Understanding the Visual Studio 2005 versions

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the versions of Visual Studio 2005.
My latest blog entry covers the different versions:

Main URL:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/gregorybeamer/Blog/cns!1ptsyfBgfiUmsaQCul95SOyg!141.entry

If the above URL wraps and you want a shorter URL for the entry:
http://tinyurl.com/9yxbs

--
Gregory A. Beamer

***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************

 

[Keith Patrick]

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 \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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 compartmentalized, 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!
***********************************************

 

[Andrew McDonald]

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 "streamlined" 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?

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience

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

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

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

Close Juan, but not quite.

Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience

This is Express

without web or mobile development targets,

Still Express

no database or XML stuff,

Still Express

but with full macro and addin support, source control integration

Not in Express

a 64-bit C++ compiler

Not in Express

with decent profiling tools

Not in Express

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

***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************

re:

Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience

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

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

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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!
***********************************************

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

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."

Close Juan, but not quite.

Why can't I just buy Visual C++, without a "streamlined" user experience

This is Express

without web or mobile development targets,

Still Express

no database or XML stuff,

Still Express

but with full macro and addin support, source control integration

Not in Express

a 64-bit C++ compiler

Not in Express

with decent profiling tools

Not in Express

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

***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************

 

[Kevin Spencer]

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.

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!
***********************************************

 

[Keith Patrick]

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 \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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!
***********************************************

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 \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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!
***********************************************

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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!
***********************************************

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):

[of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]

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 "streamlined" 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?

***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************

You don't.

I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products.

That's crap.

Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.

That does not exist.

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).
Crap.


Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
Crap.


It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.

Crap, nobody asked for that.

I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your own,
type of model.
Crap.


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.

Crap.

 

[Wayne Wengert]

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

* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):

[of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]

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 "streamlined" 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?

***********************************************
Think Outside the Box!
***********************************************

You don't.

I understand this, as well, as it would be nice to have a full cafeteria
plan of products.

That's crap.

Keith is asking for a _non enterprise_ version.

That does not exist.

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).
Crap.


Visual Studio has been around a long time and has gotten more flexible.
Crap.


It is not quite ready for a mold your own version.

Crap, nobody asked for that.

I am not sure the software
industry, outside of open source, is ready for a piecemeal, build your
own,
type of model.
Crap.


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.

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?

 

[Keith Patrick]

Option #2 is already possible via Windows Installer. What MS is doing is
stripping down the tool of its niceties, presumably under the guise that
users may not want to pay for all the extra tools, but in the process, they
took out a great deal of the user's choices as to what should or should not
be installed. Were people really complaining that SourceSafe was included
with VS.Net? Maybe if they paid extra for it, but how many people out there
were actually paying for VS.Net + SourceSafe rather than just getting an
MSDN subscription, whereby they *would* have a la carte installation of
various packages (with the caveat of those multiple versions of Visio that
would only work with particular versions of VS.Net). But they've done this
tying in of their definition of a role into the entire MSDN packaging that
has taken away quite a bit of convenience.
Just seems like the marketing folks stayed in the kitchen too long and
turned whatever the dev team was building into cookie dough.

 

[Keith Patrick]

I agree. Top-posting reads a) like email, so it's a more familiar format,
and b) makes groups.google.com a hell of a lot easier to sift through. It
gets kind of stupid, though, when you have people getting abusive over the
format of someone else's post just because it doesn't fit in with their
world view (not picking on Alf P...I've read much worse posts from people
that don't even address the topic of the thread and without a rationale for
their reasoning). It'd be like me going through every group I can find and
correct every spelling & capitalization error. At the end of the day, it's
a waste of time and is largely irrelevant, as it's people's personal
preferences in an unmoderated community format. Post however you want to,
and if someone has a problem with it, tell them to take it to the
moderator(HA!) or stick it up the orifice of his/her choice.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

I, too, prefer top posting BUT I trim the message,
leaving only the relevant parts ( hint, hint... ).

;-)

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

* Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer):

[of course he's top-posting, Microsoftie]

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?

 

[Kevin Spencer]

These aren't arguments. They're just a lot of Crap.

As a conclusion, I'd have to say you're full of Crap.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Opinions are like a**holes. Not only does everybody have one, but they all
stink.

That's crap.

Crap.

Crap.

Crap, nobody asked for that.

Crap.

 

[Andrew McDonald]

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.

I agree it would be a major change to the delivery of the suite, but perhaps
it is something worth considering by Microsoft. Visual Studio just seems to
get more bloated with each iteration; each new version contains
proportionally less that is applicable to me. Despite that I consider the
bits I do use the best tools for my job, which means I have to keep buying
the extra bloat - much like with Windows itself and Office.

Going back to my original request list, I don't see why it wouldn't be
reasonable to ship a Visual C++ Professional Edition. Wasn't this done
before VS7, or am I imagining it? The Express Edition is tantalisingly close
to useful, but without the depth for my professional needs, like the source
control integration, 64-bit compiler, and profiling tools. I find it funny
that such features were removed, when they're really not that big a deal and
wouldn't add too much to the package size. In fact I think the new/casual
users, who seem to be the target for this edition, should be taught to use
SCCI and profiling tools anyway - it would make them better programmers. The
64-bit compiler I can understand being left out because it's not essential,
but considering how little it would add to the size it could easily have
been left in. And with that I'd have all the tools I needed; not just me but
my entire company, and without paying for VB, web stuff, databases, etc.

I'd be interested to hear what's important to professional users of the
other languages, but missing from their Express Editions, since I don't know
enough about them to see if there's a case for those as standalone
Professional Editions.