Microsoft releases Visual Studio 2005 Express for free

[DGuy]

More at Gamedev.net:

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=356721

Seems MS really wants to get this product into the hands of smaller/hobbyist/student developers. The logic being, I guess, that one day many of them will be larger/professional developers with money to spend. Also, I'm sure, to earn some good-will with the same developers ...

[Savant]

I can't get the new beta installed on my laptop (gives some error about some runtime at some point during install), but I've used the previous beta and I can safely say that if you are using C++ or C# for your game you NEED to install these. They've made amazing strides in usability and the intellisense is so good it's beyond words.

[Diragor]

Seems MS really wants to get this product into the hands of smaller/hobbyist/student developers. The logic being, I guess, that one day many of them will be larger/professional developers with money to spend. Also, I'm sure, to earn some good-will with the same developers ...

I've always been a big fan of Delphi but Borland has completely dropped the ball on that market and that strategy. I'm done with them.


C# is everything I like about Delphi and more
I can't even get a Delphi upgrade for less than $300 anymore (the discontinued Standard editions used to be $100 new)
Visual C# Express is free
Kylix blows and hasn't been updated in roughly forever, while mono provides an increasingly viable cross-platform target for c# development
Hopefully Delphi 2006 will be an improvement, but the Delphi 2005 IDE is bloated, slow and buggy and still isn't keeping up with VS feature-wise


Microsoft is giving me many good reasons to use their product now and Borland is giving me none (and has even taken away some). IMHO, this is a great move for MS and developers.

[vjvj]

This is definitely a change in policy for these products, as their original intent was to sell them for ~$60 on release.

I, too, am happy about this. I've been using Beta 2 for a while now and ignoring all the bugs, I've been pleased with the product. Woohoo!

(And for those who might be wondering, yes you can develop commercial apps with the Express edition... The answer is in the FAQ page).

[luggage]

I reckon they'll probably still likely to be selling it for $60 ish. According to the post it's just free to download for a year.

Pretty nice of 'em really.

[Diragor]

Yeah, I assume that the previously announced price (I thought it was $49) will kick in after the year is up, but that's still a hell of a deal. This and the Empower (https://partner.microsoft.com/global/40010429) program are great for young/small/cheap developers.

[Repton]

We're Delphi fans too. Until the graphics component suites started to drop off in updates.

This new product from MS looks great, but just wont install on any systems here, it locks up for hours at a time.

[doodaddy]

We're Delphi fans too. Until the graphics component suites started to drop off in updates.

This new product from MS looks great, but just wont install on any systems here, it locks up for hours at a time.

I believe I've got my stories straight to say that MS hired the Delphi team to write C#, trying to kill Delphi and Java with one stroke. The rumor goes that the Delphi guys had non-compete agreements, so MS sent them on a year sabbatical as a signing bonus. I don't know if that's true, though.

So, it seems that MS is still using the tactics it used in the Netscape days, which got in into anti-trust court. Just a few details have changed.

[DrWilloughby]

Has anyone tried Express for C++ development? Is it good?

[vjvj]

Has anyone tried Express for C++ development? Is it good?

I, too, am happy about this. I've been using Beta 2 for a while now and ignoring all the bugs, I've been pleased with the product. Woohoo!

:) Yes this is for development. I much prefer it to .NET 2003. Only issues:

- No MFC/ATL support. For my project, I don't care. If you want it, you have to go up to the next distribution.
- Installed documentation is pretty sparse. If you have a net connection this isn't an issue (msdn.microsoft.com is what you want anyway), but if you work offline all the time this could suck.

You also have to install the Platform SDK manually, which isn't much of a problem but differs from the other distributions.

[luggage]

It does give you an option to install msdn if you wish. I didn't bother as a) it's on the web and b) have it already.

[Abscissa]

I have a couple questions for anyone that's used either the Express C++ or any non-Express version of VS 2005:

- Have they made any improvements to expandabiliy? Specifically for creating AppWizards. I've written an AppWizard or two for VC 6.0, and it was alright, but doing the same in VS 7.x was such an incredible pain in the ass I still haven't gotten it all figured out. (And the documentation for it is beyond terrible).

- Is it any easier to configure things for other languages? It can be a PITA on 6.0 and 7.x. Is it possible at all to get intellisense going for another language (like D, for example)? How involved would it be? Less involved than in 7.x?

[puggy]

Delphi person myself. Only on v7 as i had a nightmare sorting out starpeace from d5 to d7, i ain't messing about again and wasting dev time to upgrade.

I'm going to take a look at these tools though, best thing i think is to download the image files and burn a cd, so if in a years time something go's wrong computer wise at least you still have a copy.

[gosub]

I believe I've got my stories straight to say that MS hired the Delphi team to write C# ... MS sent them on a year sabbatical as a signing bonus.
Damn! I wish I had been on the Delphi team!!!

C# 2.0 is great. I highly recommend it over C++. (No comment on Blitz or other development systems, because I've never used them.)

-Jeremy

[Laser Lou]

Has anyone tried Express for C++ development? Is it good?
As a basic IDE and compiler, it seems quite good. It's not suitable for corporate or contract jobs, or for teams of programmers; even fairly small teams. The main issue is that it doesn't integrate with SourceSafe or other source control systems. The "Standard' version does though. Also, the express version includes only a partial MSDN library.

A comparison of the different versions is available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/products/compare/default.aspx.

[vjvj]

As a basic IDE and compiler, it seems quite good. It's not suitable for corporate or contract jobs, or for teams of programmers; even fairly small teams. The main issue is that it doesn't integrate with SourceSafe or other source control systems.

Good point. I'm using SVN so the lack of this feature didn't stand out to me.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that they overhauled the compiler quite a bit. Prepare for some things to not compile, not to mention many standard C functions have been deprecated. Note that this isn't Express-specific, these changes are across the board for 2005.

[Ska Software]

Stupid questions:

- What's so Express about it? Can we still make kickass games with it? What if we can't make kickass games in the first place? :o

- Does free for a year mean that even after you've downloaded and installed, it can self-destruct after the year is up?

Appreciate it.

[Mark Fassett]

If you download it before Nov 6 of next year, you can use it forever.

[vjvj]

Most of the differences have been outlined in this thread (and there is a link posted above that lists the differences on MS's site). I'm going to be shipping a product with it.

I think Mark is right, but I'm not 100% sure. There is a registration process and perhaps the registration goes stale after the first year? Not really sure. Even if that was the case, ~$50 is a steal for what you get.

EDIT: I'm stupid. The registration no longer requires a registration key (Beta 2 did require a key), so I don't see why you couldn't use it forever once you've downloaded it.

[luggage]

I think it still requires to be registered but the license doesn't run out - all they're doing is offering the product free for the next year. It won't spontaniously combust, the license doesn't run out and you can make commerical software with.

Best bet is to download the image of it, burn it on a CD and write the registration code down somewhere.

[gosub]

Thank you for saving me $575, because I was going to upgrade to the next version of Developer Studio. This version seems to have everything I need to develop professional software.

And it is free forever as long as you register it within the 1 year time frame. All explained in the FAQ:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/support/faq/default.aspx

-Jeremy

[chazcross]

If you go to one of the launch partys you get Visual Studio 2005 Standard ($300) and SQL Server 2005 Standard for free. You also get BizTalk 2006 Dev edition.

Besides the software they are giving out tons of prizes. A few people walked away with an X-box and a few are getting the 360 when its out. I got a mem stick, my friends got a HP 5Mp digi cam and my other friend won a TShirt.

Plus some of the presentaions were really goodm while others put me to sleep.

[Reactor]

I was looking to write a small development program, and I have found VB2005 to be the best of things, especially for a beginner programmer. The amount of help and tutorials is just fantastic, and really does make for a great learning environment. Obviously visual basic isn't the greatest language in the world, but it'll do ;)

[Vectrex]

according to the lead Ogre dev anything compiled on express NEEDS .net V2 installed on the clients machine :| see here -> www.stevestreeting.com

[Mark Sheeky]

I think it still requires to be registered but the license doesn't run out - all they're doing is offering the product free for the next year. It won't spontaniously combust, the license doesn't run out and you can make commerical software with.

Best bet is to download the image of it, burn it on a CD and write the registration code down somewhere.


The installation CD you create will then allow you to install an Express Edition on a computer that is not connected to the Internet, and that Express Edition will not require a registration key for continued usage.

Perhaps the CD version doesn't need registration. Can anyone confirm this?

Mark

[Reactor]

I installed the CD version (extracted to my HD), and don't remember running through a registration process.

...anything compiled on express NEEDS .net V2 installed on the clients machine :| see here -> www.stevestreeting.com

This is normal for .NET programs. I run quite a few of them, and was perfectly happy to install .NET, as are most people. It's not great for gaming, but... there you go ;)

[Abscissa]

This is normal for .NET programs. I run quite a few of them, and was perfectly happy to install .NET, as are most people. It's not great for gaming, but... there you go ;)
Apperently it's not just .NET programs, but native-code unmanaged-C/C++ as well:

http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=180

And it seems that the reason behind this is also the reason behind the changes/deprications/etc. within the C/C++ standard libraries.

http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=181

In short: The standard C/C++ libraries now rely on .NET, thus forcing every managed AND unmanaged C/C++ program compiled on 2005 to require the .NET 2.0 runtime.

Apperently it's still unknown if this applies to the Standard and Professional versions as well. But even if it doesn't, than I'm still a little bit pissed about it since that means they're being blatantly unclear about what the Express limitations REALLY are. I wouldn't mind if they were simply upfront about it. Of course, if it's not just Express, than that creates plenty of problems too.

[ManuelFLara]

Apperently it's not just .NET programs, but native-code unmanaged-C/C++ as well:
Is that something of the "final" VS2005 Express edition? Because my game's compiled using beta2 and it runs fine in clean Win XP installations, without any .NET framework installed..

[vjvj]

I think the VC installer might just be installing it automatically. When I installed the final version, I first uninstalled ".NET framework beta 2", then VC. When I installed the final version, ".NET framework 2.0" showed up in the Add/Remove Programs list.

[ManuelFLara]

I think the VC installer might just be installing it automatically. When I installed the final version, I first uninstalled ".NET framework beta 2", then VC. When I installed the final version, ".NET framework 2.0" showed up in the Add/Remove Programs list.
No, I mean I compile it in my development machine and then I test it on (another) clean machine, which I'm sure doesn't have any .NET Framework (Well, it had one (beta2) but I just uninstalled it before trying this, I don't think it left some files behind, right?).

[DGuy]

As far requiring NET 2.0:

AIUI, if you just statically link with the CRT, all is as it was before. It is when you dynamically link with the CRT/MFC/ATL, which opens the door for DLL Hell, that MSI installers, manifest files and such may be needed.

Now, MS recommends NOT statically linking with the CRT, as this creates application support difficulties (i.e. if an error/security-hole is discovered in the run-time, MS cannot just release a patched *.DLL for the whole system to use, but can only warn vendors of the problem and hope they heed it and recompile their apps to use the fixes).

I created a new VCEX05 project from scratch (I did not just import a VC6 project) and created an *.exe of my current project (a few 1000 lines). I copied the *.exe to two computers with .NET 1.1 and one old win98 machine with no version of .NET installed and in all cases the .exe ran fine.

So it seems if you dynamically link with the CRT, MFC and/or ATL, then things get more complicated. It you statically link, which I have always preferred to do, things work as before. BTW, I don't even know if you CAN statically link with MFC/ATL ... I've never used them.

Again, this is as I understand things from reading the blog posts linked to by this thread, reading the information at MS about Deployment Options linked to by the blog posts, and reading this MS Developers blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/default.aspx). I suggest also giving them a read.

[PeterM]

If you're unsure about which DLLs your app requires (i.e. does it need mscoree.dll, the .NET runtime?), you can use Depends/Dependency Viewer to check.

[jetro]

So.. can you link CRT statically with it, but still link selected external libs dynamically? (i.e. use statically linked CRT but link SDL dynamically, for example)

[PeterM]

I tried out VC Express 2005, and had no problems at all linking statically to the runtimes. I checked the dependencies using Depends, and there was nothing out of the ordinary.

Just go into your project settings, C++ code generation, and change the runtime library to "multi-threaded" for Release builds and "multi-threaded debug" for Debug builds.

Should do the trick.

Edit:
For SDLmain, you should probably just add the appropriate .c file to your project instead of statically linking to SDLmain.lib. SDLmain wants to be linked to the multi-threaded DLL runtime, which will pull in lots of dependencies in VS 2005.

[Fabio]

By the way, could anybody please be so kind to tell me what is the version of CL.EXE? It appears by just calling CL.EXE without parameters on a commands prompt (it's the main compiler EXE).

[ManuelFLara]

By the way, could anybody please be so kind to tell me what is the version of CL.EXE? It appears by just calling CL.EXE without parameters on a commands prompt (it's the main compiler EXE).
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 14.00.50727.42 for 80x86

[Fabio]

Thanks.. great, it's newer than my free VC compiler. ;)

[jetro]

Just go into your project settings, C++ code generation, and change the runtime library to "multi-threaded" for Release builds and "multi-threaded debug" for Debug builds.

Should do the trick.

Edit:
For SDLmain, you should probably just add the appropriate .c file to your project instead of statically linking to SDLmain.lib. SDLmain wants to be linked to the multi-threaded DLL runtime, which will pull in lots of dependencies in VS 2005.

I have had problems with VC6 trying to mix runtime libs like this... i.e. link stuff together with part of it is statically linked CRT and part of stuff is in DLLs.

Are you sure it will work like that, i.e. app using statically linked CRT but can still use DLLs like SDL.dll without problems?

I already thought that this SxS/.NET/... dependency problem is bad news if you want to make apps not needing all those weird things and still use SDL. If the above thing works, it's cool.

[Fabio]

I'd like to publicly thank ManuelFLara for a via-email help he gave me using a share of his valuable time, very nice guy. :)

[vjvj]

I have had problems with VC6 trying to mix runtime libs like this... i.e. link stuff together with part of it is statically linked CRT and part of stuff is in DLLs.

Are you sure it will work like that, i.e. app using statically linked CRT but can still use DLLs like SDL.dll without problems?

I already thought that this SxS/.NET/... dependency problem is bad news if you want to make apps not needing all those weird things and still use SDL. If the above thing works, it's cool.

EDIT: Brain fart.

[PeterM]

It's fine as long as all modules use the same runtime libs. So for example, I'm currently statically linking to the runtime libraries, so I had to recompile SDL to do the same (otherwise you get multiple definition linker errors).This shouldn't happen with DLLs - I'll bet that the problem was only with SDLmain.lib using a different runtime library, and nothing to do with SDL.dll.

This is why I said earlier about adding the appropriate SDLmain .c file to your project instead of linking to SDLmain.lib.

You only get these link problems when mixing lib and obj files which use different runtime libraries, not DLLs, since each EXE and DLL is independent at link time.

[vjvj]

This shouldn't happen with DLLs - I'll bet that the problem was only with SDLmain.lib using a different runtime library, and nothing to do with SDL.dll.

This is why I said earlier about adding the appropriate SDLmain .c file to your project instead of linking to SDLmain.lib.

You only get these link problems when mixing lib and obj files which use different runtime libraries, not DLLs, since each EXE and DLL is independent at link time.

LOL yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking... Time to edit my post :)