5 ms·

I'm really glad we're getting developers what they need, and I'm sorry it seems to have taken some flaming press to get it. I work in the Azure/AD group and we

I'm really glad we're getting developers what they need, and I'm sorry it seems to have taken some flaming press to get it. I work in the Azure/AD group and we are dependent on the Windows preview releases too. If the community knew just how fast the Windows team was iterating on this new release cycle, I think they might be a lot more sympathetic to this situation. And I just downloaded VS 2013 Beta last Friday. At least I haven't have a chance to install it yet. :-)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- vonzeppelin 13y ago
  There was a preview release a while back.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
toomuchtodo 13y ago
I feel like its too little too late though. This is just my observation as someone who worked at a .Net shop for 3 years, and recently moved to a Java/Python house.
y0ghur7_xxx 13y ago
> If the community knew just how fast the Windows team was iterating on this new release cycle, I think they might be a lot more sympathetic to this situation. You could open source it, so the community could help.
wslh 13y ago
As an MSDN customer I am not sympathetic because Microsoft really harmed my company releasing the last Windows 8.1 to a few vendors. One of our customers deploys our software component in millions of PCs around the world and they noticed an incompatibility in our component before us. Why? just because they have access to a Windows 8.1 (build 9477) release as a privileged vendor.
- wslh 13y ago
  A downvote for telling the truth...
  - skrebbel 13y ago
    It was just the downvote mafia. You're back in the plus. I've learned not to worry too much about it.
- marshray 13y ago
  I can see how that could be a bit awkward. :-|
  - joseph_cooney 13y ago
    I can understand some awkwardness, but surely the software is sold as working under certain versions and configurations of windows. If a customer is using it on a version that isn't supported you can point that out to them. If you plan to support a new version of windows soon you can tell them that too, and maybe put their contact details on a list of people to email when the updated version is released.
    - wslh 13y ago
      This is not how it works. For example, our customers are paying for "super" support and we have a contract for a certain SLA. If we don't have an upgrade it will cost a lot of money for them to deal with zillions of customers calling, filling forums with negative feedback, etc.
      - marshray 13y ago
        But Windows 8.1 isn't even released yet. It says clearly "Windows 8.1 Enterprise Preview should be installed on a test machine. Following the preview period, it is not possible to upgrade to a licensed working version" http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dn237246.aspx?wt.mc_id=TEC_153_1_38 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dn237246.aspx?... So they haven't shipped it to zillions of customers yet, and the incompatibility did get caught in time, it's just that you'd have much preferred to fix it before your big privileged vendor customer found it. Do I have this right?
harrytuttle 13y ago
The problem is that devdiv have been doing this for a few years so some of us (previously heavy investors in Microsoft's products) are now pissed off. firstly the fuck up that is Microsoft Connect where critical defects which cripple teams for years are ignored (VS HRESULT errors, hanging, crashes) even if reproducible. Secondly, partner support is a piece of shit. It took 6 months to get a damn registry workaround out for the fact that download prompting in IE9 basically fucked up ClickOnce for 2000 clients for us. then you fuck us with two license audits which cost us a fortune as it's impossible to decipher your shit crock licensing. then you pulled windows 8 on everyone, ignored the entire industry saying "no, you fucked up". then you pulled free visual studio for desktop and did a 180. then you pulled windows 8.1 (which didn't fix windows. 8) and told everyone that you're not getting it before GA then did another 180. No, you're not delivering what people want. You're fucking us over again and again and we're fed up with it. The only reason we're still drinking the milk is that we're stuck with it until we do a major product cycle. That time is right now.
- yuhong 13y ago
  I still remember when they restored XP support in VC2012, but officially only using the Win7 SDK which don't include the Metro stuff, which of course Metro Firefox needs.
  - Aldo_MX 13y ago
    To be honest, I get mad when a collaborator compiles our project in VS2012 without enabling XP Compatibility...
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      Can the Makefile (or whatever VS currently uses in its place) make sure it doesn't build (and maybe blows up) when the option isn't set?
- avenger123 13y ago
  I can feel your frustration and you've expressed more vocally than I would have but I definitely share some of the sentiments. My biggest beef is tying Visual Studio releases to the .NET framework and other components. Why should I need Visual Studio 2013/2012 to use Entity Framework 6 or ASP.NET MVC 5, etc. I can't even figure out what's supported and what's not with older Studio releases (such as 2010) without spending time on Google. I don't really see any reason why Visual Studio 2010 shouldn't support .NET framework 4.5.1, MVC5, Entity Framework 6.0 etc.. I used to believe there was some validity to tying a .NET framework version to Visual Studio but I've come to realize its just a money grab and a way to keep pushing out new Studio releases. I understand there is some point where you need to move forward. Anyway, at some point you realize enough is enough. I'm not there yet but I am definitely tempted to start heavily investing in other development stacks.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vonzeppelin 13y ago
There was a preview release a while back.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

toomuchtodo 13y ago

I feel like its too little too late though. This is just my observation as someone who worked at a .Net shop for 3 years, and recently moved to a Java/Python house.

y0ghur7_xxx 13y ago

> If the community knew just how fast the Windows team was iterating on this new release cycle, I think they might be a lot more sympathetic to this situation. You could open source it, so the community could help.

wslh 13y ago

As an MSDN customer I am not sympathetic because Microsoft really harmed my company releasing the last Windows 8.1 to a few vendors. One of our customers deploys our software component in millions of PCs around the world and they noticed an incompatibility in our component before us. Why? just because they have access to a Windows 8.1 (build 9477) release as a privileged vendor.

wslh 13y ago
A downvote for telling the truth...
- skrebbel 13y ago
  It was just the downvote mafia. You're back in the plus. I've learned not to worry too much about it.
marshray 13y ago
I can see how that could be a bit awkward. :-|
- joseph_cooney 13y ago
  I can understand some awkwardness, but surely the software is sold as working under certain versions and configurations of windows. If a customer is using it on a version that isn't supported you can point that out to them. If you plan to support a new version of windows soon you can tell them that too, and maybe put their contact details on a list of people to email when the updated version is released.
  - wslh 13y ago
    This is not how it works. For example, our customers are paying for "super" support and we have a contract for a certain SLA. If we don't have an upgrade it will cost a lot of money for them to deal with zillions of customers calling, filling forums with negative feedback, etc.
    - marshray 13y ago
      But Windows 8.1 isn't even released yet. It says clearly "Windows 8.1 Enterprise Preview should be installed on a test machine. Following the preview period, it is not possible to upgrade to a licensed working version" http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dn237246.aspx?wt.mc_id=TEC_153_1_38 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dn237246.aspx?... So they haven't shipped it to zillions of customers yet, and the incompatibility did get caught in time, it's just that you'd have much preferred to fix it before your big privileged vendor customer found it. Do I have this right?

harrytuttle 13y ago

The problem is that devdiv have been doing this for a few years so some of us (previously heavy investors in Microsoft's products) are now pissed off. firstly the fuck up that is Microsoft Connect where critical defects which cripple teams for years are ignored (VS HRESULT errors, hanging, crashes) even if reproducible. Secondly, partner support is a piece of shit. It took 6 months to get a damn registry workaround out for the fact that download prompting in IE9 basically fucked up ClickOnce for 2000 clients for us. then you fuck us with two license audits which cost us a fortune as it's impossible to decipher your shit crock licensing. then you pulled windows 8 on everyone, ignored the entire industry saying "no, you fucked up". then you pulled free visual studio for desktop and did a 180. then you pulled windows 8.1 (which didn't fix windows. 8) and told everyone that you're not getting it before GA then did another 180. No, you're not delivering what people want. You're fucking us over again and again and we're fed up with it. The only reason we're still drinking the milk is that we're stuck with it until we do a major product cycle. That time is right now.

yuhong 13y ago
I still remember when they restored XP support in VC2012, but officially only using the Win7 SDK which don't include the Metro stuff, which of course Metro Firefox needs.
- Aldo_MX 13y ago
  To be honest, I get mad when a collaborator compiles our project in VS2012 without enabling XP Compatibility...
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    Can the Makefile (or whatever VS currently uses in its place) make sure it doesn't build (and maybe blows up) when the option isn't set?
avenger123 13y ago
I can feel your frustration and you've expressed more vocally than I would have but I definitely share some of the sentiments. My biggest beef is tying Visual Studio releases to the .NET framework and other components. Why should I need Visual Studio 2013/2012 to use Entity Framework 6 or ASP.NET MVC 5, etc. I can't even figure out what's supported and what's not with older Studio releases (such as 2010) without spending time on Google. I don't really see any reason why Visual Studio 2010 shouldn't support .NET framework 4.5.1, MVC5, Entity Framework 6.0 etc.. I used to believe there was some validity to tying a .NET framework version to Visual Studio but I've come to realize its just a money grab and a way to keep pushing out new Studio releases. I understand there is some point where you need to move forward. Anyway, at some point you realize enough is enough. I'm not there yet but I am definitely tempted to start heavily investing in other development stacks.