VC 7.1 this year? 
Author Message
 VC 7.1 this year?

Does this mean VC 7.1 is scheduled for release late this
year?

http://www.*-*-*.com/
tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020822/bs_nf/19129



Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:54:42 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
"Everett" for $29.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-954835.html?tag=fd_top

Lynn

Quote:
> Does this mean VC 7.1 is scheduled for release late this
> year?

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
> tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020822/bs_nf/19129



Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:31:26 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
It's not clear from the articles if VC 7.1 is part
of 'everett' or the later 'yukon' release.

Quote:
>-----Original Message-----
>"Everett" for $29.

>http://news.com.com/2100-1001-954835.html?tag=fd_top

>Lynn

>> Does this mean VC 7.1 is scheduled for release late
this
>> year?

>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
>> tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020822/bs_nf/19129

>.



Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:52:38 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
Yup, there I go asssuming again.  Based on other statements here in
the forum I am suspecting that it will be, but, who knows.

Lynn

Quote:
> It's not clear from the articles if VC 7.1 is part
> of 'everett' or the later 'yukon' release.



Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:17:33 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
It is funny how all [MS] guys grow quiet on these posts. My guess is that
the company leaves things vague untill they are ready to hit off a marketing
campaign - there is no reason to commit to anything concrete untill then...

--

========================================
Max Khesin, software developer -

[check out our image compression software at www.cvisiontech.com, JBIG2-PDF

www.cvisiontech.com/cvistapdf.html]


Quote:
> Does this mean VC 7.1 is scheduled for release late this
> year?

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
> tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020822/bs_nf/19129



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:37:25 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?

Quote:

> "Everett" for $29.

> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-954835.html?tag=fd_top

  And then there's
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/aug02/08-22EverettPR.asp
  which, if I don't parse it wrong, says we'll
  know more on next monday.

Quote:
> Lynn
> [...]

  Schobi

--

I'm HSchober at gmx dot de



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:38:12 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
It's more like, for topics like this, Microsoft employees can't comment and
say anything that hasn't been officially announced.  For example, I can't
comment and tell you whether or not there will be ever be a release called
"VC 7.1", I can't tell you when a release named that might actually be
available, etc.  If I wanted to communicate such information, the best way
for me to do it would be to provide a link to some site that had the data -
I certainly wouldn't want to expound on it myself, since I might get some
detail wrong.

I personally get frustrated by my inability to talk about some of this
stuff.  But it is just part of working for a large company - product
announcements need to come from the correct group of people, and I'm not one
of them.  Heck, I don't even work on the Visual Studio .Net team (I'm in SQL
Server), so I have an even smaller chance of knowing the real information,
which I suppose is a good reason for me not to comment about it.

Leaking product information is a big deal - you make some well-meaning post
in a public newsgroup, and the next thing you know it's been misquoted and
is appearing on the front page of an industry news site, and sales people
and upper management are getting phone calls from confused customers asking
them about the (misquoted) product details.

--Don

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


Quote:
> It is funny how all [MS] guys grow quiet on these posts. My guess is that
> the company leaves things vague untill they are ready to hit off a
marketing
> campaign - there is no reason to commit to anything concrete untill
then...

> --

> ========================================
> Max Khesin, software developer -

> [check out our image compression software at www.cvisiontech.com,
JBIG2-PDF

> www.cvisiontech.com/cvistapdf.html]



> > Does this mean VC 7.1 is scheduled for release late this
> > year?

> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
> > tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020822/bs_nf/19129



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:23:13 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?

Quote:
> It's more like, for topics like this, Microsoft employees can't comment
and
> say anything that hasn't been officially announced.  For example, I can't
> comment and tell you whether or not there will be ever be a release called
> "VC 7.1", I can't tell you when a release named that might actually be
> available, etc.  If I wanted to communicate such information, the best way
> for me to do it would be to provide a link to some site that had the
data -
> I certainly wouldn't want to expound on it myself, since I might get some
> detail wrong.

> I personally get frustrated by my inability to talk about some of this
> stuff.  But it is just part of working for a large company - product
> announcements need to come from the correct group of people, and I'm not
one
> of them.  Heck, I don't even work on the Visual Studio .Net team (I'm in
SQL
> Server), so I have an even smaller chance of knowing the real information,
> which I suppose is a good reason for me not to comment about it.

> Leaking product information is a big deal - you make some well-meaning
post
> in a public newsgroup, and the next thing you know it's been misquoted and
> is appearing on the front page of an industry news site, and sales people
> and upper management are getting phone calls from confused customers
asking
> them about the (misquoted) product details.

Don, I think most of us appreciate your position but this is no excuse for
_MS_ being so quiet about a release that promises to move from a compiler
that has frustrating holes in it in respect of C++ to one that seems to
offer sufficient compliance to compile several major libraries.

I for one am also getting fed up with the number of posts I see here from MS
folk that say 'this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1' but never having any
information about when we will actually see this mythical beast.

And I don't think I am the only one getting a little fed up with this
situation.

  Brian Gladman



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:29:41 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
(below)

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


<<snip>>

Quote:
> Don, I think most of us appreciate your position but this is no excuse for
> _MS_ being so quiet about a release that promises to move from a compiler
> that has frustrating holes in it in respect of C++ to one that seems to
> offer sufficient compliance to compile several major libraries.

> I for one am also getting fed up with the number of posts I see here from
MS
> folk that say 'this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1' but never having any
> information about when we will actually see this mythical beast.

> And I don't think I am the only one getting a little fed up with this
> situation.

I can appreciate that - it looks to you like we are teasing you with the
existence of some new version which fixes all your bugs, but we won't tell
you when you can have it.

However, I would like to suggest a slightly different way of looking at it:
Responses like "this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1" are trying to be very
helpful - we are trying to tell you that not only have we seen your bug
report, but we have gone and verified that the next version of the product
will almost certainly (absent any regressions) actually contain that fix.
So the bug isn't just in our database, the fix is actually in the code,
checked in, building every day, as we work towards the next release.

Unfortunately, we can't go the extra step of telling you when that "next
version of the product" will get released, because that hasn't been
announced yet (as far as I know).

--Don



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:44:09 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
For my money the release date of the next version should be a non-issue.
Just about the first thing you learn about versioning products is that when you release a new version you create a maintanence
source branch.
For this type of product serious bugs can't wait months and months until the next release, the impact on the users business is to
great.
Any bugs that can be fixed on the maintanence branch, must be and be released as patches, preferably through an autoupdate
integrated in the product.

For this type of product I consider anything less to be irresponsible.

/Magnus Lidbom

Quote:

> (below)

> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



> <<snip>>

> > Don, I think most of us appreciate your position but this is no excuse for
> > _MS_ being so quiet about a release that promises to move from a compiler
> > that has frustrating holes in it in respect of C++ to one that seems to
> > offer sufficient compliance to compile several major libraries.

> > I for one am also getting fed up with the number of posts I see here from
> MS
> > folk that say 'this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1' but never having any
> > information about when we will actually see this mythical beast.

> > And I don't think I am the only one getting a little fed up with this
> > situation.

> I can appreciate that - it looks to you like we are teasing you with the
> existence of some new version which fixes all your bugs, but we won't tell
> you when you can have it.

> However, I would like to suggest a slightly different way of looking at it:
> Responses like "this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1" are trying to be very
> helpful - we are trying to tell you that not only have we seen your bug
> report, but we have gone and verified that the next version of the product
> will almost certainly (absent any regressions) actually contain that fix.
> So the bug isn't just in our database, the fix is actually in the code,
> checked in, building every day, as we work towards the next release.

> Unfortunately, we can't go the extra step of telling you when that "next
> version of the product" will get released, because that hasn't been
> announced yet (as far as I know).

> --Don



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:01:56 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?



Quote:

> > "Everett" for $29.

> > http://news.com.com/2100-1001-954835.html?tag=fd_top

>   And then there's
>     http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/aug02/08-22EverettPR.asp
>   which, if I don't parse it wrong, says we'll
>   know more on next monday.

It also states that it will cost $29.  That's nice!

Any day soon, marketing will also tell us what the package contains.  :-)

Bo Persson



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:07:26 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?



Quote:
> It is funny how all [MS] guys grow quiet on these posts. My guess is that
> the company leaves things vague untill they are ready to hit off a
marketing
> campaign - there is no reason to commit to anything concrete untill
then...

The name won't even be a 7.1, like there actually never was a 7.0! My
package is called

"Microsoft Visual Studio .net Professional Version 2002"

The engineers could *never* come up with a name like that! That's why we
need marketing.

Until they have come up with a new name for the next release, what can we
do? The next will probably not be called
"Microsoft Visual Studio .net Professional Version 2002" release 2.0
so we have to let them brainstorm something better. That is what counts! A
few bugs in the product, bah!

Marketing (sell, sell, sell!) decides, and has the option to change their
minds at the last minute.

Bo Persson



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:20:04 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?

Quote:
> (below)

> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.



> <<snip>>

> > Don, I think most of us appreciate your position but this is no excuse
for
> > _MS_ being so quiet about a release that promises to move from a
compiler
> > that has frustrating holes in it in respect of C++ to one that seems to
> > offer sufficient compliance to compile several major libraries.

> > I for one am also getting fed up with the number of posts I see here
from
> MS
> > folk that say 'this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1' but never having any
> > information about when we will actually see this mythical beast.

> > And I don't think I am the only one getting a little fed up with this
> > situation.

> I can appreciate that - it looks to you like we are teasing you with the
> existence of some new version which fixes all your bugs, but we won't tell
> you when you can have it.

For me it does not just look like this, it IS like this!!

Quote:
> However, I would like to suggest a slightly different way of looking at
it:
> Responses like "this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1" are trying to be very
> helpful - we are trying to tell you that not only have we seen your bug
> report, but we have gone and verified that the next version of the product
> will almost certainly (absent any regressions) actually contain that fix.
> So the bug isn't just in our database, the fix is actually in the code,
> checked in, building every day, as we work towards the next release.

If we had a normal process for a compiler of knowing that there would be,
say, two releases a year, I would accept this. But we don't.  All we have to
go on is the unsatisfactory update cycle we had for VC6 and a very vague
statement from Ronald saying "it won't be as long this time as it was last
time" and I simply don't think this is good enough for a compiler that lies
at the heart of applications development and on which a huge community
depends.

Quote:
> Unfortunately, we can't go the extra step of telling you when that "next
> version of the product" will get released, because that hasn't been
> announced yet (as far as I know).

Don, I appreciate your input and I assure you that I am not suggesting that
you should go the extra step. But I _am_ suggesting that _MS_ should.
Compilers are rather special beasts and need treating with this in mind when
considering marketing issues.

   Brian Gladman



Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:15:33 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
Hi Magnus,

If you have a serious bug that you think impacts the usability of the
product for you, please do call our product support folks. We have a QFE
(Quick Fix Engineering) mechanism to get fixes for these kinds of issues in
the hands of customers as soon as possible and the QFEs get rolled up into
the service packs for a release. If you tried to use this mechanism and are
dissatisfied with the results send me an email about what happened

I don't have any context in this thread to see what you refer to as "This
type of product bugs that can't wait ...". If you have examples of the kind
of bugs you are talking about that would help me to understand what kind of
bar you would like us to apply.

Without knowing that, it is somewhat hard for me to comment on your next
paragraph about frequent patch releases and an auto-update mechanism. My gut
reaction as a current customer of the toolset (yes, I actually use it
despite of working on it ;-)) would be that I want to be in control on
exactly what version of the compiler I compile my product with and be able
to decide when exactly I pick up new versions.

Ronald Laeremans
Visual C++ compiler and libraries team


Quote:
> For my money the release date of the next version should be a non-issue.
> Just about the first thing you learn about versioning products is that

when you release a new version you create a maintanence
Quote:
> source branch.
> For this type of product serious bugs can't wait months and months until

the next release, the impact on the users business is to
Quote:
> great.
> Any bugs that can be fixed on the maintanence branch, must be and be

released as patches, preferably through an autoupdate
Quote:
> integrated in the product.

> For this type of product I consider anything less to be irresponsible.

> /Magnus Lidbom




Quote:
> > (below)

> > --
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.



> > <<snip>>

> > > Don, I think most of us appreciate your position but this is no excuse
for
> > > _MS_ being so quiet about a release that promises to move from a
compiler
> > > that has frustrating holes in it in respect of C++ to one that seems
to
> > > offer sufficient compliance to compile several major libraries.

> > > I for one am also getting fed up with the number of posts I see here
from
> > MS
> > > folk that say 'this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1' but never having any
> > > information about when we will actually see this mythical beast.

> > > And I don't think I am the only one getting a little fed up with this
> > > situation.

> > I can appreciate that - it looks to you like we are teasing you with the
> > existence of some new version which fixes all your bugs, but we won't
tell
> > you when you can have it.

> > However, I would like to suggest a slightly different way of looking at
it:
> > Responses like "this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1" are trying to be very
> > helpful - we are trying to tell you that not only have we seen your bug
> > report, but we have gone and verified that the next version of the
product
> > will almost certainly (absent any regressions) actually contain that
fix.
> > So the bug isn't just in our database, the fix is actually in the code,
> > checked in, building every day, as we work towards the next release.

> > Unfortunately, we can't go the extra step of telling you when that "next
> > version of the product" will get released, because that hasn't been
> > announced yet (as far as I know).

> > --Don



Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:35:51 GMT  
 VC 7.1 this year?
One very big mistake everyone here is making is assuming that there is this
mound of stable, accurate information about things like ship dates that we
have available and are unwilling to share because of meanness or arrogance
or some other reason.

What is the reality is that we are very serious about shipping a product
when it is ready with the features that are stable enough to ship. Which
means that there is no fixed ship date until very late in the cycle. Any
other dates that you read in the press or hear any place else are very close
to completely useless. Unless you want us to go with a mechanism where we
decide a year in advance that we will ship on such and such date regardless
of the state of the product, there really aren't useful dates to communicate
much earlier than we actually do.

As I said before part of that is because the NDP plus Visual Studio is such
a huge product and everything needs to come together it increases
uncertainty, which is why we are still working on finding a usable mechanism
to provide more frequent updates of command line build tools.

Ronald Laeremans
Visual C++ compiler and libraries team


Quote:


> > (below)

> > --
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.



> > <<snip>>

> > > Don, I think most of us appreciate your position but this is no excuse
> for
> > > _MS_ being so quiet about a release that promises to move from a
> compiler
> > > that has frustrating holes in it in respect of C++ to one that seems
to
> > > offer sufficient compliance to compile several major libraries.

> > > I for one am also getting fed up with the number of posts I see here
> from
> > MS
> > > folk that say 'this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1' but never having any
> > > information about when we will actually see this mythical beast.

> > > And I don't think I am the only one getting a little fed up with this
> > > situation.

> > I can appreciate that - it looks to you like we are teasing you with the
> > existence of some new version which fixes all your bugs, but we won't
tell
> > you when you can have it.

> For me it does not just look like this, it IS like this!!

> > However, I would like to suggest a slightly different way of looking at
> it:
> > Responses like "this bug in 7.0 is fixed in 7.1" are trying to be very
> > helpful - we are trying to tell you that not only have we seen your bug
> > report, but we have gone and verified that the next version of the
product
> > will almost certainly (absent any regressions) actually contain that
fix.
> > So the bug isn't just in our database, the fix is actually in the code,
> > checked in, building every day, as we work towards the next release.

> If we had a normal process for a compiler of knowing that there would be,
> say, two releases a year, I would accept this. But we don't.  All we have
to
> go on is the unsatisfactory update cycle we had for VC6 and a very vague
> statement from Ronald saying "it won't be as long this time as it was last
> time" and I simply don't think this is good enough for a compiler that
lies
> at the heart of applications development and on which a huge community
> depends.

> > Unfortunately, we can't go the extra step of telling you when that "next
> > version of the product" will get released, because that hasn't been
> > announced yet (as far as I know).

> Don, I appreciate your input and I assure you that I am not suggesting
that
> you should go the extra step. But I _am_ suggesting that _MS_ should.
> Compilers are rather special beasts and need treating with this in mind
when
> considering marketing issues.

>    Brian Gladman



Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:51:07 GMT  
 
 [ 25 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Problem to convert from VC 6.0 to VC 7.1 because of using filebuf::setmode()

2. Slower compilation with VC Net 2003 (7.1) when compared to VC Net 7.0

3. ICE with vc 7.1 and simple spirit grammar

4. VC 7.1 seems to ignore typedef in template

5. Conversion from VC 7.0 to 7.1

6. VC 7.1 ICE

7. VC 7.1 - can't find correct MFC sources during debugging

8. VC 7.1 and massive (repeating) warning messages

9. VC 7.1 template friend problem

10. VC 7.1 Macro bug!

11. VC 7.1 final beta: bug with template template parameters

12. Any updates in ATL/ATL Server in VC 7.1

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software