Visual Studio and Vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Rae
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark Rae

Hi,

On Friday I attended the Microsoft EVO conference in London where they
talked about Vista, Office 2007 and Exchange 2007 and how they all work
together beautifully, how they were all "people-ready" etc...

I asked a couple of questions about Visual Studio.NET on Vista, especially
on 64-bit Vista, and they became *very* nervous...

To cut a long story short, Microsoft will not support ANY version of Visual
Studio.NET on any version of Vista, 32-bit or 64-bit, straight out of the
box. Apparently, there are HUGE problems with the much tighter lockdown of
Vista than WinXP, but even running Vistual Studio.NET with elevated
privileges will not solve it.

Therefore, Microsoft have had to completely abandon support for VS.NET 2002
or 2003 on Vista - they are no plans for this to ever change. The only
version of Visual Studio.NET which will be supported on Vista is VS.NET 2005
+ Service Pack 1 *AND* something which they are currently calling the "Vista
Support Update". However, this won't be available until February 2007 at the
very earliest. Even then, the Microsoft suits couldn't / wouldn't give me
any sort of definitive answer about VS.NET 2005 on 64-bit Vista...

Not only that, I would venture that quite a few of us here are MSDN
subscribers so are probably using SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition - oh
dear! There are apparently loads of issues with SQL Server 2005 on Vista
(the suits wouldn't even say if earlier versions are supported), but one of
the most notable ones is that SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services is not
supported at all, nor could they say when or even if it would ever be
supported on Vista...

So, for all us developers, it's 32-bit WinXP for at least another six
months... This is quite disappointing, as I'd hoped to make the jump to
64-bit straightaway, and continue any 32-bit legacy support through
virtualisation...

Ho hum...

Mark.

P.S. I'm not making this up:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/support/windowsvista/default.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/windowsvistasupport.mspx
 
While they won't be supported, it's said that 2002, 2003 and 2005 will work
on Vista for most people. It'll probably depend on the kinda stuff you are
doing.

So I wouldn't necessarily jump the gun for your own development, maybe
you'll be one of the lucky ones with no problem. I totally agree it
shouldn't be a problem for anyone, but since Vista has shipped, there's
nothing we can do about it now.

The reason [we are given] is because of the new security features and the
need for debuggers to do some low-level stuff which Vista simply doesn't
like. It looks like A LOT of software development tools are going to have
this issue running on Vista (i.e., all the Java tools out there will need to
have special releases).

God knows I'm not defending microsoft on this point. Their solution to use
Virtual PC sucks. The fact that they've had years to fix this problem sucks!

But for the most part, I'm really really hoping it won't be a problem for
anyone (ok, truth be told, I'm hoping it won't be a problem for ME :) ).

Karl
 
"Karl Seguin [MVP]" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME
net> wrote in message
While they won't be supported, it's said that 2002, 2003 and 2005 will
work on Vista for most people. It'll probably depend on the kinda stuff
you are doing.
Click to expand...

That's not good enough for me. I'm a jobbing contractor, so who knows what
my next project will be...? I certainly don't until the phone rings or the
email arrives...
The reason [we are given] is because of the new security features and the
need for debuggers to do some low-level stuff which Vista simply doesn't
like. It looks like A LOT of software development tools are going to have
this issue running on Vista (i.e., all the Java tools out there will need
to have special releases).
Click to expand...

I understand that - but it's not as if we're talking about some two-bit
software house run out of somebody's bedroom - Vista and Visual Studio.NET
are made by the same company, for heaven's sake!
God knows I'm not defending microsoft on this point. Their solution to use
Virtual PC sucks. The fact that they've had years to fix this problem
sucks!
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! As it stands, I have a perfectly serviceable
operating system in 32-bit WinXP, but I make my living from Visual
Studio.NET, so I simply can't take the risk of running Vista on my
development machine until I'm (reasonably) confident that it will allow me
to continue to work...

I do use Virtual PC a lot, but mainly for cross-browser testing - the last
thing I want to do is actually use a virtual machine as my main development
environment.
But for the most part, I'm really really hoping it won't be a problem for
anyone (ok, truth be told, I'm hoping it won't be a problem for ME :) ).
Click to expand...

I hear you, but I simply can't take the risk...

Added to the fact that I recently upgraded my development machine to a
64-bit dual-core system in anticipation of moving to the 64-bit world, I'm
less than impressed with this...

Also, had I known then what I know know, I wouldn't have specified an nVidia
graphics card... :-( I have a separate partition on my main development
machine on which I've been running the various releases of Vista, but the
total lack of nVidia graphics support has really hampered my ability to use
it. nVidia have recently released 64-bit drivers for the GeForce range of
cards, but they still don't work properly...
 
MS is in the same security boat that IBM found itself 30-40 years ago with
their mainframe OS MVS. MVS was also lacking in security and the changes to
MVS IBM had to make to make it secure broke a lot of code.

Mike Ober.

"Karl Seguin [MVP]" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME
net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
While they won't be supported, it's said that 2002, 2003 and 2005 will work
on Vista for most people. It'll probably depend on the kinda stuff you are
doing.

So I wouldn't necessarily jump the gun for your own development, maybe
you'll be one of the lucky ones with no problem. I totally agree it
shouldn't be a problem for anyone, but since Vista has shipped, there's
nothing we can do about it now.

The reason [we are given] is because of the new security features and the
need for debuggers to do some low-level stuff which Vista simply doesn't
like. It looks like A LOT of software development tools are going to have
this issue running on Vista (i.e., all the Java tools out there will need to
have special releases).

God knows I'm not defending microsoft on this point. Their solution to use
Virtual PC sucks. The fact that they've had years to fix this problem sucks!

But for the most part, I'm really really hoping it won't be a problem for
anyone (ok, truth be told, I'm hoping it won't be a problem for ME :) ).

Karl
--
http://www.openmymind.net/
http://www.codebetter.com/


Mark Rae said:
Yes - that pretty much reinforces it...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
re:
I couldn't agree more! As it stands, I have a perfectly serviceable operating system in 32-bit
WinXP
Click to expand...

I don't see what's stopping you from continuing to use Win XP/VS 2005.

Using the allegedly "latest and greatest" OS (which doesn't do zip for Web development),
shouldn't stop you from using an OS environment which *does* resolve your needs.

I agree that it's rather sad that it couldn't be done the right way,
but there's no value added by using Aero Glass to develop websites.

MS will, eventually, do the right thing.

Until then I will, simply, not upgrade to Vista.
That should be enough of a lesson for Microsoft, if enough people do the same.

Vista reminds me of an OS which we all hated : Windows ME.
I never used it. I never missed it.





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/
===================================
Mark Rae said:
While they won't be supported, it's said that 2002, 2003 and 2005 will work on Vista for most
people. It'll probably depend on the kinda stuff you are doing.
Click to expand...

That's not good enough for me. I'm a jobbing contractor, so who knows what my next project will
be...? I certainly don't until the phone rings or the email arrives...
The reason [we are given] is because of the new security features and the need for debuggers to
do some low-level stuff which Vista simply doesn't like. It looks like A LOT of software
development tools are going to have this issue running on Vista (i.e., all the Java tools out
there will need to have special releases).
Click to expand...

I understand that - but it's not as if we're talking about some two-bit software house run out of
somebody's bedroom - Vista and Visual Studio.NET are made by the same company, for heaven's sake!
God knows I'm not defending microsoft on this point. Their solution to use Virtual PC sucks. The
fact that they've had years to fix this problem sucks!
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! As it stands, I have a perfectly serviceable operating system in 32-bit
WinXP, but I make my living from Visual Studio.NET, so I simply can't take the risk of running
Vista on my development machine until I'm (reasonably) confident that it will allow me to continue
to work...

I do use Virtual PC a lot, but mainly for cross-browser testing - the last thing I want to do is
actually use a virtual machine as my main development environment.
But for the most part, I'm really really hoping it won't be a problem for anyone (ok, truth be
told, I'm hoping it won't be a problem for ME :) ).
Click to expand...

I hear you, but I simply can't take the risk...

Added to the fact that I recently upgraded my development machine to a 64-bit dual-core system in
anticipation of moving to the 64-bit world, I'm less than impressed with this...

Also, had I known then what I know know, I wouldn't have specified an nVidia graphics card...
:-( I have a separate partition on my main development machine on which I've been running the
various releases of Vista, but the total lack of nVidia graphics support has really hampered my
ability to use it. nVidia have recently released 64-bit drivers for the GeForce range of cards,
but they still don't work properly...
Click to expand...
 
re:

I don't see what's stopping you from continuing to use Win XP/VS 2005.
Click to expand...

Indeed - in fact, I have no choice...:-)
Using the allegedly "latest and greatest" OS (which doesn't do zip for Web
development),
shouldn't stop you from using an OS environment which *does* resolve your
needs.
Click to expand...

I have no choice.
MS will, eventually, do the right thing.
Until then I will, simply, not upgrade to Vista.
Click to expand...

You have no choice.
That should be enough of a lesson for Microsoft, if enough people do the
same.
Click to expand...

It was really quite funny but all the way through the EVO presentation the
suits were at pains to point out that they had spent $20bn on R&D for the
three products, and were now keen to see some return on their investment...
:-)
Vista reminds me of an OS which we all hated : Windows ME.
I never used it. I never missed it.
Click to expand...

Me neither - on both counts...
 
Not sure about the 64-bit direction, but many of the issues in the list have
been ironed out in SP1. Admitedly, it is not a release product yet, but
should be in the next month or two.

Not sure at all about Visual Studio .NET (2002 or 2003 versions), but I have
not done any development in anything other than Visual Studio 2005 for more
than six months.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

*************************************************
Think outside of the box!
*************************************************
 
Mark Rae said:
"Karl Seguin [MVP]" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME
net> wrote in message

That's not good enough for me. I'm a jobbing contractor, so who knows what
my next project will be...? I certainly don't until the phone rings or the
email arrives...
Click to expand...

Then, you have a couple of choices:

1) Forgo Vista until everything is perfect
2) Virtualize - set up XP virtuals to ensure you ahve an evnironment for
Visual Studio
The reason [we are given] is because of the new security features and the
need for debuggers to do some low-level stuff which Vista simply doesn't
like. It looks like A LOT of software development tools are going to have
this issue running on Vista (i.e., all the Java tools out there will need
to have special releases).
Click to expand...

I understand that - but it's not as if we're talking about some two-bit
software house run out of somebody's bedroom - Vista and Visual Studio.NET
are made by the same company, for heaven's sake!
Click to expand...

Yes, and like most major releases of a product, there are bumps in the road.
You see the same thing with certain versions of MAC OS and even Linux. The
main advantage of the the Linux route is the ability to code and fix bad
implementations and a dedicated external community. :-)

Yes, I agree that they should have things together perfectly before release,
but it is an ideal, which is not completely realistic, even for a company
like Microsoft.
I couldn't agree more! As it stands, I have a perfectly serviceable
operating system in 32-bit WinXP, but I make my living from Visual
Studio.NET, so I simply can't take the risk of running Vista on my
development machine until I'm (reasonably) confident that it will allow me
to continue to work...
Click to expand...

That is a perfectly acceptable answer. I am not so certain that Vista gives
enough for the developer, unless you are planning on developing for Vista.
If so, you will have to bite the bullet.
I do use Virtual PC a lot, but mainly for cross-browser testing - the last
thing I want to do is actually use a virtual machine as my main
development environment.
Click to expand...

I have done it before. Runs a wee bit slower, but completely isolates the
OS. I prefer WMWare to VirtualPC, but have used both to develop with. In
fact, I find it an easy way to switch from Visual Studio 2002, 2003 and 2005
without having to have all installed on the same machine/image.

I can concur with this. I will likely install it and flip back to Virtual
machine if there is a problem.



--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

*************************************************
Think outside of the box!
*************************************************
 
Not sure about the 64-bit direction, but many of the issues in the list
have been ironed out in SP1. Admitedly, it is not a release product yet,
but should be in the next month or two.
Click to expand...

Even with SP1, VS.NET 2005 *still* won't be officially supported on Vista
until the "Vista Support Update" is released sometime next year. That means
e.g. that if I encountered a major problem, I couldn't use one of my
official support incidents as part of my MSDN subscription as Microsoft
would simply turn round and say that the problem I'm experiencing occurred
in an unsupported environment.
Not sure at all about Visual Studio .NET (2002 or 2003 versions), but I
have not done any development in anything other than Visual Studio 2005
for more than six months.
Click to expand...

Likewise - I couldn't care less about earlier versions of VS.NET - that's
not the issue here.

Anyway, as Juan pointed out, this is all a bit of a moot point. I'm resigned
to the fact that I'm continuing with WinXP Pro+SP2 for at least another few
months, and that anyway there's not much in Vista which will really benefit
a developer like me who pays the mortgage almost exclusively by developing
ASP.NET apps...
 
Then, you have a couple of choices:

1) Forgo Vista until everything is perfect
2) Virtualize - set up XP virtuals to ensure you ahve an evnironment for
Visual Studio
Click to expand...

Gotta be 1).
That is a perfectly acceptable answer. I am not so certain that Vista
gives enough for the developer, unless you are planning on developing for
Vista. If so, you will have to bite the bullet.
Click to expand...

Nothing I've seen so far...
I have done it before. Runs a wee bit slower, but completely isolates the
OS. I prefer WMWare to VirtualPC, but have used both to develop with. In
fact, I find it an easy way to switch from Visual Studio 2002, 2003 and
2005 without having to have all installed on the same machine/image.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. I'm still supporting a v1.1 app which is currently sitting in a
virtual machine in case the phone rings... :-)
I can concur with this. I will likely install it and flip back to Virtual
machine if there is a problem.
Click to expand...

By contrast, I'll be staying with WinXP until Vista is finished...
 
I've been running vs2005 on Vista 5744 and it has been running allright,
but...

I run VMWare Workstation (way better that Virtual PC) and run a Server 2003,
an XP Pro, and, currently a Vista 5744 image with .Net 3.0 SDK. I put my
servers on the Server 2003 image.

So, I don't have these kinds of problems. If vs2003 won't run on vista, I
will keep in on my XP or my Server 2003 image. Also, you never lose a
computer this way because you keep the images backed up for easy disaster
recovery.
 
Back
Top