Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Bearhugger

Visual Studio 2010 worth the upgrade?

This topic is 2960 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Quote:
Original post by mhagain
The real deal breaker for me however was that executables it produces won't run on Windows 2000. If you need to deploy to people with older machines that's worth considering.
Why is this a problem? I'm not trying to say it's not, I don't know what you produce, and what customers you might have that want new software on Win2K.

But no one was worried about Windows 3.1 support in 1998.

No one was worried about Windows 95 support in 2001.

No one is worried about Windows 98 support. And they weren't 5 years ago either.

Windows 2000 is now 10 years old. It was built to run on hardware that is 12-13 years old and doesn't exist anymore. The age of the 500mhz single processor, and 512mb was a lot of ram.

I imagine that the VS team gets to go over all the libraries that ship with it, and remove the outdated stuff that targets dead hardware, re-optimizing them to run better on current day technology.

Does GCC still target ancient OSes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
If you use WPF a lot, I'd say upgrading to the 2010 Express Edition is worth it, since you get the graphical editor built-in. Otherwise, I don't see a big difference between VS 2008 and VS 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Daaark
Quote:
Original post by mhagain
The real deal breaker for me however was that executables it produces won't run on Windows 2000. If you need to deploy to people with older machines that's worth considering.
Why is this a problem? I'm not trying to say it's not, I don't know what you produce, and what customers you might have that want new software on Win2K.

But no one was worried about Windows 3.1 support in 1998.

No one was worried about Windows 95 support in 2001.

No one is worried about Windows 98 support. And they weren't 5 years ago either.

Windows 2000 is now 10 years old. It was built to run on hardware that is 12-13 years old and doesn't exist anymore. The age of the 500mhz single processor, and 512mb was a lot of ram.

I imagine that the VS team gets to go over all the libraries that ship with it, and remove the outdated stuff that targets dead hardware, re-optimizing them to run better on current day technology.

Does GCC still target ancient OSes?

It depends on the user base. For maybe 99.9% of people who this discussion is relevant to it won't be a problem and everything you've said is perfectly correct, yes. There are certain communities who earnestly believe that mouldy old hardware and mouldy old software is somehow "better", and some people can be incredibly vocal about it. There are also those who are honestly stuck with older gear, and as a result need to run a downlevel OS on it (lower CPU and memory requirements), so if you're coding for those it's something you'll need to be aware of. Business users are another class (you'd be surprised at the number of Windows 2000 boxes still in production in that environment) but they're not relevant here.

Otherwise I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said, and would genuinely look forward to the day when everyone can be on a more modern OS (and more modern hardware).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by mhagain
...
I have no doubt about the Win2K boxes in the business area. That's why I posed the question I did at the beginning of the post. Unless you actually have some niche market with customers running Win2K, the dropped support is like a tree falling in the forest.

If you come across a library that is using old Win2K boxes just as terminals to search through their database and find books, or similar situations, they should still keep using those until something is actually broken that needs fixing.

But there is no reason that the 2010 C++ runtime, or Windows library need to keep supporting all that old stuff in each new release. VS2010 is a windows compiler after all, and no one is using new software on those ancient, officially unsupported, platforms.

Those old machines are still churning away at whatever job they were bought to do, and their owners are not actively looking to purchase new software. Should they want to create it on their own, the tools already exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's still a little buggy; you might want to wait till they patch some things. I've been using it for a couple weeks now and every other time I try to build my project, mt.exe hangs and I get a build error. This is no big deal as I can hit build again and it instantly finishes the build but it's still a little annoying as it happens randomly. Also the IntelliSense is rather buggy, but still helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I've found the new C++ features worth the cost of entry alone; the amount of lambda'd loops which exist in my code is amazing right now [grin]

The compile behind is also very handy for picking up errors before you hit compile for real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Bearhugger
I'm curious what everyone thinks of Microsoft's lastest IDE, because I need to decide if I should upgrade from 2008.


I think it depends on what you want to do. If you're interested in targeting Windows Phone 7, and possibly the latest XNA (and web development?), you'll probably need 2010.

As always, with an IDE upgrade comes the additional slowdowns and bugs. And, upgrading the IDE doesn't magically make you a better programmer; a good programmer can create the software needed regardless of the tools given. I tend to follow the advice I've heard a number of times; I will not upgrade until the first service pack is released. Every version since at least Visual Studio 5 has initially been slow and buggy; I got Version 4 after it was released so this probably applies to earlier versions also.

I stuck with Visual Studio 6 for most of my work for years. I knew I could deliver software that ran on customer's system without needing runtime files installed; and the IDE was really stable, and didn't have the slowdowns present in 2003/2005.

Quote:
Original post by Xest
It's not bad, but I'm not sure the upgrade is worth it yet.
At least the DirectX SDK officially supports it now, but it's a bit frustrating that Microsoft don't support their own IDE with their technologies for months and months after release.


I would assume a big majority of Microsoft does not use the cutting edge tools. The OS is probably developed with an older version of the IDE, and Microsoft Office used to be developed with straight Win32 and an older compiler. Looking at WinWord.exe (for Microsoft Office 2003), you will see that it's linked against msvcrt.dll, which is the runtime file for Visual Studio 4.2 to Visual Studio 6. You will also notice that it only links against a standard set of win32 DLLs (ie no MFC, ATL, .NET, etc).


[Edited by - cdoty on August 31, 2010 12:35:10 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by cdoty
As always, with an IDE upgrade comes the additional slowdowns and bugs. And, upgrading the IDE doesn't magically make you a better programmer; a good programmer can create the software needed regardless of the tools given. I tend to follow the advice I've heard a number of times; I will not upgrade until the first service pack is released. Every version since at least Visual Studio 5 has initially been slow and buggy; I got Version 4 after it was released so this probably applies to earlier versions also.

I stuck with Visual Studio 6 for most of my work for years. I knew I could deliver software that ran on customer's system without needing runtime files installed; and the IDE was really stable, and didn't have the slowdowns present in 2003/2005.


IDE upgrades won't make you a better programmer, but they definitely can make you a more efficient one. Then there's the compilers that come with them are vastly more efficient.

The compiler that came with VS2003 was much better than the one that came with VC6, if not just for the fact that the C++ standard was actually implemented. VC6 encouraged bad behavior and had often unexpected results for things that should have had one result.

The jump away from VC6 was probably the most important one in regards to microsoft compilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the IDE runs slow, just use something like Code::Blocks and call the compiler from there. The IDE is the least interesting part of any Visual Studio release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently tried VS 2010 Express and really liked the new IDE and Intellisense features. However it ran like a complete dog on my eee netbook, even with a very simple app, so much so that I had to revert back to 2008 which runs like a dream on the netbook. It's a shame, I could have definitely got used to it particularly as the Express editions don't support plugins (Visual Assist and MetalScroll are hard to live without!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!