Visual Studio 2005 Beta 1 Refresh with Team System

According to Rick LaPlante’s blog entry, we’ve started the release process for the next Community Technology Preview of Visual Studio 2005. It is based on the Beta 1 bits, and the exciting news is that it includes the Team Foundation server for the Visual Studio 2005 Team System. The download is supposed to be available on MSDN sometime this week, and if you’re attending VSLive! in Orlando, you’ll be able to pick up a DVD there.

I use Visual Studio 2005 for all of my development activities, and I shudder when I have to open up 2003. The productivity gains I get with 2005 are just too significant to ignore, and Team System makes the experience even better. I’d strongly encourage serious developers to get a head start and download this release when it become available.

Update: Rick blogs that the bits should be available sometime tonight (8/31/2004).

Comments (12)

  1. Kevin says:


    Do you have any problems developing VS 2003 projects in VS 2005 Beta 1?


  2. Well, once you open a 2003 project in 2005, it has to be converted to the new file format, so you can’t go back to 2003 without keeping a backup copy around. As far as compatibility is concerned, I’ve taken a 175,000 line C# application, recompiled it under VS.NET 2005, and run it with no conversion issues. That’s pretty amazing.

  3. Kevin says:

    Awesome! I’m going to install it on my dev box as soon as it gets released on msdn with Team System

    Thanks Michael


  4. Why 2005 still isn’t ready:

    1. Office PIAs are busted in 2005

    2. My 2 million line app still won’t compile even though (when I remove the references to the PIAs) I get no errors, it just doesn’t build it.

    3. It crashes constantly with weird exceptions when designing Winform applications.

    4. Serveral things in WinForms is completely borked. (Balloon tooltips with title and icons set to the extender and not specific to each control, ComboBoxes still don’t support linked lists, MDI child issues, DateTimePicker still useless because it doesn’t support nulls etc.)

    5. Even though I was promised during the Alpha that programs like Wise for would just work without Wise having to release an updated version to support it, Wise for doesn’t work, nor does Active (yes, Crystal is a POS!).

    6. I can’t use Event Methods defined in parent forms on child form controls like I was able to with 2003. It’s gotten worse, not better. It was hard to do in 2003, now it’s just impossible which is just stupid. I should be able to put an event handler on a parent form, and have a child form’s controls consume it for events. Further, it should list these in the Event list in the property dialog for the control, unlike 2003 which doesn’t list them and creates a duplicate definition when you type it in manually, so you have to delete it every time it creates it. If this isn’t fixed, you’re going to be adding another 10-15 thousand lines of code to my app. I will NOT BE VERY HAPPY.

    Yes, I’ve reported these. Let’s hope some of these things are fixed in the beta 1 refresh… although I doubt it because I’ve gotten blown off with "by design" on most of these which of course translates roughly to "We’re to fing lazy to bother to do it right, so you’ll just have to live with our stupid decisions that we didn’t think out carefully in the first place and then later ignored thousands of customers complaining."

    James Hancock

  5. James:

    I’m glad you’re posting your feedback…it’s exactly the reason we make the Community Technology Previews and Betas available. Personally, I’d much rather have early access to the technology and a chance to provide feedback than wait until the product is released with issues that could have been identified by our customers much earlier. Have you reported these at the Feedback Center ( It’s the best way to influence the issues that are addressed for this release.

  6. Yes I have posted my feedback at hte feedback center and in the news groups and on beta place in every beta there has been of And if my feedback actually mattered and didn’t result in "by design" every time, I would agree. However MS has this nasty habit of using "by design" to replace all kinds of excuses all of which are not valid.

    How you guys can look yourselves in the mirrors when you release a date time picker control that doesn’t support nulls and then say that it’s perfect for data entry is beyond me. Having that last 15 years in windows all the way from VB3 is mind numbing. And then saying "we might fix it for the next version after 2005" when I report it is surreal. What that means is, it will be fixed for AVALON and we’ll have to use Avalon and forsake all previous OSes to be able to enter dates in our applications. (if you don’t think this is a problem, look at the 50 different ways that MS does date entries in it’s applications. You have the same problem we all do, and have spent lots of money to work around it.)

    And now you’re doing it again with the Balloon tooltip. No one will EVER use the balloon tooltip extender in it’s current state. There is no case you can provide where you would want the title and icon to be identical for all controls that it applies to. NONE. The only logical way to use this control is to have the Title, Icon and text for the balloon tooltip all be specific to the control, but someone at MS had made a (bad) decision and isn’t interested in fixing the f*ck up so it’s going to stay that way and 2005 is going to be released with a useless Balloon tooltip just like the DateTimePicker was released broken. Then you end up not fixing it for 15 years because "it could break legacy applications".

    Oh, and if you want another example, go look at the WinForms Combo Control versus the combo control. A combo control by definition is a control used to present a linked list. That is, a unique value and a descriptive bit of text. To put it another way, it’s to list the ID and Name field from one table, which is linked with a reference with a specific value from another table. There is no other case where a combo control should EVER be used in interface design. Thus when creating static lists, there will ALWAYS be a Value and a Descriptive text. understands this. VB <=6 understands this. .NET doesn’t. The answer when thousands of people complained about this in 2002 beta? This is better, we’ll provide you with an object and you can create the lists however you want! No it isn’t better, because it shows a distinct lack of understanding of your own GUI guidelines and how a combo box is supposed to be used. You either link list it via databinding with a data table, or you link list it statically using the GUI editor to create the items like you would with the version. There is no other case. And yet, with all of the improvements (i.e. you’ve finally realized that people like to type in combos and have it auto complete and limit it to the list only) you still aren’t listening to your customers and giving us a useful combo control that allows us through the editor to create a linked list. Instead, when I complain someone at MS spits out 15 lines of code to duplicate functionality that should be native for the simple case of "M" = Male, "F" = Female. Yes, 15 lines of code to do what I shouldn’t have to write one for. Ditto for the Checked List Control and the ListBox control which both work EXACTLY the same way as a combo control, in fact, there is no difference than a slightly different presentation to the user and the ability to select multiple linked items.

    If you wanted feedback, you would actually listen to logic and stop and fix the most basic problems you have with your design, but you don’t. You just keep merrily going along and pretend that there is no problem until it hurts your bottom line. This isn’t the MS that bested IBM, nor is it the company that killed the MAC. This is a company that is slowly dying because the fire to provide the very best products in the world is gone. The MS of the late 80s and early 90s would have run, to fix these and make it’s customers happy. There would never have been a combo control released where 1000s of customers complain, because you knew that you would get killed by your competitors. Bill Gates would have jumped on people’s heads if he heard some of the excuses for this crap that I hear from you now.

    Hell, I just had (an ultimately, after 3 weeks of screwing around, positive result) support case, where the first words out of the support guys mouth when he completely hosed my server and I had to reinstall it from scratch was "IT’S NOT MY FAULT!" and the second words? "I DIDN’T MEAN TO!"

    First of all, it was his fault. I don’t care if he was trying to help or not, the end result was that he made it worse not better. And "I didn’t mean too!" means nothing. Who cares if you didn’t mean to? If I thought you meant to destroy my server, I would be suing your ass right now. You screwed up, you fix it and don’t you dare make an excuse! If any one of my staff ever said anything like those two comments I would fire them instantly. (it’s the first things that they are taught when they come work for me. If those two things come out of your mouth, you’re gone. The third thing they are taught is that if the words "I can’t help you" come out of their mouths they’re gone. Why? Because, if you can’t help, then find someone who can. You own the problem when you pick up the phone and you’re responsible for it being fixed no matter who else has to be involved. The forth is "it’s not my problem") I’ve heard all 4 of these things from people at MS in the last 6 months. (most notably with MSDE 2000 the colossal cock up that it is) The MS that got to where it is now would never use these terms, it just wouldn’t be acceptable, from the highest levels down the guy in the basement tending the boiler. But now? Excuse after excuse after excuse.

    What you desperately need to do is hire someone that is willing to use a sword and have them go through your knowledge base and every customer complaint, email, and news group post and find every instance of "by design" and have them analyse it and find out why it’s by design, throw out the answer and fix the real problem that causes it. "By design" is actually "design deficiency" and should be red flagged for immediate fix at the earliest possible juncture.

    Don’t get me wrong, MS is vastly better than the competition still to this day. However, that is neither justificaton for the current lack of pride in MS’s work, no is it something that will not change. It is irrelivent if you are better than everyone else. The only thing that matters, is how do you get better, to serve your customers better, and thus make more money as a company. Avoiding dealing with problems until it hurts the bottom line is the hallmark of a loser company waiting to be taken down, not a great company that is breaking new ground in everything it does. I want MS to be a great company, not a loser company in decline because you make fantastic products that have in the past (and in some things now) shown incredible vision and detication to answering your customers needs. Staying the same is not possible, you can either go forward or backward, you can’t tread water. Someone at MS needs to step up and stop this cycle that is so deeply rooted in all aspects of Microsoft at this point. (And yes, if this was issolated I wouldn’t be writting this, but it’s not. It’s the norm, not the exception in every dealing I have with MS. And since I deal with almost every application MS has in some form or another and have had occassion to deal with almost every group inside MS, I can athoritatively state that it is the norm, not the exception.)


    James Hancock

  7. David says:

    James, I agree with you. I would MUCH rather have Microsoft fix these tons of small design problems (because often that is another reason given for not changing something that is obviously broken… "Lack of resources") instead of coming up with grand new projects like Team System. Don’t get me wrong, I can’t wait to get my hand on Team System. But if I could choose between Team System and fixes for all the little annoyences, I’d pick the later one every day! I really believe that a platform starts shining, once the details are well done. And especially with WinForms there is a lot of room for improvement. I just fear that none of that will happen, with Avalon around the corner…

  8. That’s exactly my point. Fix the little stuff. Huge new functionality is great, but if I can’t build simple WinForms applications with .net without having to write my own controls to fix stupid things left in it, then what’s the point?

    MS should do the litmus test: If you can’t write MS word with no addons to the .net framework, then it’s not done yet.

  9. James:

    You might appreciate this information, although it probably won’t satisfy you:

  10. It would satisfy me if they actually did something about the stuff that I’ve reported. It isn’t exactly rocket science that I’m asking for here, just common sense. (hence why it’s so hard to comprhend I think)

Skip to main content