Microsoft Visual Studio 11 Express changes anger developers

A few days ago, Microsoft used its Visual Studio blog to reveal all of the versions that it will offer developers for the upcoming launch of its "Visual Studio 11"  software development tools (that name will likely be changed to Visual Studio 2012 when it is actually launched). However, one change in the product lineup has a number of Windows desktop developers up in arms.

In the original version of the blog, Microsoft stated:

Visual Studio 11 Express for Windows 8 provides tools for Metro style app development. To create desktop apps, you need to use Visual Studio 11 Professional, or higher. In addition, Visual Studio 2010 Express products - Visual Basic 2010 Express, Visual C++ 2010 Express, and Visual C# 2010 Express - will remain available for free download.

That basically means that if you want to make a desktop app for Windows 8 with Visual Studio 11, you have pay money to get the full version of the software, while Metro Windows 8 app makers can use the free Express version. The comments on the Visual Studio blog have nearly all been negative on this change, with developers feeling that Microsoft has abandoned free Windows desktop development. One comment post stated:

I can't understand why you do not plan to release an Express version that is able to build desktop apps. That sounds crazy to me. All the open source developers that enjoy building apps for Windows won't magically start creating metro application because your VS11 Express can't build desktop ones.

Since that post was put online a few days ago, Microsoft edited it and it now says:

If you would like to use a language specific Express edition (C# Express, Visual Basic Express, or C++ Express) without specialized tooling for the latest platforms, you can use the Visual Studio 2010 Express editions, which will continue to be available as free downloads.

It's basically the same message but Microsoft isn't being quite as direct about its plans for Visual Studio 11 Express.

Neowin contacted Microsoft's PR reps to find out more information about the change, including why it was made. In their statement sent to us, Microsoft said:

Each of the Visual Studio 11 Express editions provides a comprehensive and simple solution for developers interested in the opportunity of the latest Microsoft platforms to quickly and easily build apps in their preferred language. Given this extended platform capabilities included in the Express editions, their broad language support, and in order to maintain their simplicity and ease of use, separated language versions of Visual Studio Express will not be available in the next version of the product. To create desktop applications, developers need to use Visual Studio 11 Professional, or higher. In addition, Visual Studio 2010 Express products - Visual Basic 2010 Express, Visual C++ 2010 Express, and Visual C# 2010 Express - will remain available for free download.

Microsoft would not comment further when asked by Neowin.

Source: Microsoft Visual Studio blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google reveals its fight against scam advertising

Next Story

MegaUpload user tries again to get to his data

114 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Developers up in arms? LOL, you mean ****ty hobbiest developers who write **** software crying because they cant get something for free. VS is something worth paying for. Its the best development platform ever. Xcode,Eclipse, whatever other "crappy source" IDEs,what a ****in joke. Stop being cheap,not everything should be free. If you don't like it, well too bad,you're useless anyways because if you cant pay for VS, what kind of crappy software are you building? if you were writing something worthwhile,youd be able to make the cost of VS in no time.

Let me guess American right ?

I'm not going to dissect your post and try and come back with
a trademark "Neowin smart mouth" retort.

Your Lippy BS is amusing lol

vcfan said,
Developers up in arms? LOL, you mean ****ty hobbiest developers who write **** software crying because they cant get something for free. VS is something worth paying for. Its the best development platform ever. Xcode,Eclipse, whatever other "crappy source" IDEs,what a ****in joke. Stop being cheap,not everything should be free. If you don't like it, well too bad,you're useless anyways because if you cant pay for VS, what kind of crappy software are you building? if you were writing something worthwhile,youd be able to make the cost of VS in no time.

^^^^
THIS

No really. vcfan is right on with the truth.
Microsoft is not a goddam charity and is under no obligation to give anything away for free.
It's those tree-hugging liberal anti-capitalists who pressure MS (with their BS anti-trust suits) into doing things like 'Express Edition'.
Just man up and get a decent job to support you hobby, or get a cheaper hobby.
There's always Linux XD

I don't like it, but I can see why they are doing this.

Maybe they think they can aford to drop desktop developers... but what about people who need to train for work. Can you access .NET 4.5 from 2010? What does this mean for ASP.NET... is this only limited to Desktop exe files and assemblies?

mranderson1st said,
what about people who need to train for work.

I would hope that your work pays your VS license.

I have express at home because I'm keen on the technology, with no desire to make a commercial application I'd then have to support.

mranderson1st said,
I don't like it, but I can see why they are doing this.

Maybe they think they can aford to drop desktop developers... but what about people who need to train for work. Can you access .NET 4.5 from 2010? What does this mean for ASP.NET... is this only limited to Desktop exe files and assemblies?

Any company (or government agency) that employs so much as ONE MCSE is going to subscribe to MSDN - and there are several different ways to do it. In addition to DreamSpark (not just four-year colleges and universities; technical schools and online universities have access to DreamSpark as well - prime examples include the University of Phoenix and Strayer University) and BizSpark (SMB/enterprise), there's also GovSpark (similar to BizSpark/DreamSpark, but aimed at government agencies). And those are just the new methods.

I am Not PCyr said,
hey uh buddy,
some poeple DO live outside of the USA eh
And not everyone has a ton of money for software
Sad this has to be pointed out..

And not all *Americans* have a ton of money, either - so the *emerging markets* card doesn't play at all here. Besides, we're talking *free* compilers and a free IDE (in the case of VS Express).

how many real devs where using the express editions for commercial software development anyways? express edition even says its for non-commercial use

neufuse said,
how many real devs where using the express editions for commercial software development anyways? express edition even says its for non-commercial use

Wrong, read the license again, you're free to do anything with the express editions!

I can't believe people defend MS for doing this. This means that you can no longer develop desktop application using the latest .NET framework for free. In a couple of years, .NET 4 will be hopelessly obsolete yet that will be the only option for free desktop app development. Is this of interest to anybody?

Non-developers bitching about Microsoft - this is what this article is about. Everyone who is familiar with Visual Studio Express knows that there was never even the slightest hint that Visual C# Express or VB Express would be going away. Just because one public announcement wasn't so clear doesn't mean anyone got angered.

Furthermore, like others have said, the Express editions are for amateurs or people who want to get familiar with Windows development. Any serious developer would own an MSDN subscription that offers them much more than just Visual Studio.

If that's not enough, they have programs where small shops who develop using their platforms can get access to MSDN for nearly free through their BizSpark and other similar programs.

Hell, they even sent me a free Nokia Lumia 800 developer phone just for asking. You people need to do your homework before you go bash Microsoft especially for their developer tools and relations which are second to none in my opinion.

Obry said,

Furthermore, like others have said, the Express editions are for amateurs or people who want to get familiar with Windows development.

So that's why the removed MFC from the C++ versions /s

Obry said,

Any serious developer would own an MSDN subscription that offers them much more than just Visual Studio.

I want an IDE that supports the latest version of a programming language standard, not some subscription for a Microsoft thing I never need...

MFH said,

I want an IDE that supports the latest version of a programming language standard, not some subscription for a Microsoft thing I never need...

If you're serious about this, just use Visual Studio Pro.

MFH said,
So that's why the removed MFC from the C++ versions /s
Microsoft is intentionally killing MFC for people trying to develop new applications. That's a very good thing. MFC is dead.
MFH said,
I want an IDE that supports the latest version of a programming language standard, not some subscription for a Microsoft thing I never need...
You can have that. Just write a Metro app (not sure why this is the end of the world), or pay for the Professional version ($450 on Amazon right now). You don't need the MSDN subscription.

Although the way that you refer to MSDN, I wonder how serious about Windows development you are. There is no greater source of API documentation, on any platform, than MSDN. I don't pay for the subscription myself, but MSDN is an invaluable resource (even the freebie stuff) to any serious Windows developer.

rfirth said,

If you're serious about this, just use Visual Studio Pro.

To be honest: for standard compliant C++ development there is almost nothing in VS Pro that isn't in VS Express...

pickypg said,

Although the way that you refer to MSDN, I wonder how serious about Windows development you are. There is no greater source of API documentation, on any platform, than MSDN. I don't pay for the subscription myself, but MSDN is an invaluable resource (even the freebie stuff) to any serious Windows developer.

I know MSDN - though there are better resources for standard compliant C++ to be honest (not a problem for those that don't realize how little support MS actually has for C++11...) - i was just referring to the subscription, which has absolutely no value to me...

MFH said,
though there are better resources for standard compliant C++ to be honest
Fair point and probably the biggest problem facing C++. C++ is seemingly the only language without a fully compliant across all major platforms, and compilers for that matter (none are complete). It will be interesting to see just how long that remains true, but I expect it to be at least another version of Visual Studio.

To be fair to all of the compilers, C++11 was ratified just a few months ago. To be less fair, most pieces of it have been known for a very long time.

pickypg said,
It will be interesting to see just how long that remains true, but I expect it to be at least another version of Visual Studio.

That's for sure on the VS side of things (I even doubt that variadic templates will be supported then - requires a major compiler rewrite -, they'll for sure stick to their current hackish solution (see std::tuple)), however Clang already implements almost everything that's in the standard - too bad it Clang is not really supported on Windows...

simplezz said,
Ouch!

Hardly. Either you're a hobbyist/doing it for giggles, in which case you can use the various 2010 or 2012 express editions, or you do it professionally for a living, in which case you've already probably either bought Pro/Ultimate or have an MSDN subscription. Where's the problem?

simplezz said,
Ouch! This is why I only use FOSS development tools.
Right, because FOSS always remains actively developed and supported by definition? LOL

I think developers have the right to be angry, obviously professionals will continue to use Visual Studio Professional, but this is essentially cutting off hobbyists from being able to play with traditional applications.

Plus, if they want to share their apps, they'll need to use the MS app store, and then I suppose they'll need to pay money to Microsoft in order to have a developer account to be able to post applications.

Taking options away from people who just like to 'program for fun' seems stupid, I mean people are mostly going to develop Metro stuff anyway, why not let them retain the option to have fun other things besides metro (and web sites)?

Just another thing to add to the list of stupid Windows 8 decisions that Microsoft has made, and another nail in the coffin of the nice open computing world that we're enjoying at the moment.

You would be right if Microsoft wasn't offering an alternative. For the case that you're so worried about, you have the 2010 series of Express editions. That doesn't take any options away - it's just as before.

Nobody is cut off from developing desktop apps for free. Nothing has changed.

rfirth said,
You would be right if Microsoft wasn't offering an alternative. For the case that you're so worried about, you have the 2010 series of Express editions. That doesn't take any options away - it's just as before.

Nobody is cut off from developing desktop apps for free. Nothing has changed.

The 2010 versions probably won't work with .NET Framework 4.5 so going forward the 2010 Editions will become irrelevant due to not having access to new features of Windows API's.

Your argument doesn't really make any sense...

Jelly2003 said,

The 2010 versions probably won't work with .NET Framework 4.5 so going forward the 2010 Editions will become irrelevant due to not having access to new features of Windows API's.

Your argument doesn't really make any sense...

Wrong - VS 2010 Express certainly does support .NET Framework 4.5 (via both VC++ and VC# Express - both of which are freely-downloadable add-ons to VS 2010 Express). VS 2010 Express supports three compilers (VC++ Express, VC# Express, and VB Express); however, each compiler is a separate, but free, downloadable add-on. If you need additional compilers that plug into the VS IDE, there are certainly several to choose from (including several non-Microsoft compilers, such as Intel's C++ compilers) - or simply step up to VS 2010 Professional (which, unlike the Express versions, not only includes the core set of compilers, but includes additional compilers, and supports many more). For what it includes (and what it supports), VS 2010 Professional is a *bargain* - what's real surprising is that you don't lose much stepping *down* to VS 2010 Express - which costs nothing.

PGHammer said,

Wrong - VS 2010 Express certainly does support .NET Framework 4.5 (via both VC++ and VC# Express - both of which are freely-downloadable add-ons to VS 2010 Express). VS 2010 Express supports three compilers (VC++ Express, VC# Express, and VB Express); however, each compiler is a separate, but free, downloadable add-on. .

As far as I'm aware you cannot target the 4.5 runtime from VS 2010 . Could you point to a source please.

I don't get the rage ppl had in the original post. MS has different versions of their VS Express, each one for a different programming language, like Express C#, Express C++, etc.
Now there is a new version, Express 11, that is used as a metro IDE.
MS should call it Express Metro and everything will be settled.

The way I see it is if you really need all these new options you are a professional developer and you should just pay for the Pro edition.

The express editions are to figure out if you like the IDE or for the hobby programmer. If you are in the second group, why not learn the new options and improvements while programming a Metro app. After all you want to try the latest and the newest.

This is terrible news, they are basically killing VS Express. Or maybe the plan is to try to kill desktop apps, but then that'll fail: desktop apps will live and VS Express will die.

Saying their old version is still supported doesn't mean much... No one wants to use an outdated version of their language and libraries, not even hobbyists and beginners.

Dr_Asik said,
This is terrible news, they are basically killing VS Express. Or maybe the plan is to try to kill desktop apps, but then that'll fail: desktop apps will live and VS Express will die.

Saying their old version is still supported doesn't mean much... No one wants to use an outdated version of their language and libraries, not even hobbyists and beginners.

Nothing is outdated... VS10 Express is still the current version.

VS10 was free and available, is free and available, and will continue to be free and available, even after VS11 for Metro is released.

Besides, did I mention that these products are free? I just love how self-entitled some people are.

TCLN Ryster said,

Nothing is outdated... VS10 Express is still the current version.

VS10 was free and available, is free and available, and will continue to be free and available, even after VS11 for Metro is released.

Besides, did I mention that these products are free? I just love how self-entitled some people are.


Exactly! The fact that hobbyists using phenomenal software that has been made available at no cost to tem can be this self entitled is incredibly frustrating. I was a hobbyist once too and used the Express tools. It was a great opportunity to get me started, but I most certainly wouldn't have used the Express tools for the rest of my life! I moved on and upgraded to Pro. If a hobbyist wants to develop desktop programs, they can still use 2010 and I see nothing wrong with this (And wouldn't have as a hobbyist myself either).

TCLN Ryster said,
Nothing is outdated... VS10 Express is still the current version.
Well, obviously, it will be outdated when VS11 is released, which is what we're discussing. Do I really need to say that?

Besides, did I mention that these products are free? I just love how self-entitled some people are.
How is the price relevant? They're killing VS Express and it sucks. If Google killed Google Chrome it would also suck. If MS killed Office it would also suck. Doesn't matter if great software is free or not, when great software dies, it sucks.

Dr_Asik said,
How is the price relevant? They're killing VS Express and it sucks. If Google killed Google Chrome it would also suck. If MS killed Office it would also suck. Doesn't matter if great software is free or not, when great software dies, it sucks.

Dude,

Express = Free = Gift/Presents

Even though it sucks, you'd still have to be grateful to the giver. After all, you still can choose whether to use or ignore this "gift". And if you still don't like it, then you can create your own "Visual Studio".

Deal with it, it's just a gift from MS...

mahara said,

Express = Free = Gift/Presents

Even though it sucks, you'd still have to be grateful to the giver.

I don't understand your concern for whether I feel gratitude towards MS or not. I'm just one guy you don't know and I don't even use VS Express. I'm not affected by this. I'm just saying this sucks for everyone who's been relying on this product to build desktop apps, which will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.

Deal with it, it's just a gift from MS...
Hum, okay? I'm not losing any sleep, don't worry. I have Ultimate through Dreamspark so I should be fine. Thanks for your concern though.

Dr_Asik said,

Saying their old version is still supported doesn't mean much... No one wants to use an outdated version of their language and libraries, not even hobbyists and beginners.

I agree although this doesn't affect people who make a living out of VS ; since they pay for it anyway. This is a real problem for students and hobbyists who want to keep up with the latest and the greatest . Especially for students ; Sticking to an old version is not an option . In our country not all universities/institutes/students have access to dreamspark . Express was the only way to get access to the latest C++/ C# /VB compilers from MS . This could have major repercussions on the academic community more than anything.

I was personally looking forward to try out the new C++ 11 compiler , but now It looks like I'll have to buy Pro\win8 just for this. Which is not an option

One of the biggest issues I've seen on other web sites who started covering this a couple of days ago is what it means for XNA game development.

Considering some of the process threading advancements and other improvements, it seems logical amateur game developers (and apparently there are quite a few) would like to use VS11.

Condere said,
One of the biggest issues I've seen on other web sites who started covering this a couple of days ago is what it means for XNA game development.

Considering some of the process threading advancements and other improvements, it seems logical amateur game developers (and apparently there are quite a few) would like to use VS11.

Part of this unknown... However if you are a student you will get access to XNA development and VS11 for free or virtually nothing.

And if you are a professional Indie developer, you can afford the Professional version.

Microsoft hasn't moved the SDK forward because of the WP7 and WP8 dates, which is where a lot of the XNA concerns are coming from but like WP7, there is no reason to expect that the new XNA tools for WP8 and XBox will cost anything, and just like today, will support the latest and greatest IDE and compilers.

Condere said,
One of the biggest issues I've seen on other web sites who started covering this a couple of days ago is what it means for XNA game development.

Considering some of the process threading advancements and other improvements, it seems logical amateur game developers (and apparently there are quite a few) would like to use VS11.

Isn't XNA on the way out along with Silverlight? I thought this was fact now, WP8, if you go with the rumors and it's running a Win8 kernel etc will probably shift it's development to WinRT as well. As we already know WinRT doesn't have any XNA support in it, iirc, you have to start using DirectX for games now, even mobile/smartphone games.

GP007 said,

Isn't XNA on the way out along with Silverlight?

Yes and know. It's not supported as a metro app, but you can still write XNA code as a desktop app. It's just a wrapper around DirectX anyway. It's a shame, though, because I like XNA so much more.

thenetavenger said,

Part of this unknown... However if you are a student you will get access to XNA development and VS11 for free or virtually nothing.

And if you are a professional Indie developer, you can afford the Professional version.

Microsoft hasn't moved the SDK forward because of the WP7 and WP8 dates, which is where a lot of the XNA concerns are coming from but like WP7, there is no reason to expect that the new XNA tools for WP8 and XBox will cost anything, and just like today, will support the latest and greatest IDE and compilers.

And VS 2010 Express *supports* (in fact, it includes) XNA Game Studio - it's one of two additions to VS 2010 Express (both last year - the other is the Windows Phone SDK, which just got an update to 7.1.1). In other words, that's another non-issue.

I have VS 2010 Express, VS 2011 Express, and the *full* VS 11 Ultimate (it's still in beta, and thus available for absolutely nothing, courtesy of Microsoft). All three versions can, in fact, co-exist. What nobody has been able to tell me is what features in VS 11 that are *new* are exclusive to Win32. (If anything, the new features are exclusive to WinRT - not Win32.)

To me, this isn't such a big deal; Visual Studio Express 2010 is still great for creating programs that will run in Windows 8 (non-Metro). The only maybe frustrating this is if you want to develop both Metro and Windows apps, you'll have to install both versions on your computer.

devHead said,
The only maybe frustrating this is if you want to develop both Metro and Windows apps, you'll have to install both versions on your computer.

That's basically always been the case. If you wanted to develop code in C# and C++, you would need to install Visual C# Express and Visual C++ Express... unless you paid for a professional edition.

Surprising how many people are defending this move here. Since VS.NET 2003, MS had a free compiler for building at least C++ apps, and since 2005, we have free .NET IDEs. There should at least be a VC11 free compiler so we can hook it up to our favorite IDE. They removed the compiler from the Windows SDK too! Better still, give C++ development on desktop apps the same priority as Metro apps. There are major improvements in VS11 for C++11.

xpclient said,
Surprising how many people are defending this move here. Since VS.NET 2003, MS had a free compiler for building at least C++ apps, and since 2005, we have free .NET IDEs. There should at least be a VC11 free compiler so we can hook it up to our favorite IDE. They removed the compiler from the Windows SDK too! Better still, give C++ development on desktop apps the same priority as Metro apps. There are major improvements in VS11 for C++11.
I think it just boils down to Microsoft forcing developers into Metro app development to increase their store size. If you're using a free tool to develop for Windows, then it makes sense for Microsoft to push one that benefits them the most.

I will say that it is a disappointment that hobbyists will lose the "one free IDE to rule them all" with regards to both desktop and Metro development, but considering that VS 2010 will still work completely, I really don't see a problem.

My actual fear is that they will eventually kill VS Express 2010, and then I'll have a minor issue with this path (only minor because I pay for my various IDEs anyway). My hope and expectation is that this is a temporary move (probably until the next version or so) just to steer people down the path of making Metro apps. It's completely false for people to say that you "basically need to pay for VS 2011" to make Windows 8 desktop applications as long as VS Express 2010 is freely and easily available.

xpclient said,
Surprising how many people are defending this move here. Since VS.NET 2003, MS had a free compiler for building at least C++ apps, and since 2005, we have free .NET IDEs. There should at least be a VC11 free compiler so we can hook it up to our favorite IDE. They removed the compiler from the Windows SDK too! Better still, give C++ development on desktop apps the same priority as Metro apps. There are major improvements in VS11 for C++11.

Except you are missing an important aspect.... Developing in C++ and creating applications using the old models and old concepts is starting to hold back the industry.

It is time to break developers from the horrid *nix like coding that they keep bringing over to Windows NT that completely misses the point and the advantages of the OS in general.

MIcrosoft has tried to break people of this crap for years, and now they are going one step further by just shoving them to WinRT and higher level languages with full object 'oriented' models with new rules for Applications and new rules of thinking for development.

If Microsoft doesn't force developers to make the jump, we will still be seeing horrid code concepts that were outdated in the early 1990s still being using and jammed into software and Applications built around these concepts as well.

Even looking at drivers and low level code, it is alarming to see how much good software is polluted and CPU cycles are wasted on crap that it irrelevant to NT, let alone new concepts like WinRT and .NET introduce.

It is amazing just the number of crappy *nix style parameter and generic calls you find today, when a robust object based OS model is already in place and ignored because people think in *nix terminology and don't even consider the OS handles smart objects and thing that are necessary in a *nix application is worthless on NT as it is like having blacksmith designing 'horseshoes' for a corvette.

*Seriously, look at the char array and parameter optimization code is crap, and NT doesn't need this, as it deals in objects, there is no rigid parameter passing or a generic I/O model, they are intelligent objects that even these simple *nix optimizations are worthless on NT.

Now move up past NT and past Win32 and to .NET and WPF and WinRT and HTML5 and getting developers to make this massive of a jump is taking a lot longer than it ever should have... This is also where the argument that Linux and OS X have 'retarded' the progress of software has merit, because we created a generation of developers that are using coding concepts developers like myself worked hard to get everyone BEYOND in the late 80s, and now we are back there again, looking at software and code and concepts that could have existed in the 1980s sadly.

xpclient said,
Surprising how many people are defending this move here.

That's the fanboy effect. They'll defend anything Microsoft does whether it's detrimental or not

thenetavenger said,

It is time to break developers from the horrid *nix like coding that they keep bringing over to Windows NT that completely misses the point and the advantages of the OS in general.

Here we go again, another anti-Linux rant from thenetavenger...

What's "horrid *nix like coding" if I may ask?

thenetavenger said,

If Microsoft doesn't force developers to make the jump, we will still be seeing horrid code concepts that were outdated in the early 1990s still being using and jammed into software and Applications built around these concepts as well.

So what you're saying is, anything but WinRT based applications are "horrid, outdated, and 1990's"? The fanboy is strong in you thenetevenger

thenetavenger said,

Even looking at drivers and low level code, it is alarming to see how much good software is polluted and CPU cycles are wasted on crap that it irrelevant to NT, let alone new concepts like WinRT and .NET introduce.

You do realise that introducing additional abstraction layers like WinRT/.NET wastes more CPU cycles right?

thenetavenger said,

It is amazing just the number of crappy *nix style parameter and generic calls you find today, when a robust object based OS model is already in place and ignored because people think in *nix terminology and don't even consider the OS handles smart objects and thing that are necessary in a *nix application is worthless on NT as it is like having blacksmith designing 'horseshoes' for a corvette.

Okay, it's clear from this that you've never programmed or designed software in your life.

thenetavenger said,

Except you are missing an important aspect.... Developing in C++ and creating applications using the old models and old concepts is starting to hold back the industry.


Yep they're definitely holding back the industry for creating software that's the most efficient per watt.
Why can't we all use horribly inefficient "modern" languages for central parts of our performance critical applications? Why hasn't Microsoft finally replaced NT with Singularity? Why have they based WinRT on the native COM instead of the greatly superior CLR? /s

The stupidity and Microsoft Kool-Aid is really strong in thenetavenger again...

MFH said,

Yep they're definitely holding back the industry for creating software that's the most efficient per watt.

If efficiency was so important, why don't developers code entire programs in assembly? Because you're overstating the need for efficiency in most cases. Of course there are some cases where you need it - so much so that developers actually do drop down to assembly - but as a whole, we have new technology that makes the process much easier. No need to struggle along making things harder for yourself.

rfirth said,

If efficiency was so important, why don't developers code entire programs in assembly?

Because most compiler generate more efficient code than human written assembler - unless you're an assembler god. Because languages like C and C++ add layers of abstraction that don't slow down the program, yet make it way more human readable than assembler?

BTW: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
So much on your talk about how these new inefficient languages are great...

rfirth said,

If efficiency was so important, why don't developers code entire programs in assembly?

Because most compiler generate more efficient code than human written assembler - unless you're an assembler god. Because languages like C and C++ add layers of abstraction that don't slow down the program, yet make it way more human readable than assembler?

BTW: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
So much on your talk about how these new inefficient languages are great...

simplezz said,

Here we go again, another anti-Linux rant from thenetavenger...

What's "horrid *nix like coding" if I may ask?


So what you're saying is, anything but WinRT based applications are "horrid, outdated, and 1990's"? The fanboy is strong in you thenetevenger


You do realise that introducing additional abstraction layers like WinRT/.NET wastes more CPU cycles right?


Okay, it's clear from this that you've never programmed or designed software in your life.

I was just going over a post and ran into your run of follow comments.

You are funny, and sadly have a bit of knowledge with little understanding.

You want ME to explain how the interoperation communications of the *nix model are reflected and used in programming to YOU?

Do you not know that C and *nix go hand in hand; and that C++ and more advanced OO programming concepts do NOT correlate or work well with the *nix OS model?

Do you not understand the generic model management increases with complexity, reducing agility?

If you did, you would understand the basics behind the coding correlation and where the world is today.

When C# running on several layers can outperform C code in many modern scenarios, you should have realized that we have hit the complexity levels that the overhead of C# is no longer relevant and the inherent management and contextual handling of C# code provide better execution performance.

This started happening about 16 years ago, and the overhead has become less relevant as each year passes. Even in 2004/2005 Microsoft was using C# on top of the CLR for a few portions of DirectX, because it was faster than more generic C or C++ code and having to manage all the complexity.

The *nix model with the generic nature of communication, just like C, that has no contextual understanding is getting slower and less agile.

All your posts are along the same lines, and asking me to cite you sources to common knowledge like the deal between Microsoft and RedHat is just silly, unless you really do not know how to use Bing or Google.

Microsoft are not taking away the Express editions of Visual Studio 2010 for desktop development, they are just choosing not to update them.

There are no major changes to the way Desktop apps run in Windows 8, so no need to get the updated tools.

The new Express versions are tied to the new platforms, which can use multiple languages to develop for them, unlike the old which were for specific languages, but multiple "classic" platforms.

They are angry because they *think* that VS 2010 Express either doesn't work on Windows 8, or will go away.

Neither is the case, or is even planned.

VS 2010 Express (the free Win32 application development platform) is neither dead, or even close to dying. There is one issue between VS 2010 Express and Windows 8 and the fix for it is relatively easy - the issue is due to two additions to VS 2010 Express; the Windows Phone SDK and XNA Game Studio. The fix is to download the latest Games for Windows client. That is the extent to the compatibility issue there.

The compilers for VS 11 Express aren't ready yet - they weren't ready when VS 2010 Express was, either, as the full/paid VS 2010 was in beta at the time. The compilers for VS 11 Express will certainly be released at a later date (as was the case for VS 2010 Express). Besides, in the meantime, you can use the beta of the FULL version of VS 11.

Tuishimi said,
They are angered because something isn't free anymore?

Um... Yeah. Wouldn't you be angry if something you've used for free for many years all of a sudden became not-free? It's like Facebook deciding out of the blue to start charging you to use your account.

MS Lose32 said,

Um... Yeah. Wouldn't you be angry if something you've used for free for many years all of a sudden became not-free? It's like Facebook deciding out of the blue to start charging you to use your account.

There is a new paradigm, namely Metro UX Design Language, that they want to promote.

So, seeing it this way, i believe the move is pretty understandable.

MS Lose32 said,

Um... Yeah. Wouldn't you be angry if something you've used for free for many years all of a sudden became not-free? It's like Facebook deciding out of the blue to start charging you to use your account.

Have you been angry when Google has removed one free service after another, or does this only apply when Microsoft does it? The difference is you can continue using VS2010, whereas when google shuts down a server, your data and the software you were using is gone - forever

nohone said,

Have you been angry when Google has removed one free service after another, or does this only apply when Microsoft does it? The difference is you can continue using VS2010, whereas when google shuts down a server, your data and the software you were using is gone - forever


Yeah it does upset me when Google drops services. But what does Google have to do with this?

MS Lose32 said,

Um... Yeah. Wouldn't you be angry if something you've used for free for many years all of a sudden became not-free? It's like Facebook deciding out of the blue to start charging you to use your account.

So like if Hulu remained free, but offered Hulu Plus for a fee?

VS2010 is still free... NOTHING is being taken away.

~Johnny said,

VS 2010 Express was free. It still is.

And will continue to be

"MS Lose32" (great name for showing us your anti-MS bias btw) is just a moron.

MS Lose32 said,

Um... Yeah. Wouldn't you be angry if something you've used for free for many years all of a sudden became not-free? It's like Facebook deciding out of the blue to start charging you to use your account.
It would actually be closer to the following.

Facebook creates a new site with new features. The new site has new features, but a single old feature you enjoyed can't be used unless you upgrade to a pay account. All the while, they're keeping the old site free and available and it works just fine with this old feature just not with any of the new ones.

You still have options.

Also, what serious developer uses the express version of vs.net anyway?
It has some serious limitations, like for example you can't use 3rd party controls.

ahinson said,
Also, what serious developer uses the express version of vs.net anyway?
It has some serious limitations, like for example you can't use 3rd party controls.

You can use 3rd party controls. All you have to do is add a reference to the dll. What you can't do is add 3rd party plugins.

MS Lose32 said,

Um... Yeah. Wouldn't you be angry if something you've used for free for many years all of a sudden became not-free? It's like Facebook deciding out of the blue to start charging you to use your account.

As others have stated, they're not taking 2010 away, it's STILL free and available to hobbyists... If you're more than that, you should have Pro anyway.

Tuishimi said,
They are angered because something isn't free anymore?

Hmm... I think it's because NONE of the NEW free editions that fulfill their desires to create desktop apps AND use latest VS11 features, e.g.: async.

MS Lose32 said,
As a homebrew developer that hasn't fallen in love with Metro, all I can say is goodbye VS. Hello MinGW and Clang!

Unless you're a managed code dev...then what? SharpDevelop is the only worthwhile alternative, but even it still lacks some of the nicer things that VS has.

MS Lose32 said,
As a homebrew developer that hasn't fallen in love with Metro, all I can say is goodbye VS. Hello MinGW and Clang!

1) Given your stand against anything Microsoft, something tells me that you have never actually used Visual Studio. Eclipse, vi, XCode, but not VS.

2) So you have decided that because a new version has been released that does not support everything you want, you will toss aside the older version which will still be available and supported as a sign of protest, losing any of the code that you have written and switching to a different language/IDE?

3) You are upset because something that is free and now it does not meet your "stringent" requirements, so you are going to switch, potentially to a platform that costs much more and less productive?

4) MinGW? A tool that only supports pre-2000 era tech? You are going to drop support for more recent C++ standards for 12 year old standards as a sign of protest? Good job sticking it to the man.

nohone said,

1) Given your stand against anything Microsoft, something tells me that you have never actually used Visual Studio. Eclipse, vi, XCode, but not VS.

2) So you have decided that because a new version has been released that does not support everything you want, you will toss aside the older version which will still be available and supported as a sign of protest, losing any of the code that you have written and switching to a different language/IDE?

3) You are upset because something that is free and now it does not meet your "stringent" requirements, so you are going to switch, potentially to a platform that costs much more and less productive?

4) MinGW? A tool that only supports pre-2000 era tech? You are going to drop support for more recent C++ standards for 12 year old standards as a sign of protest? Good job sticking it to the man.


1) I used VS everyday for 3 years at my previous job.

2) I use C and C++. MinGW and GCC support those languages pretty nicely.

3) What are these expensive IDEs that you speak of?

4) LOL. Pre-2000 tech? Where did you get that idea from? The latest version of MinGW uses GCC 4.6.2 which currently supports as much of, if not more C++11 than VS 2010.

MS Lose32 said,
4) LOL. Pre-2000 tech? Where did you get that idea from? The latest version of MinGW uses GCC 4.6.2 which currently supports as much of, if not more C++11 than VS 2010.
I suspect he means the former C++ standard.

It is worth noting that GCC does support more features of the new C++11 standard. The Clang compiler has the best support however.

https://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C%2B%2B0xCompilerSupport (out of date with respect to VS)
http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html

Still, with the most useful features (lambda expressions, nullptr keyword [standard for NULL], the auto keyword [for simplifying a lot of template variables similar to 'var' in C#], move semantics [R-values, which has a huge potential for real performance improvements], and defaulted/deleting automatic code [e.g., explicitly defaulting, or outright removing the copy constructors and assignment operators so that they can never cause unexpected problems]) exist in Visual Studio already. The in the current version of Visual Studio C++ Express, I did notice that the deletion was a little finicky, but it was implemented before the standard was ratified.

As such, if you're desperate for those features, then you can code in Visual Studio and link against those compilers (heck, Gradle is adding C++ compiler support to provide a much better build tool for C++ development because it's pretty much use an IDE to do it for you, or make/gmake, which is practically the stone ages). Chances are you're not, and VS implements everything that you need, plus the new compiler supports their automatic regular-code-to-GPU execution, which is a pretty slick feature to build in.

I wouldn't dream of doing C++ development on Windows in anything except Visual Studio. If you are abandoning VS because of this "slight," then you were probably not doing anything very serious to begin with. I can say that pretty confidently because you can continue to use the exact same IDE that you are using right now, even on Windows 8.

MS Lose32 said,
As a homebrew developer that hasn't fallen in love with Metro, all I can say is goodbye VS. Hello MinGW and Clang!

Yay, that will be so awesome for you... Dipping back to technology over 10 years old, and builds that are on average 5 times slower.

That will really show Microsoft...

People comparing the C++ features to VS 2010 have NO FREAKING idea what they are talking about.

GCC at best hits at 1/2 the speed of VS2010, with rather poor quality assembly. It also doesn't even manage to incorporate the most basic of security and stability protection in the build process that VS and Intel's C++ compilers do.

Saying that GCC supports almost the same features removes the fact that understanding syntax and creating machine code is NOT the same as providing the same level of functionality.

How well does GCC automatically thread and use prediction and parallel execution and built async code to give the best performance in SMP environments?

When I said that GCC was hitting at 1/2 the speed of VS, that was just in a single core/cpu test, throw that same compiled code at a mult-core system, and notice the VS 2010 produced code run circles around the GCC garbage.


There is a reason that even non-Microsoft people in the FOSS world use VS and Microsoft compilers, and it isn't because they like giving Microsoft money, they depend on getting the most stable, secure, and fastest assembly code possible in the widest array of situations.


Wow... you are just insane with your vapid hatred of Microsoft. Instead of learning something, if it doesn't demonize Microsoft, you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like it doesn't exist. What a sad way to live.

MS Lose32 said,

4) LOL. Pre-2000 tech? Where did you get that idea from? The latest version of MinGW uses GCC 4.6.2 which currently supports as much of, if not more C++11 than VS 2010.

As I wrote below, MinGW only uses a 14 year old C runtime library - the one that ships with Visual Studio 6.0 in 1998, and that is because it is the version that ships with Windows for compatibility reasons. This a library that does not support the standards of the time, let alone the standards of today. So while the compiler may support some of the newer C++ language features, the runtime does not.

So you are willing to drop VS 2010, to go back to a tool set that is horribly out of date. As one of the criticisms of it, the old MSVCRT does not support the printf formats of C89.

Complain about standards all you want, but when it is time to live up to what you preach, you will drop a newer version (or so you claim) to go back to a 14 year old version to stick it to the man.

MS Lose32 said,
As a homebrew developer that hasn't fallen in love with Metro, all I can say is goodbye VS. Hello MinGW and Clang!

One word.... moron.

/discussion

MS Lose32 said,
As a homebrew developer that hasn't fallen in love with Metro, all I can say is goodbye VS. Hello MinGW and Clang!

Have fun!

nohone said,

1) Given your stand against anything Microsoft, something tells me that you have never actually used Visual Studio. Eclipse, vi, XCode, but not VS.

2) So you have decided that because a new version has been released that does not support everything you want, you will toss aside the older version which will still be available and supported as a sign of protest, losing any of the code that you have written and switching to a different language/IDE?

3) You are upset because something that is free and now it does not meet your "stringent" requirements, so you are going to switch, potentially to a platform that costs much more and less productive?

4) MinGW? A tool that only supports pre-2000 era tech? You are going to drop support for more recent C++ standards for 12 year old standards as a sign of protest? Good job sticking it to the man.

Obviously they have never used VS Express - let alone compared it to the Professional Edition of the same product.

I do (and have usually) compared the two heads-up, especially during the beta process for VS (which usually happens simultaneously with new versions of Windows - the overlap between Windows 8 and VS 11 is not coincidental). The feature differences between the Express and Professional versions of VS 2010 are entirely compiler-specific - as the IDE is, in fact, absolutely identical. VS 2010 Professional includes compilers that VS 2010 Express does not offer as options, and VS 2010 Ultimate ups the ante on included compilers still further. VS 11 Ultimate (as I pointed out before, it's still in beta - thus it's available free from Microsoft today) includes six compilers and an optional TON of documentation! Among the items I'm grabbing are specific differences in using .NET 4.5 in VS 11 compared to VS 2010 (either Professional or Express). If you're going to complain about VS 11 Express being underwhelming, why not give the full (and currently free) VS 11 Ultimate beta a sit-down? You may well find it overkill.

nohone said,

As I wrote below, MinGW only uses a 14 year old C runtime library - the one that ships with Visual Studio 6.0 in 1998, and that is because it is the version that ships with Windows for compatibility reasons. This a library that does not support the standards of the time, let alone the standards of today. So while the compiler may support some of the newer C++ language features, the runtime does not.

This is not true. MinGw uses the GNU standard C++ library which has decent support for C++ 11. The MSVCRT runtime is for C only . MinGw's C99 support is hobbled by the use of MSVCRT but that has nothing to do with modern C++ support .

I am a developer myself and this news doesn't offend me.

Here is how i see it:
1) Microsoft offers free tools to develop on their platforms, and find new opportunities.
2) Based on point 1, its only understandable that they would like to promote their platforms, technologies, paradigm, by providing free versions of their software.

Honestly, i believe the Express versions offers enough functionalities to find out if we like or not their tools anyway, if we need more flexibility, why not pay for it? In my opinion, Visual Studio is worth the money.

Microsoft is well known to take good care of their developers community also.

I did use Eclipse, Netbeans, Aptana also, but i never found and IDE where i am more comfortable than Visual Studio, and not to forget its powerful debugger and strong frameworks and languages.

JPSavard said,
Microsoft is well known to take good care of their developers community also.

Doesn't the fact that Microsoft is taking away something that used to be free kind of negate that?

JPSavard said,
...

I am not angry either. As a professional developer, I need tools that extend beyond what is offered by the Express editions. I create code that spans the web, desktop, mobile, and data. I need code in one project to interact with the code in another project. I need to use the debugger to step from one project into another and back. These are requirements of any modern professional software developer writing anything more than a simple Hello World application. And they are not features offered by any Express edition, past, present, or future.

Express editions are intended for people who either want to try the software, or are hobbyists. Hobbyists, if they want Metro development tools, download VS11. If they want to create console apps, then they download the older version. If you are making you living off of these tools, $500 is not something that you would hesitate to pay to support your career, and that $500 more than makes up for the productivity enhancements you gain running one software package vs. 4 and needing to switch back and forth between the different apps.

MS Lose32 said,

Doesn't the fact that Microsoft is taking away something that used to be free kind of negate that?

What are they taking away? The old version is still there, nothing is stopping you from using it. And, as you wrote below, you are using 12+ year old tech, so using an IDE that is 2 years old shouldn't pose a problem.

nohone said,

What are they taking away? The old version is still there, nothing is stopping you from using it. And, as you wrote below, you are using 12+ year old tech, so using an IDE that is 2 years old shouldn't pose a problem.


Except that MinGW's latest version (4.6.2) is about 9 months old, not 12 years old. But nice try though.

MS Lose32 said,

Except that MinGW's latest version (4.6.2) is about 9 months old, not 12 years old. But nice try though.

According to the docs for MinGW, the only language VS and MinGW has in common is C/C++. MinGW, rather than writing their own RTL, they use MSVCRT. And they only use the one from 1998. That version of the RTL doesn't even fully follow the C89 standard. We know how important standards are to you, being you complain every time MS does not follow them, so I would think you would want to use a standard, up to date, compiler.

MS Lose32 said,
Doesn't the fact that Microsoft is taking away something that used to be free kind of negate that?
Then use the still-free, previous version. As a developer that pays for a Java IDE (IntelliJ), I am not offended with the idea of paying for the best IDE on the market (Visual Studio) to write software that most people won't need to write.

Besides, as a person with the username "MS Lose32," I think Microsoft can afford to lose you.

MS Lose32 said,

Doesn't the fact that Microsoft is taking away something that used to be free kind of negate that?

Really? It seems that the 2010 versions that were free are still free, and since VS11 didn't exist, it couldn't be taken away.

The main features of VS11 are for Metro and WinRT, if you are a casual developer using free stuff, you can get by with VS2010 just fine for desktop development. If you are a serious developer, or even a student, you can get the Professional version virtually free and rather cheap if you enter one of the partner based programs through MSDN, Technet, etc.

Besides, if you are selling software for a living, why wouldn't you want the professional version? Even if you are making a tiny income professionally, the additional benefits of the subscriptions and offers that you can get with a MSDN subscription or partner program are worth far more than VS11 Professional.

Just the in house/testing licensing alone is worth several time what you would be paying for development tools.

I think it is the generation thing maybe... Everyone wants the best for free. Microsoft was the first company to drop out develop SDKs for free and development tools for sub $2000 prices. (Which is one reason OS/2 died, because the development costs for native OS/2 Apps was insane.)

Also consider the alternatives here, you have Java (crap), Intel compilers, Borland compilers, and GNU C compilers. The only one mentioned that is close to the performance, let alone features of VS is Intel, and it is MORE expensive than VS.

The FOSS compilers are horrid slow and have little understanding of security or parallel optimization, and Borland has moved on to more a 'service' company' letting their great development products die out.

People can complain, but even if you still with VS2010, you are getting the fastest development and compiler technology for free, and this isn't good enough?

Really?

VS11 is reshaped to move developers to the MVVM and WinRT and Metro development concepts. And it is time developers DO MOVE on to the newer technologies and development concepts.

People for years wanted to get away from Win32, and Microsoft has TWICE in a the past few years gave people brilliant ways to do just that with WPF/.NET and now WinRT and .NET and HTML5 and other great concepts... And here we are listening to people complain that they don't get more new free versions to create Win32 Apps....

Really?

MS Lose32 said,

Except that MinGW's latest version (4.6.2) is about 9 months old, not 12 years old. But nice try though.

Just because the release is only a few months old, HAS NOTHING to do with the technology version it is targeting.

Wow... If you really think it is even close to modern VS2010, you are insane, high or just really stupid.

its probably cheaper now but last time i went to Microsoft.ca and looked at the cost of Visual Studio Pro it was over 6 thousand dollars so taking away basic free functionality and then people like you saying I should buy it anyways is pure stupidity.
Lets not forgot here that these editions are often a gateway for students.

This will push more piracy I'm sure..
VS always gets pirated and this will contribute more..

No way VS is worth $6,000 they deserve to get pirated when they do that.
I can imagine the usual bull people say to defend this.. same old same old
The program pays for its self yada yada yada ..heard it all before
its bull .
If that was the case then why is actual Microsoft OS not nearly
as inflated in price as the developer tools for the OS ?
Add linux runtime and compilation support to VS
and maybe then its worth a couple grand lol

I am Not PCyr said,
its probably cheaper now but last time i went to Microsoft.ca and looked at the cost of Visual Studio Pro it was over 6 thousand dollars so taking away basic free functionality and then people like you saying I should buy it anyways is pure stupidity.
Lets not forgot here that these editions are often a gateway for students.

This will push more piracy I'm sure..
VS always gets pirated and this will contribute more..

No way VS is worth $6,000 they deserve to get pirated when they do that.
I can imagine the usual bull people say to defend this.. same old same old
The program pays for its self yada yada yada ..heard it all before
its bull .
If that was the case then why is actual Microsoft OS not nearly
as inflated in price as the developer tools for the OS ?
Add linux runtime and compilation support to VS
and maybe then its worth a couple grand lol

According to people here who actually use Professional, it's around $500.

nohone said,
I am not angry either. As a professional developer, I need tools that extend beyond what is offered by the Express editions. I create code that spans the web, desktop, mobile, and data. I need code in one project to interact with the code in another project. I need to use the debugger to step from one project into another and back. These are requirements of any modern professional software developer writing anything more than a simple Hello World application. And they are not features offered by any Express edition, past, present, or future.

Lol, have you ever tried the Express version, it does everything you just described. Unless when you say "the debugger", you mean the ability to create/use unit tests, but then, that's not what you said and definitely not what you meant. Honestly, I think you're talking out of your ass.

thenetavenger said,

Really? It seems that the 2010 versions that were free are still free, and since VS11 didn't exist, it couldn't be taken away.

The main features of VS11 are for Metro and WinRT, if you are a casual developer using free stuff, you can get by with VS2010 just fine for desktop development. If you are a serious developer, or even a student, you can get the Professional version virtually free and rather cheap if you enter one of the partner based programs through MSDN, Technet, etc.

Besides, if you are selling software for a living, why wouldn't you want the professional version? Even if you are making a tiny income professionally, the additional benefits of the subscriptions and offers that you can get with a MSDN subscription or partner program are worth far more than VS11 Professional.

Just the in house/testing licensing alone is worth several time what you would be paying for development tools.

I think it is the generation thing maybe... Everyone wants the best for free. Microsoft was the first company to drop out develop SDKs for free and development tools for sub $2000 prices. (Which is one reason OS/2 died, because the development costs for native OS/2 Apps was insane.)

Also consider the alternatives here, you have Java (crap), Intel compilers, Borland compilers, and GNU C compilers. The only one mentioned that is close to the performance, let alone features of VS is Intel, and it is MORE expensive than VS.

The FOSS compilers are horrid slow and have little understanding of security or parallel optimization, and Borland has moved on to more a 'service' company' letting their great development products die out.

People can complain, but even if you still with VS2010, you are getting the fastest development and compiler technology for free, and this isn't good enough?

Really?

VS11 is reshaped to move developers to the MVVM and WinRT and Metro development concepts. And it is time developers DO MOVE on to the newer technologies and development concepts.

People for years wanted to get away from Win32, and Microsoft has TWICE in a the past few years gave people brilliant ways to do just that with WPF/.NET and now WinRT and .NET and HTML5 and other great concepts... And here we are listening to people complain that they don't get more new free versions to create Win32 Apps....

Really?

I agree with many of your points, but desktop development is not a deprecated technology. Metro's only suitable and appropriate for certain scenarios. If you've done any WinRT development, you'd understand that quickly.
And cut it out with the "Really?" crap. This is 2012.

I am Not PCyr said,
its probably cheaper now but last time i went to Microsoft.ca and looked at the cost of Visual Studio Pro it was over 6 thousand dollars so taking away basic free functionality and then people like you saying I should buy it anyways is pure stupidity.
Lets not forgot here that these editions are often a gateway for students.

This will push more piracy I'm sure..
VS always gets pirated and this will contribute more..

No way VS is worth $6,000 they deserve to get pirated when they do that.
I can imagine the usual bull people say to defend this.. same old same old
The program pays for its self yada yada yada ..heard it all before
its bull .
If that was the case then why is actual Microsoft OS not nearly
as inflated in price as the developer tools for the OS ?
Add linux runtime and compilation support to VS
and maybe then its worth a couple grand lol

Visual Studio is a tool. In all professions, you pay for the tools you use. On a side note, grow up and learn how to write. You're not 7, anymore.

thenetavenger said,

The main features of VS11 are for Metro and WinRT

I wasn't aware that C++11 is only relevant in Metro an WinRT...

thenetavenger said,

The only one mentioned that is close to the performance, let alone features of VS is Intel, and it is MORE expensive than VS.

It not only comes close, Intel beats MS on performance without a doubt...

MS Lose32 said,

Doesn't the fact that Microsoft is taking away something that used to be free kind of negate that?

Hobby developers can still use 2010 tools for desktop development... If you're a real developer, you should already have the paid tools anyway... I think by keeping 2010 available, they have already addressed this for the hobby crowd. You just have to open two different products depending on what you're doing. If you're serious about development, you can upgrade to Pro...

andrewbares said,

According to people here who actually use Professional, it's around $500.


Yeah, not sure what he's looking at... Team System perhaps? Definitely not Pro. Lol

thenetavenger said,

The main features of VS11 are for Metro and WinRT
It's also C++11, C# 5.0, VB 11, F# 3.0, .NET 4.5, WPF 4.5, etc. And in 2-3 years the next version will update all that again as well. It used to be that there was a free Microsoft IDE to use the latest and greatest Microsoft technologies to build whatever kind of application you wanted. Now there will not be. If that doesn't affect you, great! Guess what, it doesn't affect me neither! I get Ultimate through Dreamspark. But I don't judge the value of a product based on myself but on its actual user base, and IMO they're dropping quite a large one by restricting VS Express to Metro. It'll suck for them. I don't understand why it'd bother you that some people do care about a product, or why because the product was free no one should voice his disappointement.

Also you're trying to make it sound like Microsoft has been generous and altruistic in giving away its SDKs and tools; fact: they do that because it's profitable. Because it attracts developers into their ecosystem so Windows gets all the best applications. If Microsoft makes tools free it's because it'd be more expensive to charge for them.

Edited by Andre S., May 26 2012, 8:42pm :

Dr_Asik said,
If Microsoft makes tools free it's because it'd be more expensive to charge for them.
That is not the only reason that they would release anything for free.

Microsoft recently open sourced ASP.NET; that was not because they felt that it was more expensive to maintain in house. C# is an open standard; that is not because it was more expensive to keep in house. The recent execution-on-GPU additions to C++ that they added to VS11 were made available for others to implement as well, and not because it was more expensive to keep in house.

In fact, before 2005, Microsoft did not release any Visual Studio for free. They did it originally for people in school, and then they realized that the hobbyist community wanted to use it as well, and I recall them doing quite well without doing so. It was certainly not more expensive for them then.

Sometimes even Microsoft does things with good intentions.

dagamer34 said,

Even shorter:
change angers everyone

everyone knows why MS is doing this, they want to promote they **** poor gui called metro, I still say this metro will be a giant failure once the general public seems it.

Relativity_17 said,
I think the title can be truncated a bit to:
changes anger developers.

it should be modified like this
"restriction angers developers"
there is a difference

thealexweb said,

Sometimes but not always, but they can tell when something will be terrible for them.

Metro and the Windows Store is a great opportunity for developers. If you're an indie/hobbyist developer [and who else would be using the Express version of Visual Studio anyway?], you're not going to want to make many desktop apps anyway. And in the off chance that you do in fact want to develop a desktop app - Microsoft has you covered with a very good free product - the VS 2010 Express family of products.

It looks like they're not quite ready to refresh the VS 2010 Express family yet. They're busy creating a whole new platform. Maybe we'll see 2012 versions later, after Win8 is released. But not before. They already have their hands full and are promoting a new platform. But it's not as if they have suddenly removed anything, or suddenly forced you into something.

still1 said,

"restriction angers developers"

True. Which is why there are no restrictions. You can still develop for the desktop for free. Shocking news, I know...

You know how unrestricting this is? You can still develop 16 bit console or desktop apps for Windows 8... and it will still run.

Relativity_17 said,
I think the title can be truncated a bit to:
changes anger developers.

Changes anger HOBBY developers... Actual developers would have a paid version...

rfirth said,

You know how unrestricting this is? You can still develop 16 bit console or desktop apps for Windows 8 (32 bit) ... and it will still run.

fixed it for ya.