Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
What would happen if I tried to install the 64-bit version of Visual Studio 2013 Professional on a 32-bit machine? I do not want to attempt doing this without some idea of what might happen.
There is no 64-bit version of Visual Studio.
Is there the 64-bit version of Visual Studio?
http://www.viva64.com/en/k/0025/
"... The main issue that does not let the developers to create the
64-bit version of Visual Studio is the amount of code that they would
need to port to a new platform. Porting the main studio's units will
force the programmers to port all the existing extension packages for
the tool as well. Benefits that will be gained from this high-cost
process are not very obvious at present. Most Visual Studio units will
not get any significant benefits after the port in comparison to their
32-bit versions while the requirements for physical memory the studio
will have while loading large projects might greatly rise because of
the increase of data structure sizes in the 64-bit version. But even
in the current Visual Studio versions, there is a problem related to
long loading time when opening large projects and the increase of
memory consumption will just make it worse. ..."
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to ask other developers about Visual Studio 11.
I'm currently using VS2010 SP1 and some components like DevExpress. All of them is compatible with VS11.
In my situation, i am able to handle all errors during this beta period and i can accept that. But, to be more clear, to deploy my outputs (exe/dll .NET 4.0) to other machines (like customers) do you recommend to use of Visual Studio 11?
Is there any limitation(s) or other things on VS11 and/or deployed / build outputs?
I know, it is BETA but in BETA stage is it safe to use it as a default IDE instead of VS2010.
If I use VS11 I will probably still use .NET 4.0 but not 4.5 Beta.
I liked the new things and IDE interface style of VS11 so its attract me -very much-.
More importantly, do you use it on production?
I'm currently using it as a production tool but only when targeting .Net 4.0 and below. So far I have not found any issues. I wouldn't recommend it for a production environment if you are compiling against .Net 4.5.
Microsoft however does offer production support. You can read more about it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/11/en-us/downloads/go-live
Hope it helps!
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
We have Visual Studio 2010 premium edition on our systems and Can succesfully use Team Explorer build in it. But I want to use Team explorer separatly. How can I install it separatly without installing VS2010 on some user machines or can we separate vs2010 and team explorer if already installed. Also Do I still need to have separate licence for this per user. I know we have Team web access but need team explorer independently.
Please guide.
I have read the following posts but still not clear:
Standalone GUI client for TFS 2010 Source Control
Does the free Team Explorer client work without Visual Studio
If you have a TFS Client Access License (CAL) for these users, then you can use the standalone Team Explorer at no additional cost.
You should already have a CAL for those users if they're using TFS Web Access, so yes, they should be able to use the standalone Team Explorer.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am an adjunct professor teaching database and programming classes. I own a desktop and laptop both running Windows. I own an Academic copy of VS 2010 and have it installed/activated at home.
Starting in the Fall I will be teaching C# .NET programming with VS 2010. However, the laptop at the college with it installed is a 5 year old POS. Can I install VS 2010 and activate with the same license on my laptop as I do with my desktop? Or does this violate the license with Microsoft? I thought about buying another copy - but the Academic reseller I deal with said I am only allowed to buy one copy a year. Both are used for Academic purpose - my day job provides me with a laptop so I am not worried they would ever think I am doing non-academic work with these - but I really need to have VS on both.
Thanks,
MDV
As per this pdf (Page 1)
A single license for the Software may not be shared or used concurrently by multiple end users.
It looks to me that it can be installed on multiple machines as long as it is not used concurrently by multiple end users.
Also, reviewing this pdf (Page 9) I see
Visual Studio 2010 Client Edition-Only Licensing
Visual Studio 2010 products can be purchased without an MSDN subscription in certain channels. (See the How to Buy section of this paper for more details).The user can install and use the Visual Studio client software on as many devices as they like. However, the products are licensed on a per-user basis—that is, only the licensed user can use the software.
Yes you can, according to this thread on Visual Studio Developer Center/Visual Studio Forums. (And this comes from the Microsoft licensing specialists)
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Currently thinking about pitching the argument for us migration from vs 2005 (winforms) to vs 2008 (wpf). My main point being the new UI design features.
I am slightly worried that we will put loads of work into upgrading everything only for us to have to do the same when 2010 comes along? So this leads to also consider skipping 2008 and just adopting 2010 as soon as its released.
Anyone been in the similar situation?
Also any arguments for and against for welcomed.
Cheers.
Personally I think it will be fairly safe to go to 2008 as 2010 is just extensions on top of it and enhancements for Visual Studio design time support for WPF. Therefore, the transition shouldn't be all that complicated. More like a 2005-2008 upgrade of a Win Forms or ASP.NET project, which is a cakewalk.
I find that it is better to upgrade sooner than later, so that you don't get "bogged down" with the existing framework/system. If you continue building on something that you will ultimately replace, it becomes harder and harder to justify to management to move.
I was in the same situation and opted to go down the MSDN subscription route, where I get all the new development tools as they come out. I have a spare machine the I use for 'the next version' of the compiler, that I use for migration testing, thus I at least know what to expect when the decision has to be made. This works well for me, and I guess if you have a decent virtualisation set-up all the better.
New compiler versions didn't break my build, but did hurt many of my automated tests, and add-in productivity tools. Basically. you need regression tests of some kind to ascertain the damage moving to a new version is likely to cause.
Your question doesn't quite make sense to me. Are you asking if you should migrate existing applications from Winforms to WPF? Or do you just want to start making new WPF applications but still work with existing Winform projects?
Either way, migrating from Visual Studio 2005 to 2008 is extremely simple. Existing Winform projects request a conversion which takes a few seconds and has never failed for me (dozens of solutions and 100s of projects converted over the last couple months).
However, this has nothing to do with Winforms and WPF.
If you want to start building WPF apps there is no reason to wait for VS 2010. VS 2008 has excellent support for both application types.
I agree with those suggesting adopting VS 2008 now. One thing to consider though is that WPF comes with a fairly high learning curve. I've had some limited exposure to WPF and Silverlight and am finding them to be a complete "mind change" from the WinForms model. Good luck.
I'd make the jump now if I was in your shoes. It'll minimize the impact of the 2010 jump down the line by getting you used to the many new features you'll already have to get used to. Additionally you'll get to enjoy many months of better performance and features before 2010 is available.
Winforms vs WPF is a world of difference. It's a much bigger change than looking at migrating from 2005 to 2008. I would not have that as the driving reason to upgrade to 2008. I also have no idea of the scope of your project and if WPF is really the best direction to take your product. Or if expression blend is all the tooling you need to get these UIs going.
Instead of pitching the WPF pitch I would focus on the real benefits you can get immediately. With 2008 you have multi-targeting so you can build all the applications you used to build in 2005 and have them target the 2.0 framework. In my experience I find 2008 faster and the refactoring improvements are a great addition. There are a ton of other new improvements in 2008 which you get out-of-the-box and can start using from day 1.
According to Rico the head architect of 2010 you will get even richer multi-targetting with 2010 which will allow you to adopt 2010 earlier and not force you to use CLR version 4 from get go.
At the moment I've made it a practice to upgrade to the latest version as soon as possible. Although for an application developer it's got its own pitfalls, Ex. .Net Framework 3.5 is not found on most computers, and if I ship the bootstrap installer which is 20 MB it insists on an active Internet connection to download the files needed. The full installer is 198 MBs and though I don't like it, I have to ship it along with the software.
For a web developer though the problem is easier to solve, you only have to worry about making it work at the server and things work automatically for the users. So if you're making a web solution I think Migration is easier.
If you're making an application software, I think you should weigh the advantages that migration offers with the changes it will make to your deployment scheme. I don't know how many people will agree with this, but I believe that application developers should be one upgrade behind.
There is an underlying process question here that I think shouldn't be overlooked:
When is the proper time to upgrade development tools and production environments?
On the one hand you could skip 2008 though this leads to the question of when would 2010 be adopted: Upon first release, first service pack release, or some other milestone? This may lead to creating more legacy code if you stay locked in on 2005 using the 2.0 framework and others move onto other frameworks. Even if you switch to 2008, it can still target the 2.0 framework so that that upgrade of the .Net framework may happen separately which some may like. Another key point in this camp is who does the research to evaluate the differences between versions to see which is worth the shift.
On the other, you could suggest that there be a continuous strategy of preparing to upgrade every 3 years or so as the Visual Studio releases of the past decade were roughly 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2008 so far. This would seem to me to be the better approach as there is more of a constant evolution going on rather than staying locked in at all. In this case there may be new features that get used since the new tools come quickly compared to the first case where the shift may be viewed as a large step whereas in this case it isn't that big since you are always looking to move in 2-3 years.
Course as I say this my old work machine has Visual Studio 2003, 2005 and 2008, so I am kind of in that latter camp which makes sense to me. I remember 10 years ago my work machine had NT 4.0, Pentium II 333 MHz processor, 64 MB of RAM and a 4 GB hard drive that had to be 2 partitions as it wouldn't let one partition be that big. Now my work machine has 4 GB of RAM alone, a 2.66 GHz dual core processor and a 160 GB hard drive. Could I in another 10 years have a machine with hundreds of GBs of RAM? While that may seem ridiculous, if I were sharing a machine with a handful of other developers, it may make sense to divide up a huge amount of memory amongst us all.