I’m surprised, amazed, actually. I just did an upgrade to Vista 5456, and
find that Visual Studio 2005 is non-functional. 2005 was installed and
working in XP, but after the upgrade, it was no longer recognized as a
shortcut, nor would it load, or run. Sorry, but when I pay a few hundred
dollars for genuine Microsoft tools, I kind of expect them to run in a
Microsoft operating system, whether it be a beta or a release. They might
not run as expected, since it is a beta, but I do expect them to function.
WinDbg did load and run, but when I attempted to look at a mini-dump I had
generated earlier in the day by attempting to install VS 2005, I was blocked
by UAC, which is probably one of the biggest pains in the ass I have seen in
32 years in the industry.
5456 is Beta 2, a short step away from RC1. I would expect key development
software such as Visual Studio 2005 to run with little if any difficulty.
Overall Vista has been a disappointment, and far behind where 2000 or XP was
at the same stage of development.
The personal opinion of
Gary G. Little
Gary,
The VS2005 problem has been descibed in the beta newsgroups for quite
a while. I believe there is a complicated procedure to allow a reinstall
that will work (note installed from the VS2005 from the DVD does not work).
Check microsoft.beta.longhorn.developer_support for information.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
http://www.windrvr.com
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
“Gary G. Little” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> I’m surprised, amazed, actually. I just did an upgrade to Vista 5456, and
> find that Visual Studio 2005 is non-functional. 2005 was installed and
> working in XP, but after the upgrade, it was no longer recognized as a
> shortcut, nor would it load, or run. Sorry, but when I pay a few hundred
> dollars for genuine Microsoft tools, I kind of expect them to run in a
> Microsoft operating system, whether it be a beta or a release. They might
> not run as expected, since it is a beta, but I do expect them to function.
>
> WinDbg did load and run, but when I attempted to look at a mini-dump I had
> generated earlier in the day by attempting to install VS 2005, I was
> blocked
> by UAC, which is probably one of the biggest pains in the ass I have seen
> in
> 32 years in the industry.
>
> 5456 is Beta 2, a short step away from RC1. I would expect key development
> software such as Visual Studio 2005 to run with little if any difficulty.
> Overall Vista has been a disappointment, and far behind where 2000 or XP
> was
> at the same stage of development.
>
> The personal opinion of
> Gary G. Little
>
>
>
> ----------
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of Gary G. Little[SMTP:glittle@mn.rr.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Vista and existing development tools
WinDbg did load and run, but when I attempted to look at a mini-dump I had
generated earlier in the day by attempting to install VS 2005, I was blocked
by UAC, which is probably one of the biggest pains in the ass I have seen in
32 years in the industry.
Fortunatelly, it can be turned off and everything starts to behave reasonably. But wait, don’t give up on the feature, yet! – http://blogs.msdn.com/uac/archive/2006/06/01/613098.aspx
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]