allowed to be used in production mode, the deal would
suddenly be enticing to SMEs with 10 developers.
Click to expand...

But then it would hardly be a developer licence, really. There are
other Microsoft programmes which get you MS software cheaply if you can
show you're developing certain types of products though.
 
Gerry,
If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as a
glorified text editor.
Click to expand...

Don't show so obvious that you don't know much from Visual Studio Net and
ASP.Net.

This because there are as I call it always three types of creating an
ASP.NET applications.

Most non VS.Net users know only 2, while the thirth is the most productive.
However to do that effectively you need to use a tool as VS.Net.

Your statement is true when you use Visual.Studio Net to create classic ASP
or those two kind of scripting ASPX methods.

I hope this helps.

Cor
 
Cor said:
This because there are as I call it always three types of creating an
ASP.NET applications.

Most non VS.Net users know only 2, while the thirth is the most productive.
However to do that effectively you need to use a tool as VS.Net.

Your statement is true when you use Visual.Studio Net to create classic ASP
or those two kind of scripting ASPX methods.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd already mentioned compiled code? Or are you referring to
something else?
 
Jon said:
Not just in a test lab - on development boxes as well. You can't use
them in production, but that's fairly reasonable I think.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you need central servers. It would be absurd to have
10 developers all targetting 10 separate copies of SQL server and 10
different copies of IIS - they need to collaborate.

I don't see how the current MSDN licensing addresses this?
I don't think there's a 10 connection limit though - what was that on?
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact details, but I'm fairly sure there are some
oddities. For example there seems to be something called SQL server
"developer" edition. I'm assuming that's the one you can use for
testing? I'm not convinced it's the same product that you get when you
buy SQL server "Enterprise" edition? I also noticed some products (that
are supposedly identical) are different in that one will ask for a
serial number and the other will just install straight away.

Other examples of differences:

Windows 2000 Server and Pro in MSDN are NOT the same as the retail CDs.
The folder structure is not even the same. It's an issue if you want to
make ISO images for booting.

The main problem (for me) is that I have to maintain two sets of CDs.
Although I'm on volume licensing, I have to be careful not to use the
MSDN CDs for building servers and PCs.

1. There may be subtle differences

2. Microsoft may think they're illegal copies because they'd all have
MSDN serials instead of the retail serials.
 
Gerry Hickman said:
The problem is that you need central servers. It would be absurd to have
10 developers all targetting 10 separate copies of SQL server and 10
different copies of IIS - they need to collaborate.

I don't see how the current MSDN licensing addresses this?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an issue if all the developers have MSDN licences. I
don't think you would be legal if you had one licensed developer who
ran the IIS and SQL Server boxes, and then 100 developers who "just"
connected to them - and administered them, etc.
I don't know the exact details, but I'm fairly sure there are some
oddities. For example there seems to be something called SQL server
"developer" edition. I'm assuming that's the one you can use for
testing? I'm not convinced it's the same product that you get when you
buy SQL server "Enterprise" edition? I also noticed some products (that
are supposedly identical) are different in that one will ask for a
serial number and the other will just install straight away.
Click to expand...

The developer edition can be installed on non-server OSes. I haven't
seen anything saying there are any other technical differences
Other examples of differences:

Windows 2000 Server and Pro in MSDN are NOT the same as the retail CDs.
The folder structure is not even the same. It's an issue if you want to
make ISO images for booting.
Click to expand...

I believe it's okay to use MSDN media for non-MSDN installations - just
use the non-MSDN licence key when you install.
The main problem (for me) is that I have to maintain two sets of CDs.
Although I'm on volume licensing, I have to be careful not to use the
MSDN CDs for building servers and PCs.

1. There may be subtle differences
Click to expand...

I haven't come across any differences when actually installed.
2. Microsoft may think they're illegal copies because they'd all have
MSDN serials instead of the retail serials.
Click to expand...

Only if you type in the wrong licence key when you install.
 
Gerry,

You are right now I read that text over ("the ability to compile").

However that is in my opinion a very strong argument for VS.Net. What in my
opinion conflicts with your sentence.
If you're going to use ASP.NET, the VS.NET is effectively just acting as a
glorified text editor
Click to expand...

Let me therefore ask it to you in this way, "Did you ever used it in that
compiled way?
I can not believe that somebody who used that including all posibilities to
debug, to create seperate classes etc. would write this.

With what I don't disagree with the other context of that message. VSNet 1.x
is in my opinion a very poor designer tool for a webform (the lack of the
possibilitiy to use frames is for me the most worse) however that designer
part will be one in my idea major improvements in VSNet 2.0 (I never tried
it, only from what I understood from it, so I even don't know if frames will
be integrated).

We can still disagree about that texteditor, everything is personal
preference so as you find it nothing more than a glorified text editor, than
it is just that we have a different opinion about that.

For me is that not any problem.

I found the way you wrote everything beside that texteditor very correct,
and maybe I should have written my response in another way (a mailmessage is
not a spoken word you know) for that than sorry.

Cor
 
Hi Jon,
I don't think it's an issue if all the developers have MSDN licences.
Click to expand...

It's not to do with what we "think" is reasonable. It's to do with what
is legal under the license agreement, and I've seen nothing in the small
print saying it's OK to set up a central server (Win2k3, Sharepoint,
Exchange, IIS, SQL Server) and have all developers connect and
collaborate? The way I'm reading the license is that each developer can
only install and use their OWN copy of the servers - if true, it's
totally absurd.
I
don't think you would be legal if you had one licensed developer who
ran the IIS and SQL Server boxes, and then 100 developers who "just"
connected to them - and administered them, etc.
Click to expand...

No, that would definitely not be allowed. I guess in an environment that
big, all the servers would have production licenses and any dev tools
would be on volume licenses.
The developer edition can be installed on non-server OSes. I haven't
seen anything saying there are any other technical differences
Click to expand...

Ah OK. Well that, in itself, implies the code base is not identical.
It's good to know the difference though.
I believe it's okay to use MSDN media for non-MSDN installations - just
use the non-MSDN licence key when you install.
Click to expand...

But surely the "Product ID" will still be the "OEM/MSDN" one??
Only if you type in the wrong licence key when you install.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well as above, I'm pretty sure the product ID will be different.
Anyway, I'll look into this, it would be nice to only have to manage ONE
set of CDs!
 
Back
Top