|
|
Due to circumstances beyond my control I'm stuck on vs 2010.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
2013 is a comfortable upgrade even if only for yourself.
I've a few small clients on 10 and have no problems dev & testing on community 13 at home, then just uploading the updated sources and quick recompiling on a 10 / 10-express at their site.
(All work done remotely, love not having to go to an office - all I ask is they provide a PC and a post-it note on which I write "Do Not Use, Do Not Switch Off" and stick it on that PC - even better if they leave that PC in the server room/cupboard.)
Sin tack ear lol
Pressing the any key may be continuate
|
|
|
|
|
You know, you can upgrade but still target only what 2010 targets.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I tried that, upgrade a mvc 3 project to vs 2015.
For some reason (haven't had time to figure out why) it totally screwed up the project.
Fortunately I had backups so no harm done but...
Trying to find time, and a way, to upgrade everything.
Mvc 3 to 5, .net framework, entity framework, ...
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
ugh. Sorry. Yeah, I've sometimes experienced that sort of pain. Not recently though. I guess .Net is getting all the love...
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I know that feeling. Until last year we used VS2003 and FW1.1.
We upgraded to VS2015 and FW4.6.1. To avoid problems as described in one of your answers I've made a new solution, imported every project separately and solved the reported problems one by one before importing the next project (and regularly made a backup  ).
|
|
|
|
|
So means should only be 1 more [huge - mega] service pack for 2015 before it becomes final and stable.
Always better to stay at least 1 version behind - except in the case of Windows where it's best to stay 3 behind.
Sin tack ear lol
Pressing the any key may be continuate
|
|
|
|
|
whiner 
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I have 2015 at work and at home.
Boy does 2015 cause problems at work - I have to be sure to open it in administrator mode at work, I am having to run an iisreset relatively frequently and sometimes just have to stop the devenv process because the loading of the projects or the rebuilding of the web site is taking ages.
When it works well it's great however it is rather temperamental and I do have 16gb of memory at work.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Any idea if this is any different from the RC that got posted to MSDN 6 weeks ago? I'm not seeing anything on there with a newer date.
|
|
|
|
|
From the NeoWin page where this release was announced 8 hours ago:
Quote: The latest version fixes a number of issues, adds new features, and removes some that don't meet release requirements
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Cornelius Henning wrote: and removes some that don't meet release requirements
Said no Office product (Word, Excel) release note ever.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I sense a slight sarcasm there.
But then, I remember two ways of handling fairly similar situations. One was a TI calculator I bought sometimes in the 1980s: There was a loose errata sheet tellign customers to remove page 57 and 58 from the manual (- we didn't succeed in impelemnting these functions). That certainly indicates that TI is a company that does not delay writing of documentation to the last minute.
The same can be said about that other company, making a 16 bit minicomputer. This was in the late 1970s when machines were made from siple components, or chips with a few logic gates. After 500 copies of the documentation was printed and ready to be shipped with the computers, it was discovered that the technical writer hadn't grasped the idea of the use of a stack pointer (called the base register in that machine), and described the calculation of base relative addressing incorrectly. So the company had to make a choice: Either ditch 500 copies of documentation, or build the logic to work as described.
They chose the latter, so they avoided the hassle of errata sheets (it would take a small pile of them, all the examples and stuff considered) and also leaving an impession of a badly managed company where one department does not know what the other one was doing. That left them with a machine where the compiler had to generate 4-5 extra instructions for every function entry point to do the proper updates of the base register. The company made all system software (compilers and stuff) themselves, so very few outside the company were aware of the perverted base register logic.
I'd rather deal with a company that admits that 'Sorry, we didn't succeed with this', issuing errata and cancelling functionality, rather than one who tries to cover it up when they foul it up.
If you find it too hard to live with functionality that is being tried out in a beta release, but is not completed for the official release (and omitted), then the solution for you is never to look at beta releases but wait for the official release. The entire purpose of a beta is to try out whether something works properly. If 'no' is not an acceptable answer, then the beta wouldn't serve any real purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
I was merely referring to the gazillion features in Office products of which most users use about ten
I'm all for scrapping functionality that doesn't work (properly).
Some languages and frameworks I use(d) should've gotten rid of some functionality a loooong time ago.
But then again, I also understand that when some functionality is there and you want users to upgrade the last thing you should do is make your product not backwards compatible.
But all in all I'm looking forward to VS2017! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't MS use to call them RC1, RC2, etc?
|
|
|
|
|
The one from 6 weeks ago was so quickly changed that it ceased to be an RC and became a beta, or was it a RCC (release candidate candidate, or a MARC--Maybe A Release Candidate)
|
|
|
|
|
voluntary beta testers to the fore!
|
|
|
|
|
It's been available since about October 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
like you said, its kinda old news, still looking forward to final product
|
|
|
|
|
Did you get the latest release of January 27?
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
VS2017 just suxx, it's full of stupid bugs and it's for Win8+ only. Who needs that?? I use Win7 and it's more than enough for any app development. Even Android programs can be written using Win7! But not for Microsoft... they push that Spyindows and fail. Double fail when they count developers as a stupids who will follow 'em.
Win7+VS2015 - that's latest stable point. Everything beyond just cr@pware from Monstersoft.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
