Difference between Visual Studio 2010 Team Suite & Professional ?

[OwlHoot]

Wondering which one to download from here, referenced from the main .Net Developer page here.

Does one include the other? Which is the best to work with?

etc .. (feel free to answer a question on these I haven't even thought of asking)

[d000hg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microso...tudio#Editions

I would expect similar in 2010 version. The big thing for most people is TFS, which I hear is actually pretty good for version control etc.

For all but a few, Pro is everything you'll need... even the Standard version is pretty comprehensive to be honest.

[centurian]

Wondering which one to download from here, referenced from the main .Net Developer page here.

Does one include the other? Which is the best to work with?

etc .. (feel free to answer a question on these I haven't even thought of asking)

The "Team" editions are generally designed to go hand in hand with TFS. There are a number of team editions (developer, tester, database, architect). Team Suite contains all 4 roles.

The Professional edition corresponds roughly to the developer team edition.

Team editions can only be bought with an MSDN subscription and are hideously expensive - typically 10K for Team Suite for a 1 year subscription.

Most developers can make do with the Developer edition (hence the name), although the other editions do contain some nice to have features. You don't need them often, but they can be damn handy when the need arises.

If you're downloading for evaluating purposes, then I doubt you will get to delve deep enough beyond the features available in the Professional edition.

[NickFitz]

Team editions can only be bought with an MSDN subscription and are hideously expensive - typically 10K for Team Suite for a 1 year subscription.

It never ceases to amaze me that companies - and individuals - are not only dumb enough to allow themselves to be locked in to Microsoft platforms in the first place, they are also sufficiently stupid to accept this kind of gouging for the privilege of developing the software without whose creation the platform would die.

When Steve Ballmer went dancing around at the PDC a few years ago shrieking "Developers! Developers! Developers!" like an over-excited drag queen, he wasn't doing it because he likes developers - he was exuberant about the amount of money MS could make from persuading developers to buy in to this scam

[jmo21]

That issue is pretty simple and understandable, many companies don't believe "stuff" you get free on the internet is solid enough to build on.

I like my Open Source tools like the best of them, but for companies whose main business is not software it's like taking a punt in the dark.

An accounts will never take some free accountancy software over a well established package, a building company would never take free bricks off the internet instead of the local building depot bricks (actually they probably would!)

It's these types of companies that look down their nose at IT as just being part of facilities (I did a job recently for a large financial and that's exactly how IT reported into the organisation)

[VectraMan]

It never ceases to amaze me that companies - and individuals - are not only dumb enough to allow themselves to be locked in to Microsoft platforms in the first place, they are also sufficiently stupid to accept this kind of gouging for the privilege of developing the software without whose creation the platform would die.

I agree with you on the second point. What made Windows was Bill Gates realising that software was the most important thing, so it makes no sense at all for them to charge software developers for Windows development tools.

But on the first point, a software vendor would have to be extraordinarily dumb to be locked into any other platform when virtually everybody uses the Microsoft one.