Visual studio: new or old? - Developers

[list] [*]Visual Studio 2010 [*]Visual Studio 2008 [*]Visual Studio 2005 [*]Visual Studio 2003 [/list] Which one?

2010 is ok. Don't see why they needed to use WPF for its UI though. I use 2010RC though it stopped working yesterday.

Why would you even consider getting older versions? Unless you for some reason have a major need to write for .NET 1 just go for 2010.

My friend here says the new verisons is full with unessecairy functions. Is he wrong?

[QUOTE=Anven11;21751186]My friend here says the new verisons is full with unessecairy functions. Is he wrong?[/QUOTE] Dear Anven11's friend, Windows 7 is full of unnecessary functions don't use it In fact don't use Windows 8 when it comes out either it'll have even more unnecessary functions

Just because you may not have a use for these 'unnecessary functions', doesn't mean that they don't have a purpose.

2010 is good, although for someone used to the interface of 2008, it can take a bit to get used to.

2003 supremacy. It's what all the cool kids use (lol valve). Did they fix 2010 looking like a bastardised child of WPF and plain winforms?

In my case, i'm using 2005 for source programming. It's not too bad.

2010 seems okay, unless you want to code in C++/CLI, because for some reason they didn't make IntelliSense work with it yet.

2008. Unless you absolutely require C#4. The UI in 2010 is *horrible*, they don't even let you use raster fonts.

2010 is also pretty slow at compiling and debugging. I might dualboot 2008 and 2010 (:v:) because I feel so much more comfortable in 2008

[QUOTE=nullsquared;21751874]2008. Unless you absolutely require C#4. The UI in 2010 is *horrible*, they don't even let you use raster fonts.[/QUOTE] Why would you want to use raster fonts...

2008, fuck 2010. ClearType hurts the hell out of my eyes. [quote]They need to understand that different people have different eyesights -- at least that's my theory so far. Some people don't mind ClearType while others do. +1 on VS respecting Windows settings, [B]if I don't want CT in the rest of Windows, I don't want it in the one program I stare at all day.[/B][/quote]

I would go back to 2008 in the blink of an eye if it had the Call Hierarchy view without VAX.

Fuck, now I regret installing 2010

2010 has [url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264915.aspx]IntelliTrace[/url], can step backward when debugging (IIRC), has dual-monitor support. When you push F1, it opens in your default web browser instead of that dumb help browser that takes ages to load. Zoom in the code editor. Lots of other nice stuff.

I use VS2010 but I do think that it seriously needs an UI upgrade. It looks like the UI from Office 2003.

[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;21752391]Why would you want to use raster fonts...[/QUOTE] Because WPF's "Clear" Type shit looks shit.

For the majority of people, ClearType increases readability: [url]http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ect/chi_p618.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Ortzinator;21758057]For the majority of people, ClearType increases readability[/QUOTE] Guess I'm one of those in the minority. I like to see my pixels clearly when coding, rather than having my eyes focus in and out on the "Clear" text as if I need glasses

[QUOTE=turb_;21751463]2010 is good, although for someone used to the interface of 2008, it can take a bit to get used to.[/QUOTE] This is almost exactly why I click 2008 3/4 times. :\

[rant] I'm using 2008 as I'm no longer a student so I don't get the latest version etc. I've recently started to switch to C# and hence I'm stuck with C# 3.5. I'd very much like to be able to have features such as default parameters but for whatever reason Microsoft decided that the update in the language was somehow worthy of requiring developers to pay to upgrade their whole IDE. Since when has an update of a language required you to buy the next IDE ? It's ridiculous. [/rant]

Do you have an LCD nullsquared, because proper subpixel hinting (ClearType) kicks ass on an LCD. But I've not used windows for a while so they could very well have dicked it up since the old days.

-snip- Actually, now I remember how it looks on a CRT screen :v:

[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;21763864]Do you have an LCD nullsquared, because proper subpixel hinting (ClearType) kicks ass on an LCD. But I've not used windows for a while so they could very well have dicked it up since the old days.[/QUOTE] Yeah a 1440x900 widescreen acer Clear Type looks blurry for me, as if my eyes need to constantly focus in/out on it, whereas raster fonts look nice and sharp

[QUOTE=yngndrw;21762958][rant]Since when has an update of a language required you to buy the next IDE ? It's ridiculous. [/rant][/QUOTE] Since Visual Studio 97... [editline]11:31PM[/editline] And I exclusively use 2010 now.

[QUOTE=yngndrw;21762958][rant] Since when has an update of a language required you to buy the next IDE ? It's ridiculous. [/rant][/QUOTE] Well there's always.... Code::Blocks... :v:

[QUOTE=nullsquared;21764092]Yeah a 1440x900 widescreen acer Clear Type looks blurry for me, as if my eyes need to constantly focus in/out on it, whereas raster fonts look nice and sharp[/QUOTE] I have exactly the same monitor, 1440x900 Acer, ClearType looks fine for me. I am on Windows 7 though, maybe the cleartype is improved? I don't know. :)

[QUOTE=yngndrw;21762958][rant] I'm using 2008 as I'm no longer a student so I don't get the latest version etc. I've recently started to switch to C# and hence I'm stuck with C# 3.5. I'd very much like to be able to have features such as default parameters but for whatever reason Microsoft decided that the update in the language was somehow worthy of requiring developers to pay to upgrade their whole IDE. Since when has an update of a language required you to buy the next IDE ? It's ridiculous. [/rant][/QUOTE] There's always MonoDevelop, as well as the Express versions, which I used before getting Dreamspark for 2010.