VS.NET 2005 Beta 3? Why?

Some people argue that VS.NET 2005 should get a Beta 3 before RTM. I disagree: there are CTP builds for the people who want to see progress, and above all:


Requiring a Beta 3 of VS.NET 2005 suggests production work is done with VS.NET 2005 Beta 2. Well, I never understood that, but alas, some people have no choice as they say. Despite the situation you're in, you're working with beta software, and a Beta 3 won't change that. As with everything that's in beta: it's buggy, and not reliable, by definition., otherwise the version would have been called RTM and it would have been released to use already.

If you run into problems with such a beta product, you should have expected that. After all, it's beta software.


  • Frans, I don't intend to use the Beta2 in production even if Microsoft tell us we have the go licence! I think you mss the point here. We are in July, usually (well in my case of course) the good time to play with some new releases. What I've done is to follow the rules, installed as Microsoft recommend a version of the Beta 2(after all every minute of your life they are pushing everybody to use the Beta2), and then converting a perfectly valid web application(which is running since three years without any problems). And then running in a lot of problems, which I found major issues like the 'Exlude from project' feature missing from the current release.

    I am just concerned that a lot of resources can be found on the marvels of the new framework, but nothing really serious has been done regarding the migration. Then Microsoft marketing is drumming evrywhere that the official release is for the 7th of November. I can't believe that from now to November, they can address all the issues apparently related by a lot of web developers. Check the comments on my blog to see the figures. This is why I suggested (and of course this is my opinion) that Microsoft release something in between before releasing a definitive version crippled with unsolved problems. A lot of people like me would prefer a version released in 2006 which contains a better ascending compatibility than the current one which will satisfy only some marketing dudes. After all I am not talking about migrating from VB6 to VB.Net but as the things are going on , it looks the same for me. I like the new framework, but I want a minimum of respect for all the investments I have done by promoting .Net in my company, and as the sole developer where I am working, I can't waste any time having my application broken after a conversion. I rather like to work on including the new .Net 2.0 features.

  • And on another thing, I remember that a lot of articles insisted in the past to build web applications using multi project inside a solution.

    The solution I tried to convert contains 6 projects, and when all this is converted to VS 2005, the solution disappear (and the notion of projects too), then everything mixed up which make no sense at all for me.

    I am not a Windows developer in my job, but in Web applications, I need a perfect compatibility with everything I built since three or four years.

  • And I forgot one thing! My suggestion for a Beta 3 was to test what Scott Guthrie confirmed yesterday, the inclusion of features like 'Exclude from the project'.

    I also reported to Scott some others strange errors which make non sense at all. I wait and see for some answer now, but hey I am just a drop in the ocean ;-)

  • I think the main point here is that judging from past releases, once the releases go from being labeled "beta" to "RC", then there's absolutely no hope of ever getting a feature put back in or fixed to the satisfaction of most users. This is what I believe Paschal's concern is, as well as mine.

    If, for instance, they were to hand out RC1 at PDC in LA, and that release reverted back to the crippled or no web project "feature" (which a lot of us are calling bug-riddled), AND they decided to toss out some other major feature (in the Longhorn tradition), say MSBuild, and also announced that since "RC" means "no new major features added, deleted, or changed significantly", how many users do you think they'd disenfranchise? My guess is....a lot!

    Having one last beta in order to evaluate a supposedly fixed feature (like web projects) would still allow for some minor adjustments to the features. I'd rather allow for that and slip the release another month then have crippled features because of "go fever" (which is what NASA suffers from when they launch ignoring obvious mission critical problems).

    Here in the US, another infamous quality motto that was in commercials on TV would apply here. The old TV manufacturer that produced Quasar TV's had the motto: "We put the quality in BEFORE we put the name on!"

    We're simply pleading with MS that they recognize and avoid "go fever"; instead striving to emphasize quality.

    Another old quality dictum is appropriate here:

    The Three Major Project Options:

    1) On-time

    2) Cheap

    3) High Quality

    You may choose two!

  • You're missing the point. Since this is truly the first VS to be community-driven (to a certain extent), the community wants to see a final beta (beta 3) so that everybody can get the final feature set straight.

    In theory, B3 = RTM. Its just one final diplomatic move to shepard the flock.

  • Frans,

    The thing I am concerned about, is the same thing that Paschal is concerned about. Usually at Beta 2 stage features are locked in place (correct me if I'm wrong). It seems to me that several of the outstanding things I'm seeing MS tell us will be changed in the final release are significant changes. The ASP.NET project changes are one example.

    I've waited a long time for Whidbey and would be willing to see a Beta 3 or at least an extended RC period.

  • Hey all,

    I agree with Frans on this one, who needs another beta... this will just put the release back yet more...

    I must say, I have converted some major apps to beta 2. Once you know what to change, it isn't a big problem. The only thing that doesn't work good for me are usercontrols, but I worked around this one.

    I just (L) VS.NET 2005. Bring it on!


    -- Rob.

  • <h2> reply to: Steve Hall

    Posted @ 7/27/2005 2:39 PM

    I bought a USED Quasar 20" tv in 1992 that had been smoke,water & fire dmaged (a store had been on fire) but anyway 13 years 4 months later it still works like new period.

    AND I MEAN EVERYTHING ITS HAS A COXIAL INPUT AND RCA AUDIO INPUT, ITS BEEN USED WITH VIDEO GAMES FOR YEARS, ANTENNA'S ,CABLE ,DISH. ITS BEEN SHIPPED 1800 MILES IN THE MAIL NOT ONLY DOES IT WORK THE PITURE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR (I HAVENT ADJUSTED THE SETTING)NONE OF THAT DARKNESS OR RED COLOR U GET IN 15 YR SETS. So sometimes when they say "We put the quality in BEFORE we put the name on!" they really mean it. I only assume thats why they arent making tv's anymore cause their "QUALITY" eat their profits ..

  • Allright. Enough belly aching. Just get to work.. :-)

Comments have been disabled for this content.