[S.T.A.R.S.]

Here we have 4 existing versions of Microsoft Visual Studio.2002,2003,2005,2008 and soon 2010.
Considering that the version 2010 is still not released,we have 4 fully working versions.So I was just interested...how many of you use ANY of this 4 versions the most and why?

I just tryed version 2008 yesterday for the first time and it's great!!!However I am not going to use it still for a long time considering that the applications made in 2008 CANNOT work under older Windows operating systems
I spend 95% of my time in version 2005.Applications made in it CAN work under all Windows operating systems starting from Windows 98 First Edition.Too bad it cannot work under Windows 95
Version 2003 is great for practicing writing the code since there is not the help menu while you start typing the codeThis version is also great...
And version 2002 is one of my favorite.It uses the .NET framework version 1.0.Applications made in this version takes the smallest size and they can ALSO work under ALL Windows operating systems starting from Windows 98 First Edition.Of course that the version 2002 doesn't have many new features that the version 2005 has.Like changing the background color of the context menu strip...,media sound player to play WAV files from the application directly and so on...
You will be surprised that the version 2002 can STILL be bought from the Amazon website.And even the price is not so low considering that this version is pretty old.
Honestly version 2002 is great.You can always make most of the things...

--->So...how many of you use ANY of these versions and WHY?<---

 

[Chrono Archangel]

out with the old, in with the new.

 

[mudlord]

....
I use MSVC6 and MSVC2008

Why?

MSVC6
* No added garbage
* Stable
* Compiles work on Windows 95
* Can generate very small executables if you tune it right.

MSVC2008
* *better* standards compliance than MSVC6.

Go ahead and laugh. I even use MASM with WinASM in cases. >.>
Laugh even more, I dare you to.

out with the old, in with the new.

Most of the time, newer is not better.

 

[Phil]

Compiles work on Win 95? Wow, then I can put my prestine 96' Ibm Thinkpad to good use.

 

[sgsavvy]

people still use win 95?

 

[mudlord]

people still use win 95?

May I ask how is that relevant to the topic.

 

[cottonvibes]

@S.T.A.R.S.:

msvc6 is terribly unstable from my experience.
to the point that its unusable.

i use msvc2008.
its not rock-stable, but alot more stable than msvc6.

msvc2005 was probably the most stable one i've used; but alot of people are using vs2008 now, so i just made the upgrade.

btw, why do you want to support win95 anyways.
its already 14 years old ;p

you can pretty much depend on most people that are going to dl your app, are going to have win XP or above.

i'm pretty sure there's a bigger linux+macOS userbase currently, than there is for win95+win98.

 

[Proto]

I used the 2003 version for a good while for a project we were in, and while I'm still in love with the debugger Visual Studio provides, as a programming platform I vastly prefer Eclipse.

 

[aceloop]

i'm pretty sure there's a bigger linux+macOS userbase currently, than there is for win95+win98.

I'm sure there's a bigger pirated windows userbase if you put linux and MacOS together. this comment is pointless by the way.

 

[mudlord]

btw, why do you want to support win95 anyways.
its already 14 years old ;p

May I ask you in return if its wrong to make your code as compatible as possible? Without sticking to WinNT specific APIs?

Also: Is it wrong to adopt Martin Korth's philosophies? If a developer decides to go beyond the call of duty, when over developers don't care about compatibility, is that wrong? Is it wrong to care about bloat?

its not rock-stable, but alot more stable than msvc6.

I had MSVC2008 crash heaps of times in its resource editor: MSVC6 with SPs hardly crashes for me, or VERY rarely.

I used the 2003 version for a good while for a project we were in

Excellent choice. I found MSVC2003 very stable, while still offering some degree of standards compliance. Not to mention, I found it nice on resource usage.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Many people are using Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 just because it's the newest version.I am not saying that it's bad,but it's not compatible with old Windows operating systems.And when you think a little better about it,that sucks.Many hospitals in my country are using Windows 98 to run programs.And if I decide to develop programs for hospital use,they will simply not work if they are developed under the .NET framework version 3.0 or above.Most of my time right now I spend in Microsoft Visual Studio 2002.Heh...these days I am doughting should I switch from version 2005 to version 2002 because applications made in 2002 take much less space then those made in 2005.Also they are executing a little bit faster.But then again 2005 has nice components that 2002 doesn't have.
The thing which is bothering me in version 2002 is that you CANNOT change the background color and the fore color in the CONTEXT MENU STRIP control.If anyone know how to change it,please tell me!!!
Version 2002 doesn't have the method for STAND BY and HIBERNATE for the difference of version 2005,but you can always make your own by importing the DLL file.

Ohh yea...when you install version 2002,it takes less space on your HDD then newer versions:dead:LoL of course this is a stupid reason for switching back to 2002.

Anyway for those who are using 2002 or EVEN 2003 I would really appreciate if you tell me how to change the background color and the fore color in the "ContextMenu" and the "MainMenu" control.I tryed all,but I just can't find the way

Also why I like version 2002 is the version of the .NET farmework which is 1.0.Many today's computers graphic drivers automatically also install .NET 1.1 so the user DO NOT need to install .NET 2.0 to run the applications.Beside,the .NET framework 1.0 takes much less space then the .NET 3.0 or EVEN 3.5...lol...

 

[FLaRe85]

I use Visual Studio 2008 primarily because I'm a .NET developer (ASP.NET usually) and it supports all the latest stuff in .NET 3.5. It was also free, so I can't argue with that.

 

[RZetlin]

Why would you want to write software for Windows 95 -- a OS that is over 10 years old.

Currently I am using Visual Studio 2008 because it's the latest one plus it supports libraries like XNA.

 

[ElijahTW]

Many hospitals in my country are using Windows 98 to run programs.

While this may be true I really doubt many hospitals are using 98 anymore just because it's a security risk, since 98 no longer receives security updates.

The hospital in my town actually partially uses Windows 3.1 and DOS for some things, though. And some parts of it's network are actually token ring networks. (I bet half of you don't know what token ring is )

 

[argor]

i use vs2008 because most people at my school use it and i need to have the compatibility
but at home i use monodevelop 2

 

[cottonvibes]

May I ask you in return if its wrong to make your code as compatible as possible? Without sticking to WinNT specific APIs?

Also: Is it wrong to adopt Martin Korth's philosophies? If a developer decides to go beyond the call of duty, when over developers don't care about compatibility, is that wrong? Is it wrong to care about bloat?

is it wrong to walk in a circle for hours?
no, but some might say its a waste of time ;p

 

[PsyMan]

Visual Studio 2008 SP1 Express here. Sure it lacks features and libraries but it's freeware and definitely better than the rest "free" development environments. As far as I can remember I never got it to crash either.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Sooner or later it will crash lol.Nothing's perfect...
Visual Studio 2005 is the best lol!!!

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

i got bored and installed VC6 again

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

LoL I admit that I like using old programs...,but hey...VS 6.0 is REALLY not so good lol.Ok it's not that bad lol.
Visual Studio 6.0 was the last version to include the COM-based version of Visual Basic,subsequent versions would include the version of the language based on .NET.It was also the last version to include Visual J++, which was removed as part of a settlement with Sun Microsystems that required Microsoft to stop producing programming tools that targeted the Java Virtual Machine.Visual Studio 6.0 doesn't have Visual C#...
Visual Basic,Visual C++ and Visual FoxPro had separate IDEs,while Visual J++ and Visual InterDev shared a common new environment.This new IDE was designed with extensibility in mind and would go on to become the common environment for all languages with the release of Visual Studio .NET version 1.0.Visual Studio 6.0 was also the last version to include Visual FoxPro.This version was the basis of Microsoft's development system for the next four years,as Microsoft transitioned their development focus to the .NET framework which if you ask me ROCKS!!!
Visual Studio 6.0 was released in june 1998 and it's the last version to run on the Windows 98 platform.

If you want to use old versions then install Visual Studio 97 lol...
By the way...anyone here uses Visual Studio 97 because he is bored?:dead::dead::dead: