If you want a desktop app, use 2010 express

And be forever stuck with a compiler without real C++11 support. Brilliant.

Why are you so quick to defend Microsoft? Are you on their payroll? Users shouldn't be so quick to rejoice when the software they've been using has just been seriously gimped.

This is hilarious. People criticizing a company for what they choose to release as free tools?

Following that logic, people shouldn't celebrate when cool software that was once proprietary only is released for free, either.

This is hilarious. People criticizing a company for what they choose to release as free tools? Microsoft's goal is to offer a compelling free tool while balancing the feature limitations to encourage people to upgrade to its paid tool. I think they do an excellent job. The free tools are usable for creating pretty much any application you want. If you want a desktop app, use 2010 express, if you want metro use 2011 express. It's not that difficult. If you want one tool to do it all, fork over the $500 to buy a professional license. Hell you don't even need to use Microsoft tools, you can use SharpDevelop, or MonoDevelop for C#. I don't see anyone bitching about not being able to use Ruby or PHP in the free version of IntelliJ.

It's probably strategic in that they're trying to push development to Metro apps. I would want to make people have to put in a significant investment (not just monetarily) to avoid a paradigm I'm trying to establish for a new product also.

The language bias in this thread is very telling; the usage of the term "dumbed down" being the key one.

Metro is a result of The Consumer voting with their wallet and their wallet has very firmly voted for tablet devices.
The 'single full screen window' is also The Consumer thing; most people when using a computer do one task full screen at a time.
Edit: The Consumer is also voting for the Walled Garden as well - complain all you like about companies at the end of the day they will follow the money.

I suspect that, for many people the world over, the Metro interface will be an improvement on their over all computer experiance rather than the horror story people would make it out to be; granted it doesn't fit our perticular needs but no one is holding a gun to your head saying 'upgrade now!' either.

MS want to push Metro because it unifies their Cross Platform Experiance which will rebuild the brand an, they hope, win them market share in the tablet and phone markets where they are currently very lacking. They are also aware that in order to do this they need apps, so they are releasing a product to push people to make those apps.

The alarmist attitude displayed both here and else where on the web ("zomg! no more Firefox! You can't make your own desktop apps! omg!") is just that. Windows 8 on the desktop will have the metro interface for the start menu and full screen apps but will still allow 'classic' (to use their phrase) apps to run. On tablets all the 'classic' stuff is gone so of course they want to push WinRT (which is, by all accounts, a pretty shiney API and if you are doing those kinds of apps an improvement over many existing technologies) to get as many people using it as they can.

iOS would be nothing without apps, Apple knows this, Google knows this and MS know this which is why the last player on that list is trying to push you in that direction.

Personally I find the plugin support in VS worth paying for the Pro edition anyway (although until they fix that UI I'll be sticking to VS10 for now I think) but if you don't want to well you know your choices - crying about a company trying to make money is just a waste of time and effort on everyones part - go out and make something cool instead.

Windows 8 on the desktop will have the metro interface for the start menu and full screen apps but will still allow 'classic' (to use their phrase) apps to run.[/quote]

I can't build it anymore. Not unless I pay $600. Nor can I build anything else. Not even node.js modules. Or Python modules. Or Java JNI. Or a Hello World. Or boost. Or SDL.

But OK, *I* can spend that much money. Most won't. Effects this has on software (source, libraries, repositories) availability in general are big.

If you want another perspective - it's VS6.0 all over again. Metro is not ECMA C#, it's not C, it's not C++, or ECMA JavaScript. It's Microsoft's own interpretation of them. Tool availability will shape code for generation to come.

How long did it take for damage done by VS6 to go away? Or IE6.

It's not alarmist. It's lessons learned from the past.

iOS would be nothing without apps[/quote]

Strangely enough, Apple never did anything of this kind, despite their walled garden.

The opposite - CLang and LLVM are sponsored by them because GCC is deemed too closed.

I can't build it anymore. Not unless I pay $600. Nor can I build anything else. Not even node.js modules. Or Python modules. Or Java JNI. Or a Hello World. Or boost. Or SDL.

Except you can... with... you know... every other tool which exists today and will continue to exist tomorrow.

All that has happened is ONE product, which is free, has has its feature set restricted vs a previous product.

Clearly the sky is falling... although I can't see it because I appear to be drowning under the wave of utter bullshit which was your last post...

Seriously, you come out with some real bollocks at times but that claim... well, I'll be impressed if you can top it... but I'm sure you'll try...

Look fellas, free C++ compilers are a relatively recent phenomenon anyway. I mean as long as you can still buy Visual Studio and build C++ apps I don't see what the big deal is. It is kind of sad, but in the grand scheme of things this is the way it used to be on closed source operating systems, i.e. how much did Watcom C or Borland C++ or Code Warrior or Turbo Pascal used to cost? I think I remember paying something like $300 or $400 for a C compiler in 1992. (Plus you used to have to shell out for documentation of API's because there was no giant free internet, but I digress)

Also Microsoft has been threatening to kill off the Win32 API for a long time now, so this particular eminent death of Win32 is a little hard to take seriously.

But, you know, I guess what Antheus is saying is that there is the possibility that in the future you won't be able to develop native Windows apps unless you are a large corporation in the same way that you can't develop native Wii apps or PS3 apps now unless you are a corporation. That is kind of scary but at this point is seriously just speculation.

[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1337715139' post='4942308']
If you want a desktop app, use 2010 express

And be forever stuck with a compiler without real C++11 support. Brilliant.

Why are you so quick to defend Microsoft? Are you on their payroll? Users shouldn't be so quick to rejoice when the software they've been using has just been seriously gimped.
[/quote]

You just stated that the previous version doesn't have real C++11 support, so your software isn't being gimped. They just aren't releasing (for free) the features you want. It's not Microsoft's fault there isn't another compelling compiler option on Windows. You're basically complaining because they have the best tools, but they aren't giving you the features you want for free. Pony up and buy the professional edition, or look for a competing solution.

I've read this whole thread, and here's what I have to add.

This is definitely unfortunate, although I can say not unexpected. While I can't blame or get upset at Microsoft for doing this (and it's obvious why they're doing it: Metro development is critical for them atm and they want to encourage people to try it as much as possible, plus they're a company that sells software not hardware so again can't blame 'em), it is pretty sad. I still remember how happy I was when the first version of Visual Studio Express Edition became completely free!

It doesn't affect me very much at all, but I do see it as a hit and a potential (but not necessarily so) threat to general computation and development.

Right now you can make crossplatform apps/games very easily by using crossplatform technologies such as C++, OpenGL, GLFW, etc. and create binaries for classic Windows, OS X and Linux. You can't be easily developing a Metro app that will also easily run on other OSes.

Just one thing I want to point out that wasn't mentioned, Microsoft DreamSpark program currently offers Visual Studio 2010 Professional for free to students, so I hope it will similarly offer Visual Studio 11. Also, albeit quite time limited, you can use the beta version of Visual Studio 11 Ultimate for free right now. Of course, this isn't a long term thing.

That said, I've found myself switching to and liking Xcode 4.3.2 (which is free) these days. Has anyone else done a VS -> Xcode switch and what are your thoughts?

It wasn't easy at first. I've used Visual Studio exclusively from 6.0, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010 and now 11, so that's a lot of years. I really like it. The first week of using Xcode 4 exclusively I felt "I really wanna go back to VS, I really wanna go back, I really wanna go back", but after a week I got used to it and now I feel comfortable, and IMO it's very competitive. It offers really good compiler support (current Clang/LLVM gives you better C++11 support than VS 11 Beta), the IntelliSense-like stuff is also really advanced and nice. The biggest hurdle is the lack of VS-like tabs. You have to get used to "navigate back/forward" shortcuts and using the file picker.

Anyway, right now Xcode 4.3.2 is my favourite C++11 development platform, although ironically enough I'm using it to create an IDE of my own.

You just stated that the previous version doesn't have real C++11 support, so your software isn't being gimped. They just aren't releasing (for free) the features you want. It's not Microsoft's fault there isn't another compelling compiler option on Windows. You're basically complaining because they have the best tools, but they aren't giving you the features you want for free. Pony up and buy the professional edition, or look for a competing solution.

My software is not being gimped, Visual Studio Express is being gimped.

It's not about "Ponying up" money. Somehow I doubt Microsoft's intent in removing desktop support from VS Express is simply to milk out licensing fees from people like me. I imagine it's a part of their long term strategy to eventually remove "classic" applications all together from their consumer operating system.