Talk:Microsoft Visual Studio/Archive 1

VS6 is for non .NET development
Except for C and C++, where you can use the later compilers to produce non-.NET code, you need to use VS6 if you want to continue non-.NET developemnt.

So, the change I made today only extends the existing comment regarding VS6 being prefered for game developers, to also being prefered for VB6 development.

Mark Hurd 19:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Your edit didn't reflect that--it made it sound like any development done in VS.NET has to be .NET. I changed the wording to reflect that it is preferred by VB6 programmers.  I also took out the bit about game developers since it isn't true anymore.  Most of the game developers I know are switching to VS.NET since it is a superior IDE.    &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 21:44, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Microsoft Development Environment
I ran across the article Microsoft Development Environment today. It's incredibly poorly written, and I don't even know if we really need it. Isn't it just another name for Visual Studio? Normally I'd clean the article up myself, but I don't really know what the distinction is, if any, between it and Visual Studio. I just thought I'd mention here in case anyone feels like cleaning it up or making it into a redirect. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 20:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to save anyone else looking, the indicated link know redirects to the this page. Pete St.John 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

express details
could someone add details about the express editions now that they are free? http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14380

specifically, whats the catch? can they not make binaries?

TIA

On April 19, Microsoft announced that the Express Editions would remain free, with no November restriction as previously stated. The motivation appears to be to remain competitive with gcc and MySQL, etc. You should read these pages to stay up with the details to get access to the various features, such as for SQL Server 2005 Express Edition. --Ancheta Wis 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New Add-in section
I just moved in the add-in section. It was part of another specific version of Visual Studio, but I thought it belonged here since the add-ins are for all versions of Visual Studio, not just one. If this section upsets anyone, please let's discuss it here.

I was wondering if this section would be better as a separate article. Since they apply to all versions of the IDE, it might make it more accessible if it were an article that we could link to from all the various versions of Visual Studio. What does everyone else think? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Removed Eclipse from See Also
I removed Eclipse from the See Also section as I don't think it's relevant here. I'm not an Eclipse expert, but my experience with it tells me it is "for Java". A perusal of the Eclipse article mentions nothing of .NET, Visual Studio, C#, or VB, whether supporting these technologies/languages or competing with them. - Chris 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.eclipse.org/tools/, notably the CDT Project (C/C++ IDE) for a fraction of what Eclipse currently does. It is a fully-fledged IDE which, like Visual Studio, can be leveraged for whatever a plugin desires. I have added it back in, since this article is about the IDE as a whole. - C 69.157.59.35 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"History" section
It doesn't make sense to have the current version of Visual Studio, as well as discussion regarding future versions, in the "History" section. I'm changing. rdude 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Add-ins
I feel the list of add-ins look promotional and hence should not be included. At best, a properly-reviewed bunch of add-ins may get a mention in see-also, but not in article space, I feel. -- soum সৌমো yasch  04:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A separate List of VS Add-ins may also be a better idea. -- soum সৌমো yasch  04:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the "list" started out pretty short, but I see others have added their own favorite add-ins. Go ahead and make the list, List of Microsoft VisualStudio Add-ins, and add it the "See also" section. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I did it. -- soum সৌমো yasch  04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How to obtain an older version?
Specifically, how would I get a copy of Visual Studio .Net 2003 to develop for .Net 1.1 now in. Possibilities might be
 * In a box never opened
 * In a box that was opened and registered to someone else
 * With a current MSDN subscription


 * User:wikivek 10:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Visual Studio 2003 image
I removed the image depicting code in VS 2003. But it is of a very poor quality. One can barely make out the things in there. Also, it is not possible to ascertain whether it is 2003 or some other version or even VS itself. Please do not readd that specific image. Rather replace it with a proper screenshot of VS 2003. -- soum সৌমো yasch  11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Product activation
If anyone knows, please include a history of the inclusion of Microsoft's Product Activation -- I imagine it started with one version and has continued since. VanishingUser 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Visual Studio 2008
Should it be moved to its own article? --soum talk 18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, as for my opinion, I think this article is still not too large to cover all products at once like it currently does, and the Visual Studio 2008 content seem condensed enough to not have problems fitting on this page, and similar in size to the other product sections. Of course, this can change now that it has been RTM'ed though. &mdash; Northgrove 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am currently in a grounds-up rewrite of the entire article (but, I am very busy in real life, and as a result, it might take two/three weeks to complete). Till then I suggest no large-scale change to the article structure, as it might interfere with the structure I have envisioned. We can all take up the chisel again when the revised version is live. --soum talk 10:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that Microsoft has reduced the feature footprint of Standard to promotes sales of Professional. For instance, development for Windows Mobile/Smartphone has been stripped out of 2008 Standard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.88.66 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Distinction between Visual Web Developer and Visual Studio 2005 not clear
I'm currently using MS Visual Web Developer (a free download from the MS site). The information screens did not distinguish between Visual Studio 2005 and VWD and seemed to use the two interchangebly. When I installed VWD, a Visual Studio 2005 folder was created, albeit empty.

A few days ago, I received a promotional copy of Visual Studio 2005 Standard Edition on a set of CDs. When I contacted MS product pre-sales, I was only told that the two are integrated. I don't want to install the CDs until I am absolutely certain the installation will not interact in any destructive way with my existing installation of VWD (see footnote 1 below).

When I searched Wikipedia for the terms Visual Web Developer, I got the Visual Studio Page this only contributed to the confusion. What literature I read on VS 2005 tells me I can create web pages with VS 2005, well so does VWD, in fact that's all it does.

Therefore, are the two products overlapping technologies released by Microsoft? If so, is there functionality in VS 2005 that does not exist in VWD or conversely, does VWD have functionality (in terms of web development) that isn't in VS 2005?

If anyone out there could clarify, that would certainly help my confusion. I believe at this point, Microsoft has gotton to be such a vast universe of products and technologies that it is next to impossible to find experts even within their organization with sufficient product and technical overview to know and understand the distinctions between many of their overlapping technologies. Therefore, not only would my understaing benefit, but Microsoft's internal staff could certainly benefit as well!

(footnote 1); A recent example of installing a MS product upgrade that negatively impacted my current installation of MS products was as follows. I installed MS Office 2007. Later when I tried to run VB6 code that I had written, I was getting error messages I never saw before. After some digging I discovered to my dismay that Outlook 2007 no longer uses the IMAPI protocol and therefore deleted all instances of any IMAPI dll files on my system!?!! Therefore, VB6 code that called routines within those dlls generated error messages. What ever happened to upward compatible or at least why didn't the Outlook installation leave well enough alone and just ignore the IMAP DLLs? When I re-copied these DLLs back to their folders, my code ran ok, but then Outlook 2007 complained! So my Hobsian choice was revert to previous versions of Outlook or re-write my code! I have no doubt that if I used VS 2005 translation program I could resurrect my VB6 code as VB.NET code possibly withoug calls to the IMAPI DLLs, hence my interest in installing the VS 2005.

However, my concern is that mutually exclusive scenarios would be created if I just install the VS 2005 while currently developing web projects using VWD. They're obviously related, but exactly how is the critical question. Gemeye 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "the Express editions can be installed side-by-side with other editions, unlike the other editions which update the same installation."
 * "the Express editions can be installed side-by-side with other editions, unlike the other editions which update the same installation."


 * That might answer your question ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Version numbers under 6.0
Were there ever any versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0? I assume that '97 would most likely be 5.0. In that case, what is the history of versions 1.0 to 4.0? --Josh1billion 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name standardisation
I propose that we standardlise the names of the following articles:


 * Visual Basic .NET into Visual Basic.NET
 * Visual C++ into Visual C++.NET
 * Microsoft Visual C Sharp into Visual C#.NET
 * J Sharp into Visual J#.NET

All in all the names begin with Visual and end with .NET --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's need to include Microsoft in the beginning of the titles since the .NET Framework is obviously Microsoft's and it also makes the titles uncomfortably long. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Visual C# and Visual J# do not have ".NET" in their name at all. --Chris (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ".NET" isn't part of the name of these products anymore. Also, the Visual C++ article covers the pre-.NET versions.  The names are fine as-is... -/- Warren 05:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So as I understand it the .NET thingy isn't always part of the name of the product even though it's a .NET product or at least not anymore? What about the Microsoft in the C Sharp article? I've seldom seen the language branded Microsoft Visual C#, but simply Visual C#. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * .NET is the name of the underlying framework. A language and compiler targeting the framework need not be called "Something.NET".
 * As for "Microsoft Visual C#", that is indeed the full product name. See, for example, Microsoft Windows.  The company name is technically part of the full product name, at least in these cases.  --Chris (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For standardization, we should use the official name. Adding .NET would be our own addition. See Help->About. The names are Microsoft Visual Basic (I just checked, there is no .NET in the name), Microsoft Visual C++, Microsoft Visual C# and Microsoft Visual J#. We cannot use C# for technical reasons, we have to suffice with C Sharp. As for the others, they can be standardized, but that would be totally decorative. As long as all redirects are properly set, there would not be any functionality differemces. As such, the moves are totally unnecessary.
 * Yes, you're right. I only proposed standardisation because I thought that all .NET products were called sth.NET, but not because I wanted to influence anything. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Content restructuring

 * What needs attention is the content. Microsoft Visual Basic is the MS implementation of the VB.NET language compiler, Microsoft Visual C++ of the C++ language with the C++0x and C++/CLI standards, Microsoft Visual C# of the C# language, and Microsoft Visual J# of the Java language; along with the associated language services. None of this is the IDE. The IDE is Microsoft Visual Studio, or the simpler language specific Express editions of Visual Studio. The Visual Basic, Microsoft Visual C++, Microsoft Visual C# and Microsoft Visual J# articles freely mixes the languages, the IDEs and the compilers/language services. The articles should be rearchitected to cleanly separate them.


 * For example, the VS article does not make any mention of language services - the architecture by where language specific compilers, debuggers, keyword recognition, syntax coloring and intellisense is plugged in. This article should be written from a language neutral PoV with the features that the IDE provides and how language services adapt the features to the specific languages.


 * The language articles - VB.NET, C Sharp, C++, C++0x, C++/CLI etc should be about the languages themselves, not IDE features. The MS specific implementations (Microsoft Visual Basic, Microsoft Visual C++, Microsoft Visual C#, Microsoft Visual J#) should redirect to proper sections in this Visual Studio article. These sections should mention that they are MS implementations of the compilers and associated languages services. They should only refer to the language articles, and talk about how MS implementation adheres to the standards, parts omitted and extras (such as intrinsics for VC++). For any IDE-specific stuff, they can refer to rest of the article. If any of them becomes too large, they can be split out.


 * How about this structure?
 * Architecture
 * Relation with .NET Framework
 * Language Services
 * Supported languages (for out-of-the-box-supported languages)
 * MSBuild integration
 * Features
 * Syntax highlighting
 * IntelliSense
 * Debugging
 * Forms designer
 * Databinding
 * Web designer
 * XML editor
 * XAML editor
 * Database schema editor
 * Class designer
 * Workflow designer
 * Mapping editor (upcoming)
 * Versions
 * Editions
 * Express editions
 * Team editions
 * Products
 * Microsoft Visual Basic
 * Microsoft Visual C++
 * Microsoft Visual C#
 * Microsoft Visual J# (soon to be killed)
 * Microsoft Visual F# (soon-to-be)
 * JScript/JSCript.NET


 * Some of the items in the feature list might be better off in the .NET Framework or Base Class Library article. --soum talk 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, sounds good. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 12:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan to work on it. But given the time consuming nature, it will take quite some time. --soum talk 12:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

licensing
Microsoft To Open Visual Studio Source Code to Top Partners —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.22.147 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VisualStudio2008Logo.png
Image:VisualStudio2008Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

first sentence is redundant
isn't 'software development product for software developers' truism or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.224.101 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Features Grid
I've made a first pass edit on a features grid. Its a little bit lopsided (towards the team systems) and I'm thinking we might need two grids - one comparing express/standard/pro/team and one comparing the flavors of the team system. I've included a reference to actual MS page on the differences, but that page is more of a marketing page rather then a real decision making tool. For example - I didn't know you couldn't make a C++ (not .Net) x64 application with VS-STD, only with Pro and above. So really its a matter of filtering down the MS market speak into the 5-10 real differences that the products actually haveChristopher G Lewis (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here hoping for an explanation of 'Team System' - sounds like it's collaborative source control ? Different product SKU ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a different SkU with a superset of the Professional edition features. It includes Team Foundation Server for collaborative development. See Visual Studio Team System. --soum talk 11:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I found About Visual Studio Team System Looks like VSTS2008 Foundation Server is the central thing, VSTS2008 Team Suite comprises 4 specialities : VSTS2008 Architecture Edition, VSTS2008 Development Edition, VSTS2008 Database Edition, VSTS2008 Test Edition. All seem to be available separately. I should have read the articles more thouroughly ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)