|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
VS2005 NOT Compatiblke with Vista? Are you serious?!I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and got
errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista. Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is a joke. It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms of support for these products. Is this even legal? It runs fine if you dont use UAC, if you are a full permission admin it
works perfectly.. the Vista patch fixes some of the UAC issues Show quoteHide quote "Squishy" <squi***@shroom.net> wrote in message news:uCPJgQxQHHA.3412@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and got >errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista. > > Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is a > joke. > > It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will > not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms of > support for these products. > > Is this even legal? Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is available, and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues. Peter -- Show quoteHide quoteSite: http://www.eggheadcafe.com UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net "unknown" wrote: > And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and wait for further Linux development! -- Show quoteHide quoteDennis in Houston "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote: > Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 days? > We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is available, > and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues. > Peter > > -- > Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com > UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com > Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net > > > > > "unknown" wrote: > > > Well you just do that!
Show quoteHide quote "Dennis" <Den***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:E1954B38-42F2-4317-B21F-93CEE522D7EF@microsoft.com... > And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well > as > future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions > incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's > incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and > wait for further Linux development! > -- > Dennis in Houston > > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote: > >> Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 >> days? >> We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is >> available, >> and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues. >> Peter >> >> -- >> Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com >> UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com >> Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net >> >> >> >> >> "unknown" wrote: >> >> > Glad you can afford a grand or two every three years or so to upgrade your
software...I can't. -- Show quoteHide quoteDennis in Houston "Stephany Young" wrote: > Well you just do that! > > > "Dennis" <Den***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:E1954B38-42F2-4317-B21F-93CEE522D7EF@microsoft.com... > > And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well > > as > > future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions > > incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's > > incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and > > wait for further Linux development! > > -- > > Dennis in Houston > > > > > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote: > > > >> Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 > >> days? > >> We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is > >> available, > >> and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues. > >> Peter > >> > >> -- > >> Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com > >> UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com > >> Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> "unknown" wrote: > >> > >> > > > If you do choose that path, I strongly suggest looking into REALbasic.
REALbasic will allow you (in the $600 professional version) to compile apps that run on Linux, Mac and Windows from the same source code. The Linux version (compiles apps for Linux only) is free. www.realbasic.com Show quoteHide quote "Dennis" <Den***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:E1954B38-42F2-4317-B21F-93CEE522D7EF@microsoft.com... > And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well > as > future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions > incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's > incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and > wait for further Linux development! > -- > Dennis in Houston > > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote: > >> Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 >> days? >> We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is >> available, >> and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues. >> Peter >> >> -- >> Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com >> UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com >> Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net >> >> >> >> >> "unknown" wrote: >> >> > Thanks for tip. Do you have any idea of how steep the learning curve is for
someone who is already high up on VB.Net? I just can't afford a new OS's and then also have to spend another 500dlrs to upgrade to VB.Net 2005. -- Show quoteHide quoteDennis in Houston "Jim Hubbard" wrote: > If you do choose that path, I strongly suggest looking into REALbasic. > > REALbasic will allow you (in the $600 professional version) to compile apps > that run on Linux, Mac and Windows from the same source code. > > The Linux version (compiles apps for Linux only) is free. > > www.realbasic.com > > > "Dennis" <Den***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:E1954B38-42F2-4317-B21F-93CEE522D7EF@microsoft.com... > > And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well > > as > > future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions > > incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's > > incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and > > wait for further Linux development! > > -- > > Dennis in Houston > > > > > > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote: > > > >> Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 > >> days? > >> We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is > >> available, > >> and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues. > >> Peter > >> > >> -- > >> Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com > >> UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com > >> Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> "unknown" wrote: > >> > >> > > Have you considered trying out VB2005Express? It's free.
Robin S. ------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Dennis" <Den***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:DA9C0A8B-FC68-4AD9-8E09-C92E3B93DD6E@microsoft.com... > Thanks for tip. Do you have any idea of how steep the learning curve is > for > someone who is already high up on VB.Net? I just can't afford a new OS's > and > then also have to spend another 500dlrs to upgrade to VB.Net 2005. > -- > Dennis in Houston > > > "Jim Hubbard" wrote: > >> If you do choose that path, I strongly suggest looking into REALbasic. >> >> REALbasic will allow you (in the $600 professional version) to compile >> apps >> that run on Linux, Mac and Windows from the same source code. >> >> The Linux version (compiles apps for Linux only) is free. >> >> www.realbasic.com >> >> >> "Dennis" <Den***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:E1954B38-42F2-4317-B21F-93CEE522D7EF@microsoft.com... >> > And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as >> > well >> > as >> > future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior >> > versions >> > incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now >> > it's >> > incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista >> > and >> > wait for further Linux development! >> > -- >> > Dennis in Houston >> > >> > >> > "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote: >> > >> >> Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 >> >> days? >> >> We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is >> >> available, >> >> and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com >> >> UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com >> >> Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "unknown" wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> 
Other interesting topics
Split large text file by number of lines?
SQL Express Warning XML and Direct Pathing to a node Best Organization of Arraylist inside another object, or unique object enclosing lots of other objec MP3 in VB does not loop seamlessly Why cannot inherit from public class that can be instantiated? Read from Registry on Vista HELP: Debugging ApplicationEvents.UnhandledException??? writing text to text files in vb. need help Timeout while executing stored procedure from VB.net |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
