VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

As part of a recent Visual Studio 2005 SP1 announcement, the Corp VP of Microsoft's Developer Division stated that Visual Studio.NET 2003 won't be supported under Windows Vista. Frans Bouma, Paul Wilson, and others have done a good job of raising the level of awareness on the issue. I agree that it's not, you know, a good thing, but I wanted to hear how big a problem it really is.

Does "not supported" mean it will blue screen your computer and set you on fire, or does it mean it'll mostly work with the occasional annoyance? It seems like it may be the latter.

Scott Hanselman, who has actually been using Vista, told me that "Some obscure things like autoregistration of COM Interop Assemblies doesn’t work. But it’s working fine for me."

Scott Guthrie left a comment on Paul Wilson's post saying that the problem is really with "advanced debugging", and it will "mostly work" under Vista:

The big technical challenge is with enabling scenarios like advanced debugging. Debuggers are incredibly invasive in a process, and so changes in how an OS handles memory layout can have big impacts on it. Vista did a lot of work in this release to tighten security and lock down process/memory usage - which is what is affecting both the VS debugger, as well as every other debugger out there. Since the VS debugger is particularly rich (multi-language, managed/native interop, COM + Jscript integration, etc) - it will need additional work to fully support all scenarios on Vista. That is also the reason we are releasing a special servicing release after VS 2005 SP1 specific to Vista - to make sure everything (and especially debugging and profiling) work in all scenarios. It is actually several man-months of work (we've had a team working on this for quite awhile). Note that the .NET 1.1 (and ASP.NET 1.1) is fully supported at runtime on Vista. VS 2003 will mostly work on Vista. What we are saying, though, is that there will be some scenarios where VS 2003 doesn't work (or work well) on Vista - hence the reason it isn't a supported scenario. Instead, we recommend using a VPC/VM image for VS 2003 development to ensure 100% compat.

I sure would have preferred it if that kind of detail - what won't work, and why not - had been more officially announced, and sooner. However, for now it looks like rather than dealing with complaints about it not completely working, Microsoft's positioning this as another "doesn't work by design - not a supported scenario" thing.

Kind of reminds me of the IE7 Standalone thing. Even though it is technically possible to do and works well enough for development purposes, the official answer is that we need to be developing inside a virtual machine.

Published Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:31 AM by Jon Galloway

Comments

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

You don't get it. The problem is: if I upgrade my XP partition to Vista, I need VS.NET 2003 to run as I need to debug code in vs.net 2003.

Am I able to do that? If MS says: VS.NET 2003 isn't supported and that's mainly because of debugger issues, I'm thus pretty much screwed when I upgrade my xp partition to vista because I've to run vs.net 2003 on XP to do debugging.

This might not be a big deal for you perhaps, but it is for me. And don't think light about this: if it does work for 99.9%, MS wouldn't say 'not supported'. They say 'not supported' because there are serious issues, mainly with the debugger. If the debugger doesn't run, development halts, as simply as that.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:58 AM by FransBouma

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

I agree with frans on this one. If i can't use the debugger features i might as well use notepad for development. There no use to installing vs.net 2003 then.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:06 AM by Chris

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

> ... mostly work with the occasional annoyance?

That describes most supported products.

The big issue is the lack of support.  In an enterprise environment we can't afford to migrate developer workstations to Vista if their primary tool is not supported - even if it does "mostly work".

Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:23 AM by Joe

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

@Frans, @Chris - First off, I agree that this is a big problem, and a big disappointment. I think it's important to get this in perspective, though.  The point is that we really don't know. I agree that the way Microsoft has gone about announcing this leads us to believe the worst, but the best information I'm getting is that the problems are with "advanced debugging", and that it "mostly works". That puts it somewhere between worthless and as usable as VS2005 currently is, and it sounds like it's a lot closer to where VS2005 is.

It's ironic that the same developer community who was saying "we don't need edit and continue, real developers don't debug" is now saying that they can't develop without a debugger.

@Joe - Yep, that's a pickle. Microsoft could lessen this effect by spelling out what works and what doesn't in a little more detail, but it sounds like they're chumping out with the VPC scenario. Like you said, most supported products still have problems. VS2005 is supported on XP, but that doesn't keep it from crashing on me pretty regularly.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:14 AM by Jon Galloway

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

I have been (trying) to use Vista for the last week or so, and finally gave up last nite (after throwing my stuffed Buddha at the screen). I did not try to run VS 2003. 2005 worked fine for me, but SQL Server was a complete mess. Windows Auth just fails miserably and most of the time things on other partitions are not accessible.

Finally - I wrote a post about this yesterday - the message boxes were just killing me (Defender at work). Blacking out my screen is just offensive.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:53 PM by Rob Conery

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

Expecting developers to go code in a VPC daily is imho asking too much.

Why on earth would I set up a sweet pc with all the ram, cpu power to waste half of it to emulate my daily working environment?

To me, the advice to develop in a VPC is about the same value as advice to "not click anymore links in IE".

Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:07 PM by David Cumps

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

For me, the most frustrating part of this whole issue is that it was announced so late in the cycle.  To shock people at this stage of the cycle is very surprising.  I think the result is about what I would expect.  Is the sky falling?  Of course not.  Is it a shock to the system?  Yeah.  Is it possible to recover from this?  Of course.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:22 PM by Wallym

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

I'm not a .Net guy, but couldn't you do remote debugging from XP with VS 2003 just like you have to in order to debug Itanium code?

Then again perhaps not.  Busted in Vista may just be busted in Vista when it comes to debugging code in the program and the supporting infrastructure.

Sunday, January 07, 2007 12:32 PM by Bob Riemersma

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

uuughhh.  I swear M$ is being difficult to say the least.  I have tried upgrading my web projects to 2005 BUT they will not go.  Multiple same directory ASP.NET projects - meant to drastically reduce development time WILL NOT work in 2005.

Why do they constantly shit on the little guys.  I do not have time to rewrite 3 solutions with 52 projects.  AND now they pull this stunt - oh well - XP runs faster than Vista and VS2003 faster than VS2005. (hmmm did an architect quit over there?)

What is next?  .NET 1.1 projects will not run on the next version of M$ Server?  Gotta Luv It

p.s. I used to luv E & C but was left so long w/o it - I simply do not need it now.  The only feature of the debugger - is the syntax highlighter as I type and the intellisense.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:39 PM by Dave Friedel

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

Just use PHP and MySQL for development, or Java. They works fine on Pentium3, AMD64x2, Windows98, Windows2000, Vista, XP, Linux, MacOS, and whatever. Stuck with Microsoft is not a smart idea. Of course, you can always have your VM with XP inside Debian Linux.

Monday, December 10, 2007 10:12 AM by Ignacio

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

Have just bought a new laptop with Vista, tried to install VS2003 and failed. Now find this. Totally Ridiculous. Will have to now go thru the pain of changing OS to XP.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:40 PM by mickeyp

# re: VS2003 and Vista - Is the sky really falling?

@mickeyp I had no problems installing VS2003 on Vista back in 2006. But, if you're trying to install Visual Studio 2003 in 2008, I'd say you're getting what you deserve. Install Visual Studio 2008 and call it a day. If you're working in a development shop that requires Visual Studio 2003, install it in XP while you polish your resume. Or, are you running Windows 98? ;-)

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:27 AM by Jon Galloway

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)