Why you should use Visual Studio 2008 today!

If you have an ASP.NET project that use ASP.NET AJAX, you should take a serious look at using Visual Studio 2008 today.  The javascript debugging makes it all worth it.  I was tracking an error today, and I would never have found out what was happening without seeing the breakpoints get hit in the IDE.  It has helped me solve problem after problem.  Its providing tangible benefits today!  The productivity increase is amazing.  And I am finding VS 2008 today is more reliable on Vista than VS 2005.  This feature is just that important.  And did I mention it makes a good floor wax and desert topping.................

I keep pimping my look at VS 2008, but Visual Studio 2008 is the real deal.  http://morewally.com/cs/tags/My+life+with+Visual+Studio+2008/default.aspx 


  • Wally...are you running 2008 on the same machine running 2005? I'm considering taking 2008 beta 2 out of my Virtual PC and onto my main dev box. Just wondering what your experience has been if you have both installed...running Vista here.

  • John,

    Yes, I am running VS 2008 and vs 2005 on the same machine. you should check out the msdn tools team's blog for full info: http://blogs.msdn.com/webdevtools/


  • Not to mention that the multi-targeting allows you to work on your existing 2.0 applications.

    At a demonstration the other night Scott Guthrie showed how you could add references (similar to using statements) in .js files and have Intellisense pick that code up as well. Really slick.

    The new CSS Designer is pretty neat too!

  • I run VS 2008 B2 with VS 2005 TeamEdition, without any issues at all.

    I also have the TFS libraries installed for VS 2008 and VS 2005 and haven't noticed any issues with those either.

    Running VIsta Ultimate here. I have the same at home running Last XP / Last Vista.

  • I am running 2005 & 2008 on the same machine with no problems. Vista Home Premium.

  • what's with the dates on your postings at your other blog site? they appear to be a year off (to 2008)!

  • Hmm, the dates all seem to appear to be correct. I'm not quite sure what the issue is.

Comments have been disabled for this content.