A bug was opened against the pricing model for Visual Studio 2005 on the Product Feedback Center.  Here's the link if you'd like to vote on its merits.

I'm less than pleased with the announced pricing plans for MSDN subscriptions that Microsoft announced this week.  For about five years, I've been an MSDN Universal Subscriber.  I used to describe it as "everything that Microsoft does that could benefit a developer...basically everything but Money and the games."  Now, things have become different.

The Universal subscription level goes away (as does Enterprise).  In their place is MSDN Premium.  However, Premium itself does not include a Visual Studio license.  (Well, it kind of does...)  You must select Team Edition for Architects with MSDN Premium, Team Edition for Developers with MSDN Premium, Team Edition for Testers with MSDN Premium, or Team Suite (includes the three previously named editions) for MSDN Premium.  Visual Studio Team Foundation Server is not included with any of those packages.

Why am I not pleased with this?

First, it caught me off guard.  All the hoopla about Team System the last two months wooed me to believe that I'd have all that VSTS goodness in the same subscription I've known and loved for years.  Little did I know that the subscription price was doubling (for the first year) and that it would provide less value (percentage-wise) than it did before.

Second, I don't like Microsoft's snow job.  They claim it simplifies licensing and lowers pricing.  So, two levels go away (Universal and Enterprise) and four new ones appear.  On the surface there is one price level (MSDN Premium) but in reality there are four different Visual Studio editions offered with Premium.  The old top tier price?  About 2700 MSRP.  The new top tier price?  About 11000 or 5500.  Where is that cost savings again?  Where is the simpler licensing?

Third,  I wear three hats - architect, developer, and tester.  Not only do I not want to pay 11,000 with my hats, but I also don't want three different versions of Visual Studio installed.  Presumably Team Suite will allow you to install the enhancements for the three roles on one VS installation, but I'm not too sure about that (and the product info pages aren't clear on that either).

Fourth, I want Microsoft to show its developers the respect they deserve.  Development tools should be a loss leader...which MSDN Universal has been for years, I'm sure.  We use the tools, which we get for a low cost, so that we can drive the need for Windows, Office System, and Windows Server System.  Why has .NET been adopted so quickly?  Because developers sold it to the masses.  Microsoft surely didn't do it.

Don't kill the goose that's laying your golden eggs, Mr. Microsoft.

My information comes from the following pages:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/vs2005/compare/

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/vs2005/chart/

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/vs2005/transition/

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/mar05/03-21DevToolsPricing.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/mar05/03-21vs2005pr.asp

I've had the good fortune begin working with SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio 2005.  I didn't rush right out and write stored procs in C#, but I have jumped into generics and anonymous delegates.  I'm using the February 2005 CTP and am impressed.

I haven't done a whole lot with new Yukon features, but I have been using the management tools / VS integration for a few weeks.  The first and most glaring issue is the lack of database diagrams in SQL Server Management Studio.  It seems that these will return before RTM, which is a very good thing.  I am very surprised that they were ever cut.  I can understand adding them to the VS integration piece, but I cannot understand removing them from SMS.  There are a hefty number of people that will use SMS and never touch VS...those folks deserve diagrams too.

Visual Studio is much quicker and stable than I expected.  So far the C# compiler has crashed three times on me and the VB compiler has crashed 15 or so time.  Despite that, however, the IDE didn't falter.  The standard send a crash report dialog came up, told me which compiler died, etc., but the IDE kept on chugging.  Kudos on the resilience.

One of my favorite new features is the code definition window...even for native framework types.  For those unfamiliar with it (View | Code Definition Window), it shows the prototypes (or full code if you've got the source) of the types, functions, etc. that you are currently mousing over.  It works like dynamic help does, but instead of showing help topics is shows code.  I've got that window full screen on my second monitor.  It's far easier to glance at that than it is to "Go to definition" then jump back.  It's also easier than firing up Reflector then alt+tabbing back to VS.

A close second to code definition is the added debugging support.  Debugger visualizers have gotten their fare share of press and with good reason.  They are quite nice.  What impresses me more is that enhanced immediate window features and the overall more helpful exceptions (including the exception window popup).  It's now far easier to see exactly where a problem occurred, what the current state of affairs is, and how that state was created...the needed info for problem solving.

I don't want to give the impression that this build is polished, because it isn't.  There is odd behavior now and then that is hard to repro (things just refusing to compile, coding executing and failing but then not failing a little later (same bits)), etc.).  The keyboard shortcuts are a little rough around the edges (right click, g (Generate stub OR Go to definition comes to mind)).  Refactoring / code snippets require an extra [enter] keystroke now and then.  All in all, though, I expect that RTM in a few months will address these issues.

I finally finished Kenneth Pollack's The Persian Puzzle today.  It is a book about US-Iranian relations.  It gives a brief look at the Iran over the last several thousand years, then focuses on the past fifty years or so.  It concludes with Pollack's advice, for lack of a better term, for US foreign policy with Iran.

One reason I'd recommend this book is that as a result of it, I have more respect for both Presidents Clinton and Bush (W) than I had before.  Regular readers of my blog know my feelings about Bush, and those who know me personally know that I feel similarly about Clinton.  I found this book to be unbiased, notwithstanding that it was written by a US citizen and non partisan.  If you're looking for a good read, check it out.

Now it's time for me to get back to 7 Habits, Code Complete, and Expert C# Business Objects...