Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

**Keith Patrick** · Nov 19 '05, 10:49 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me
pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If you
have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you Visual
SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse; This one
lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way while this one
lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the system, but when
MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd overlaps
(and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo
meals, but no combo like *I* want.

**Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)** · Nov 19 '05, 10:49 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

I would not disagree with you on this point, but I can understand why the
first release of Whitehorse functionality is fairly well constrained. It is
hard to offer cafeteria plans in software until you have the functionality
finished.

In some ways, the Team offerings are compartmentaliz ed, as you can add
different roles to a single machine. Unfortunately, it is a more expensive
route than just getting Team Suite, so it is not the wisest direction.
Having installers that could add in the different roles would be a nice step
in the direction you envision.

What is nice about Visual Studio 2005 is the fact that the levels are more
flexible than 2003. Express is very lightweight, Standard gives more
flexibility, but is still fairly lightweight, Pro gives you the entire IDE
and Team System Roles and Suite add on functionality.

I would definitely express your feedback to Microsoft. If enough customers
ask for more variety in their happy meals, there is a good chance you will
see these offerings in the future.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************** *************** *************** **
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** **
"Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote in message
news:uxiRkz%233 FHA.128@tk2msft ngp13.phx.gbl.. .[color=blue]
> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me
> pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If you
> have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you Visual
> SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse; This
> one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way while
> this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
>[/color]

**Andrew McDonald** · Nov 19 '05, 10:50 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

"Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
[color=blue]
> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me
> pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If you
> have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you Visual
> SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse; This
> one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way while
> this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.[/color]

Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I don't
get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get to the
most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying hundreds
of pounds for features I'll never use.

Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience (I
think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the beta
editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database or XML
stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control integration
(but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++ compiler, and
with decent profiling tools including PGO?

--
Andrew

**Juan T. Llibre** · Nov 19 '05, 10:50 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

re:[color=blue]
> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience[/color]

Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?

http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/visualc/default.aspx

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/
=============== =============== ========
"Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>[color=green]
>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on customization.
>> Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me pick and choose which
>> individual features I want; this stuff with "If you have *this* version, you get Team
>> System, but this one gets you Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets
>> you Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
>> while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the system, but
>> when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd overlaps (and
>> lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo
>> like *I* want.[/color]
>
> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I don't get to the
> advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get to the most expensive bundles in
> the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>
> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience (I think - no
> idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the beta editions!), without web or
> mobile development targets, no database or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin
> support, source control integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a
> 64-bit C++ compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>
> --
> Andrew
>[/color]

**Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)** · Nov 19 '05, 10:50 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

Close Juan, but not quite.
[color=blue]
> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience[/color]

This is Express
[color=blue]
> without web or mobile development targets,[/color]

Still Express
[color=blue]
> no database or XML stuff,[/color]

Still Express
[color=blue]
> but with full macro and addin support, source control integration[/color]

Not in Express
[color=blue]
> a 64-bit C++ compiler[/color]

Not in Express
[color=blue]
> with decent profiling tools[/color]

Not in Express

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************** *************** *************** **
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** **
"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@ nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:edzPqDB4FH A.3244@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> re:[color=green]
>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience[/color]
>
> Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?
>
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/expres...c/default.aspx
>
>
>
>
> 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/
> =============== =============== ========
> "Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in
> message news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
>> "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
>>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
>>> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>>> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>>> Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
>>> them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to
>>> modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them
>>> very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly
>>> expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.[/color]
>>
>> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
>> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
>> to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
>> hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>>
>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience
>> (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
>> beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
>> or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
>> integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
>> compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)** · Nov 19 '05, 10:50 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products. I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
(evolution, not revolution).

Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible. It
is not quite ready for a mold your own version. I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your own,
type of model. It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support the
model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it will
die out.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************** *************** *************** **
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** **
"Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in
message news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>[color=green]
>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
>> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse;
>> This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
>> while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
>> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
>> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
>> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.[/color]
>
> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
> to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
> hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>
> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience
> (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
> beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database or
> XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
> integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
> compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>
> --
> Andrew
>[/color]

**Kevin Spencer** · Nov 19 '05, 10:50 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

Hmm, now there's a marketing idea:

Visual Studio.Net 2005 A La Cart!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld @comcast.netNoS pamM> wrote in
message news:eDUVPkH4FH A.3276@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
>plan of products. I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
>first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
>(evolution, not revolution).
>
> Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible. It
> is not quite ready for a mold your own version. I am not sure the software
> industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
> own, type of model. It will likely get there some day, but it will only
> continue if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to
> support the model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate
> software, it will die out.
>
> --
> Gregory A. Beamer
> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
>
> *************** *************** *************** **
> Think Outside the Box!
> *************** *************** *************** **
> "Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in
> message news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
>> "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
>>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
>>> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>>> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>>> Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
>>> them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to
>>> modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them
>>> very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly
>>> expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.[/color]
>>
>> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
>> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
>> to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
>> hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>>
>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience
>> (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
>> beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
>> or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
>> integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
>> compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Juan T. Llibre** · Nov 19 '05, 10:50 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

Wouldn't it be nice, though, if we could order
our development tools like at a restaurant ?

"What will you have the entree with, sir?"
"Would you like soup?"
"Would you like potatos?"
"And your dessert will be?"
"Would you like coffee?"

"That will be a total of $32.79. Thank you for your order."

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/
=============== =============== ========
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld @comcast.netNoS pamM> wrote in message
news:usxvtiH4FH A.3540@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Close Juan, but not quite.
>[color=green]
>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience[/color]
>
> This is Express
>[color=green]
>> without web or mobile development targets,[/color]
>
> Still Express
>[color=green]
>> no database or XML stuff,[/color]
>
> Still Express
>[color=green]
>> but with full macro and addin support, source control integration[/color]
>
> Not in Express
>[color=green]
>> a 64-bit C++ compiler[/color]
>
> Not in Express
>[color=green]
>> with decent profiling tools[/color]
>
> Not in Express
>
> --
> Gregory A. Beamer
> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
>
> *************** *************** *************** **
> Think Outside the Box!
> *************** *************** *************** **
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@ nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:edzPqDB4FH A.3244@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> re:[color=darkred]
>>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience[/color]
>>
>> Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?
>>
>> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/expres...c/default.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>> =============== =============== ========
>> "Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in message
>> news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=darkred]
>>> "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>>>
>>>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on customization.
>>>> Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let me pick and choose which
>>>> individual features I want; this stuff with "If you have *this* version, you get Team
>>>> System, but this one gets you Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one
>>>> gets you Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them
>>>> one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
>>>> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with some odd
>>>> overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu that only has combo
>>>> meals, but no combo like *I* want.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I don't get to
>>> the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get to the most expensive
>>> bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying hundreds of pounds for features
>>> I'll never use.
>>>
>>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience (I think - no
>>> idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the beta editions!), without web
>>> or mobile development targets, no database or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin
>>> support, source control integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a
>>> 64-bit C++ compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Keith Patrick** · Nov 19 '05, 10:51 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

Sure beats saying, "Either you're a developer, an architect, or a QA
engineer...or else you gotta buy the $10k MSDN subscription." And I do
think VS is mature enough (this is not the first iteration. A lot of new
tools got introduced, but the tool is still very VS.Net-like) to sell a la
carte. If they can sell SourceSafe with one and Team System with another,
they can offer them as mix n match (and they have, to an extent, in MSDN,
although the different editions of Visio were fubar'ed so much, I gave up on
that one) I just wish they wouldn't assume you are either on one of 3 roles
or you have to buy a $10k MSDN subscription. And I think the source control
story in this rev of VS is mindboggling. I mean, some use SourceSafe, some
use Team System, some use nothing. I use source control for a *1* person
project, but it seems like that "persona" must not have been on MS' Wall of
Users.

**Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)** · Nov 19 '05, 10:51 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

I think it is possible, Kevin, but the delivery mechanism is not there yet.

Many years ago, they started selling cassettes and CDs with the songs you
like, so you end up with your own CD. Today, this has been refined into
services like iTunes. You can now set up your own favorite music out of a
plethora of tunes and put them on an MP3 player.

What if Visual Studio could be divided into tons of different pieces: Basic
UI, full user experience add in, all of the designers as separate installs.
You then have the package versions, but you can also end up with a package
your own with the pieces you desire.

The feasibility of this plan is whether or not sales increase enough to
cover the cost of dividing the packages out to this granularity. If enough
people want this to outweigh the cost of developers separating everything,
it works. On future products, they can be designed as modular, so they are
ready to be packaged in a variety of configurations.

The issue is whether the cost of the delivery mechanism and the cost of
separating out functionality in current products, is worth it. I am not sure
we are ready, but it sounds like a neat idea.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************** *************** *************** **
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** **
"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote in message
news:O5dc%23yH4 FHA.3636@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Hmm, now there's a marketing idea:
>
> Visual Studio.Net 2005 A La Cart!
>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> A watched clock never boils.
>
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld @comcast.netNoS pamM> wrote in
> message news:eDUVPkH4FH A.3276@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
>>plan of products. I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in
>>the first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of
>>products (evolution, not revolution).
>>
>> Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
>> It is not quite ready for a mold your own version. I am not sure the
>> software industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal,
>> build your own, type of model. It will likely get there some day, but it
>> will only continue if it is cost effective, which means enough people
>> will have to support the model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P
>> pirate software, it will die out.
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Beamer
>> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
>>
>> *************** *************** *************** **
>> Think Outside the Box!
>> *************** *************** *************** **
>> "Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in
>> message news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=darkred]
>>> "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>>>
>>>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>>>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
>>>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
>>>> "If you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>>>> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>>>> Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
>>>> them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to
>>>> modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them
>>>> very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a
>>>> newly expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I*
>>>> want.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
>>> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
>>> to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
>>> paying hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>>>
>>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience
>>> (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
>>> beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
>>> or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
>>> integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
>>> compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)** · Nov 19 '05, 10:51 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

I think it IS a great idea. Let's define the problem:

Cost
* Redesigning current packages to be modular
* Creating a delivery mechnism (modeled after iTunes, perhaps)
* New environment for delivery mechanism
* Upkeep of mechanism
* Tailoring help for cafeteria choices (not sure if this is necessary, but
full MSDN with each would be a rather heavy bite to swallow).
* Software delivered on media would require custom burning of configurations
(can package all iterations to reduce expense, but that increase initial
expense by creating a matrix of choices)

Savings
* Software that is delivered via web eliminates package costs, but package
costs are small. Perhaps a web only delivery, but uptime has a cost, as
well.

The question is whether or not enough developers/shops would take advantage
of the cafeteria plan and increase sales enough to overcome the costs. It is
not merely having more people use the "build your own" plan, but having
enough to increase sales enough to cover all expenses related to setting
this up.

I love the idea, but I am not sure it is cost effective for Microsoft. One
way to make it cost effective is to have multiple ISVs responsible for the
options and each one profiting from their piece when it sells. This model
benefits the synergy and benefits each member according to the strength of
his offering (capitalism at its best), but I am not sure Microsoft wants to
go this route.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************** *************** *************** **
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** **
"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@ nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oj$ZXyH4FH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Wouldn't it be nice, though, if we could order
> our development tools like at a restaurant ?
>
> "What will you have the entree with, sir?"
> "Would you like soup?"
> "Would you like potatos?"
> "And your dessert will be?"
> "Would you like coffee?"
>
> "That will be a total of $32.79. Thank you for your order."
>
>
>
> 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/
> =============== =============== ========
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld @comcast.netNoS pamM> wrote in
> message news:usxvtiH4FH A.3540@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Close Juan, but not quite.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience[/color]
>>
>> This is Express
>>[color=darkred]
>>> without web or mobile development targets,[/color]
>>
>> Still Express
>>[color=darkred]
>>> no database or XML stuff,[/color]
>>
>> Still Express
>>[color=darkred]
>>> but with full macro and addin support, source control integration[/color]
>>
>> Not in Express
>>[color=darkred]
>>> a 64-bit C++ compiler[/color]
>>
>> Not in Express
>>[color=darkred]
>>> with decent profiling tools[/color]
>>
>> Not in Express
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Beamer
>> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
>>
>> *************** *************** *************** **
>> Think Outside the Box!
>> *************** *************** *************** **
>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@ nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:edzPqDB4FH A.3244@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> re:
>>>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user
>>>> experience
>>>
>>> Isn't that the same as Visual C++ Express ?
>>>
>>> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/expres...c/default.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/
>>> =============== =============== ========
>>> "Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in
>>> message news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..
>>>> "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>>>>> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
>>>>> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
>>>>> "If you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets
>>>>> you Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>>>>> Whitehorse; This one lets you write full applications but only deploy
>>>>> them one way while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice
>>>>> to modularize the system, but when MS chose the categories, they made
>>>>> them very rigid with some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like
>>>>> a newly expanded menu that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I*
>>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
>>>> don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I
>>>> get to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
>>>> paying hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user
>>>> experience (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've
>>>> used all the beta editions!), without web or mobile development
>>>> targets, no database or XML stuff, but with full macro and addin
>>>> support, source control integration (but not necessarily coming with
>>>> SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++ compiler, and with decent profiling tools
>>>> including PGO?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)** · Nov 19 '05, 10:51 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

Possible is not the biggest question, so, ultimately, I agree with you
Keith, but there are some practical obstacles (mentioned in my other posts
in this thread). In order to do this, you have two options.

Option 1: Chop the product into small pieces and allow someone to buy
multiple shrink wraps.
Option 2: Create a mechanism of assembling multiple pieces based on user
choices.

In Option 1, you buy as much as you want and it is delivered via normal
retail channels. This adds packaging expense for Microsoft. In Option 2, you
need a delivery mechanism. In both, you have to make sure the product is
torn into granular enough pieces. You may also have to adjust windows
installer to knit together pieces to make it easier for the user to get
their stuff installed. In addition, you have the expense of having tester
employed to test all of the possible combinations on all supported OSs.

Possible? Certainly. But, will it increase profits enough to pay for the
expense? If not, Microsoft is losing money to make a few people happy. This
may be great PR, but it is bad business.

Is the industry ready for this model? AND Are there enough people that want
this type of software to pay for the change?

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************** *************** *************** **
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** **
"Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@nospam. hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23uj8dLI4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Sure beats saying, "Either you're a developer, an architect, or a QA
> engineer...or else you gotta buy the $10k MSDN subscription." And I do
> think VS is mature enough (this is not the first iteration. A lot of new
> tools got introduced, but the tool is still very VS.Net-like) to sell a la
> carte. If they can sell SourceSafe with one and Team System with another,
> they can offer them as mix n match (and they have, to an extent, in MSDN,
> although the different editions of Visio were fubar'ed so much, I gave up
> on that one) I just wish they wouldn't assume you are either on one of 3
> roles or you have to buy a $10k MSDN subscription. And I think the source
> control story in this rev of VS is mindboggling. I mean, some use
> SourceSafe, some use Team System, some use nothing. I use source control
> for a *1* person project, but it seems like that "persona" must not have
> been on MS' Wall of Users.
>
>[/color]

**Alf P. Steinbach** · Nov 19 '05, 10:51 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):[color=blue]
> [of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
> "Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in
> message news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
> > "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
> >[color=darkred]
> >> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
> >> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or let
> >> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with "If
> >> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
> >> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you Whitehorse;
> >> This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
> >> while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize the
> >> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid with
> >> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
> >> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.[/color]
> >
> > Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
> > don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I get
> > to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm paying
> > hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
> >
> > Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user experience
> > (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
> > beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database or
> > XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
> > integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
> > compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
> >[/color]
>
> *************** *************** *************** **
> Think Outside the Box!
> *************** *************** *************** **[/color]

You don't.

[color=blue]
> I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
> plan of products.[/color]

That's crap.

Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.

That does not exist.

[color=blue]
> I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
> first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
> (evolution, not revolution).[/color]

Crap.

[color=blue]
> Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.[/color]

Crap.

[color=blue]
> It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.[/color]

Crap, nobody asked for that.

[color=blue]
> I am not sure the software
> industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your own,
> type of model.[/color]

Crap.

[color=blue]
> It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
> if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support the
> model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it will
> die out.[/color]

Crap.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

**Wayne Wengert** · Nov 19 '05, 10:51 PM

Re: Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

I, for one, much prefer top posting. I don't want to wade through all the
verbage from earlier posts to find out what is new.

Wayne

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no > wrote in message
news:436a2b69.1 477397859@news. individual.net. ..[color=blue]
>* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):[color=green]
>> [of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]
>> "Andrew McDonald" <myrmecophagavi r@no-spam-thanks.hotmail. com> wrote in
>> message news:Oz0%23GvA4 FHA.3136@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=darkred]
>> > "Keith Patrick" <richard_keith_ patrick@hotmail .com> wrote...
>> >
>> >> It would be less confusing if MS wouldn't take the middle road on
>> >> customization. Either offer small, medium, large versions of VS or
>> >> let
>> >> me pick and choose which individual features I want; this stuff with
>> >> "If
>> >> you have *this* version, you get Team System, but this one gets you
>> >> Visual SourceSafe; this one gets you Visio, this one gets you
>> >> Whitehorse;
>> >> This one lets you write full applications but only deploy them one way
>> >> while this one lets me write an installer for it. Nice to modularize
>> >> the
>> >> system, but when MS chose the categories, they made them very rigid
>> >> with
>> >> some odd overlaps (and lack thereofs); it's like a newly expanded menu
>> >> that only has combo meals, but no combo like *I* want.
>> >
>> > Agreed. Each edition of Visual Studio is too broad for my needs, but I
>> > don't get to the advanced features I want in my limited scope till I
>> > get
>> > to the most expensive bundles in the hierarchy, at which point I'm
>> > paying
>> > hundreds of pounds for features I'll never use.
>> >
>> > Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamline d" user
>> > experience
>> > (I think - no idea what that's supposed to mean, and I've used all the
>> > beta editions!), without web or mobile development targets, no database
>> > or
>> > XML stuff, but with full macro and addin support, source control
>> > integration (but not necessarily coming with SourceSafe), a 64-bit C++
>> > compiler, and with decent profiling tools including PGO?
>> >[/color]
>>
>> *************** *************** *************** **
>> Think Outside the Box!
>> *************** *************** *************** **[/color]
>
> You don't.
>
>[color=green]
>> I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
>> plan of products.[/color]
>
> That's crap.
>
> Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.
>
> That does not exist.
>
>[color=green]
>> I do not, however, believe this is fully realistic in the
>> first iteration, esp. when the product is part of a long line of products
>> (evolution, not revolution).[/color]
>
> Crap.
>
>[color=green]
>> Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.[/color]
>
> Crap.
>
>[color=green]
>> It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.[/color]
>
> Crap, nobody asked for that.
>
>[color=green]
>> I am not sure the software
>> industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
>> own,
>> type of model.[/color]
>
> Crap.
>
>[color=green]
>> It will likely get there some day, but it will only continue
>> if it is cost effective, which means enough people will have to support
>> the
>> model. If it simply becomes an easier way to P&P pirate software, it will
>> die out.[/color]
>
> Crap.
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?[/color]

Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment