From: Giovanni Dicanio on 5 Mar 2010 06:31
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> OTOH, we get modern C++
I think that for "moderated" C++, the previous versions of VC are OK.
Moreover, VC8 (VS2005) and VC9 (VS2008) can also compile Boost (which is
advanced C++ with templates etc.).
Intstead, for lambdas, move semantics, and other C++0x features, yes VS2010
is a must.
>, the Parallel Patterns Library,
Yes, this is an important improvement.
> I've been using it for a couple weeks now, and while I've found some bugs
> (and have no
> idea how to report them!) they are bugs-of-annoyance and
> bugs-of-stupid-selection-of-defaults and
> bugs-of-design-we've-been-complaining-about-for-a-decade. But I've not
> hit any *real*
As already written, you can use Connect:
I reported few bugs as well:
From: Giovanni Dicanio on 5 Mar 2010 06:33
"Sheng Jiang [MVP]" <sheng_jiang(a)hotmail.com.discuss> ha scritto nel
> but I've heard WPF causes performance problems when using it.
My experience is that VS2010 RC runs OK on a decent machine (a simple
DX9-capable graphics card, Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.33 GHz and 3 GB of RAM with
Windows 7 64-bit).
From: Bo Persson on 5 Mar 2010 11:46
Ajay Kalra wrote:
> On Mar 4, 4:36 pm, "David Ching" <d...(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com>
>> "BobF" <notha...(a)no.spam> wrote in message
>>> No MFC/resource editor with express.
>> Neither IDE plug-in support.
>> -- David
> My point was people who care about low price point would first look
> at the express edition. Most of the other core users would upgrade
> regardless of few hundred $$ differential.
Sure, I will certainly upgrade. Just wanted to tell the OP that "VS
2010 is cheaper" is a bad subject line, when the upgrade is $100 more
than last time.
The trick of initially saying $1500 - booh, too much - ok you get it
for $299, didn't impress me. :-)
> For some reason I recall VC6 was lower than the price that you
> mentioned for VS2010.
That was probably for C++ only. Nowadays we have to buy the whole
From: Bo Persson on 5 Mar 2010 11:55
> Ajay Kalra wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 1:45 pm, "David Ching" <d...(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com>
>>> A while ago, we were bemoaning the loss of VS 2010 Standard, and
>>> the price of VS 2008 Professional (presumably with a free upgrade
>>> to 2010)
>>> was something like $1500 USD.
>>> Now there are new VS 2010
>>> Basically if you have VS 2005/2008 Standard, you can get VS2010
>>> Standard for $299. And even if you are totally new to VS, you
>>> can get VS2010 Professional for $799 and upgrade for $549. And
>>> Professional now
>>> comes with MSDN Essentials. So the prices are much cheaper than
>>> we had been
>>> led to believe.
>> Comments about the product in this NG havent been that glorifying
>> though. I
> Biggest (VS2010 RC) complaint here is that the documentation/help
> system has been rendered 100% useless by moving it from an
> integrated function to a goofy and magnanimously dysfunctional
> browser-based scheme. No index, no filters (that I can find), new
> browser page tabs becoming lost in a sea of other browser page
> tabs, missing pieces, dot, dot, dot. How does this happen? Who is
> responsible for letting stuff like this hit the shipping dock?
Fortunately Google has indexed the pages, so - just like before - you
can find the MSDN pages much faster than the local help info.
From: David Ching on 5 Mar 2010 14:09
"Bo Persson" <bop(a)gmb.dk> wrote in message
> Sure, I will certainly upgrade. Just wanted to tell the OP that "VS 2010
> is cheaper" is a bad subject line, when the upgrade is $100 more than last
> The trick of initially saying $1500 - booh, too much - ok you get it for
> $299, didn't impress me. :-)
For Standard users, I agree that the scheme to 1) Make it a requirement to
be a previous owner in order to even purchase VS2010 Standard, and 2)
Charging full price for what is essentially an upgrade from a previous
version, is not a good deal.
What is a good deal is: 1) A Standard version is offered at all; 2) the Pro
was reduced to $799, far cheaper than it's ever been that I can recall.