Home > Archive > MSDN > January 2006 > Why does the VS 2005 MSDN Library not contain the whole Platform SDK?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Why does the VS 2005 MSDN Library not contain the whole Platform SDK?
|
|
| Dr Pizza 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
| In other words, what bloody use is it at all?
Consider http://quiscalusmexicanus.org/downl...MSDNEntries.png
VS 2005 MSDN on the left, October 2005 on the right. Why the
discrepancy? It's not just me; other people have confirmed it in their
installations.
| |
| Michael Tissington 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
| I agree, Microsoft seem to depreciate content to push the newer
technologies. In addition they also frequently remove KB stuff which they
want people to no longer be using ...
--
Michael Tissington
http://www.oaklodge.com
http://www.sqlview.net
"Dr Pizza" <DrPizza@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:xn0egrinx2aor64000@msnews.microsoft.com...
> In other words, what bloody use is it at all?
>
> Consider http://quiscalusmexicanus.org/downl...MSDNEntries.png
>
> VS 2005 MSDN on the left, October 2005 on the right. Why the
> discrepancy? It's not just me; other people have confirmed it in their
> installations.
| |
| Dr Pizza 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
| Michael Tissington wrote:
> I agree, Microsoft seem to depreciate content to push the newer
> technologies. In addition they also frequently remove KB stuff which
> they want people to no longer be using ...
This stuff isn't even deprecated. It's still current, and still
required to e.g. write a backup application--using VSS doesn't obviate
the need to use BackupRead for the actual backup (it just provides a
coherent snapshot for us to point BackupRead at). I think its omission
is more due to incompetence than anything else.
| |
| David J. Craig 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
| If you have a MSDN account with the email address registered on the web
site, MS will answers questions within 48 hours in certain newsgroups.
Microsoft owns the main servers for these newsgroups but many are carried
via other ISPs. The rules about multiposting may or may not be real 'rules'
but if it annoys those who can answer your question, why do it? These are
free newsgroups, so wasting your company's time seems to be less than
bright. MSDN comes with support incidents and you can use those to get the
answers you need. Many major hardware manufacturers have an onsite presence
at Microsoft.
As to the wrong answers being given, in many cases I have seen the wrong
questions being asked for the needed answer. Both are easily understandable
because very seldom do two people communicate all pertinent information.
Either you are too close to the problem or approaching from another problem
you saw before because the communication was incomplete.
"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
news:O1kyVNYEGHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> /rant on
>
> IMHO, MSDN has never been a good 'replacement' for an actual instruction
> manual. Using MSDN to find out how to do something virtually requires you
> to know the answer before searching. You have to guess how MS decided to
> name what you'r interested in (the search rarely comes back with anything
> meaningful unless you name the concept specifically as MS named it, and
> most searches are filled with other possibilities that only hide the true
> entry you want).
>
> Then when you do find it, all of its methods and members are listed only
> in alphabetical order. Yes, its good to have an alphabetical order, but we
> also need a *functional* organization. To look up *anything* you have to
> read *everything* since the various members and methods that are used to
> do what you want to do might be scattered all over the place (and the 'See
> Also" is typically very woefully incomplete). This is also complicated
> because many of the properties act as methods (setting the visible does
> the FUNCTION of changing visibility) while some methods act as properties
> (Get_Foo(0 type methods). So, you have to look at ALL the methods and ALL
> the properties to look up anything since the line between properties and
> methods is very fuzzy in this way.
>
> The descriptions are often tautological (e.g., defining the 'visible' flag
> as the flag that set or gets the visible state). Often when the info
> changes the old info is left, leading to confusion (some items are defined
> both on the MSDN side and MSDN2 side, and differently). Searches on the
> MSDN2 side often result in being given things on the MSDN side without
> warning, adding more confusion. Sample code often doesn't exist, or
> doesn't exist for a particular language (WHY? How did they test it without
> sample code, and if they think it's trivial to port from C# to C++ then,
> MS, YOU do it TOO, and show us how!). The samples that are their often
> address only trivial cases, those that don't explain anything.
>
> Thus, MSDN is, IMHO, not a good source of info. It's like trying to find
> the right word to express a thought by consulting a dictionary. You have
> to know the word exists and how its spelled in order to look it up! As
> such, it is a case where you need to know the answer to get the answer.
> Thus, MSDN, like a dictionary, is only good at verifying what you already
> know!
>
> So, we are left with these forums. While this is typically a great place
> to come for answers, this needs a few comments too. First, there are a few
> rules about newsgroups that are incompatible:
>
> (1) You aren't suppose to cross post questions over multiple forums.
> (2) There is no guarentee your question will be answered when you post it
> in a forum.
> (3) The particular answers given in a particular forum may not be correct.
>
> Keep in mind, this isn't play time. We are talking getting questions that,
> if they take time, COST THE ASKER AND/OR HIS COMPANY MONEY! So obviously
> if there is no gaurantee of an answer, you ask in as many places as
> possible. With the possibility of incorrect answers, it is good to get
> multiple opinions - no, that's too weak - it's often NECESSARY to get
> multiple opinions.So I find it EXTREMELY RUDE when someone say "post this
> somewhere else" and/or "don't post in it more than one forum". Either
> answer the question or just shut up! What exactly is the harm in cross
> posting? There can be a great deal of harm in not having your question
> answered correctly in the least amount of time, so this arbitrary rule
> costs the public money!
>
> I'm often VERY frustrated by the inability to get simple answers to simple
> questions, things that should be easy but have some convoluted way of
> being expressed in the syntax. Yet, MS seems to not give as much attention
> to OUR questions. After all, they can get the answers from their staff
> internally, so they don't have the same problems we do. If we want an
> answer for MS directly? What is it, $300 an incident? Come on!!!
>
> Anyway, MS I think REALLY needs to concentrate on making documentation for
> their products more accessible. What good is a feature they put hard
> effort into creating and debugging if WE don't know about it or how to use
> it correctly? Unless of course they want to keep these advantages for
> THEIR software products. In short, they need to re-think and have a
> renissance with respect to documentation...
>
> /rant off
>
> [==P==]
>
> PS - A few w s ago I discovered the following bug:
>
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...a0-44bd02f398c6
>
> In a nutshell, If you create two ref class's and create more than 142
> stack semantic variables of one in the other (and the class the stack
> semantic members come from has a destructor), the compiler will die saying
> the program is too complex! This is either a MAJOR bug, or a limitation
> that MS has neglected to tell us about (or if they have, show me where).
> It seems the compiler has a problem building the full destructor (after
> all, it is responsible for this in a GC sort of way).
>
> I called MS to tell them this. Their response to me on the phone? I have
> to MAIL them about it (yes, I mean U.S. MAIL, stamp, envelope, etc.). One
> of the biggest compnaies in regard to electronic communication and they
> want me to MAIL them the details of the bug? I take this to mean - we
> don't care about your bug report (you think if I had mailed it in they
> ever would have acted on it or mailed me anything back? Maybe, but I took
> this as a polite "f* you"...)
>
> A source file demo'ing the problem is attached (see instructions in
> comment at top). Note this demonstration of the bug has ZERO CODE!
>
> "Dr Pizza" <DrPizza@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:xn0egs6bh2pmh4r001@msnews.microsoft.com...
>
>
>
| |
| Peter Oliphant 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
| > The rules about multiposting may or may not be real 'rules' but if it
> annoys those who can answer your question, why do it? These are free
> newsgroups, so wasting your company's time seems to be less than bright.
Hmmm. How is it wasting company money to try to get necessary answers to
problems in the only place that offers such answers? If one can't find the
answer in MSDN(2), then the only real alternative are these newsgroups. So
what happens if you post in one and only one forum and get either the wrong
answer or no answer? Logic says try other newsgroups. The alternative being
never getting the problem solved, or not in a timely manner, which can have
serious consequences.
So, what would you have someone do that doesn't get the answer to their
problem? Just give up? Shut down the company? Or forgo 'rules' and
multi-post? Those people who are annoyed by this don't answer your question
anyway, so why should one care if they are annoyed, especially since they
really have no right to be annoyed. But the problem is, when someone posts
'don't ask that question here, ask it elsewhere', it discourages anyone who
would have posted an answer. So that's why such people should just shut up.
This is all because VS.NET has some pretty  features in it, but the
availability and ease of discovering such features is so difficult it makes
the whole process a bit frustrating. And I feel that's basically because the
'doco' (i.e., MSDN) has been written by people so familiar with the material
they don't see the need to explain stuff. Hence the lack of sample code and
detailed explanations. And, like I said, the organization of the material is
so alphabetical it becomes a case of having to known the EXACT words MS
would use to discuss the topic, and often that isn't always obvious. And
although not much can be done about this, there is SO MUCH info involved any
search typically returns with dozens of possible locations within MSDN, some
of them old and inaccurate, only slowing down the process more.
I have recently run into the following misunderstandings/problems.etc. as a
result of this:
(*) I spent two days writing a file read/write handler using iostreams, only
to find out this has been changed to StreamWriter and StreamReader.
(*) I wrote a bunch of stuff using function pointers, only to discover its
now delegates.
(*) I tried created a bunch of arrays using STL and/or pointers, only to
discover this is now done with array<>.
(*) I started to do all my stuff using pointers (since old style gc required
this), only
to discover stack semantics are now allowed. Which led me to discover the
difference between deterministic and non-deterministic destruction.
(*) I discovered that value objects passed via a pointer don't actually
manipulate the object, but an internally generated copy (boxing), even
though this syntax use to always allow manipulation of any object passed by
pointer.
In the above, how was I suppose to know StreamWriter, StreamReader, array<>,
and delegates even existed? Especially since all these things had previous
counterparts, many of which no longer work in the new syntax.
In short, MS should open up a forum where they are REQUIRED in a certain
amount of time to answer the question. Until they revamp MSDN to be easy and
intuitive to use, VS.NET is like being given a complicated piece of
machinery with no user manual, which is VERY inefficient form an end-user
pov (like I said, PAID employees of MS probably don't pay 'incidence fees'
when they ask their co-workers how to use such features, but those who
ALREADY have paid thousands of dollars are suppose to pay an additional $300
for the same privilage, and that doesn't seem right)...
[==P==]
"David J. Craig" <SeniorDriversWriter@shogunyoshimuni.com.net> wrote in
message news:%23K9F1xbEGHA.1312@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> If you have a MSDN account with the email address registered on the web
> site, MS will answers questions within 48 hours in certain newsgroups.
> Microsoft owns the main servers for these newsgroups but many are carried
> via other ISPs. The rules about multiposting may or may not be real
> 'rules' but if it annoys those who can answer your question, why do it?
> These are free newsgroups, so wasting your company's time seems to be less
> than bright. MSDN comes with support incidents and you can use those to
> get the answers you need. Many major hardware manufacturers have an
> onsite presence at Microsoft.
>
> As to the wrong answers being given, in many cases I have seen the wrong
> questions being asked for the needed answer. Both are easily
> understandable because very seldom do two people communicate all pertinent
> information. Either you are too close to the problem or approaching from
> another problem you saw before because the communication was incomplete.
>
> "Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
> news:O1kyVNYEGHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| Peter Oliphant 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
| Justifying the paying of $300 for a service solely on the basis that "I
should be getting paid enough to afford it" is not a very strong agrument.
Should I send you $300 just because I can afford it and since you responded
to my post (LOL, hey, don't answer that question... :)
As to why I'm discussing this here? Yes, I post my tech questions in places
like microsoft.public.dotnet.vc. But this discussion isn't a C++ discussion,
it is a general discussion, so I posted it in this newsgroup. The problems
I've discussed occurs in those other newsgroups. That is, since the
newsgroups are broken down to be so specific in nature, this means less
people go to any one particular forum. Thus, the number of people who could
answer your question is reduced to those who also visit the specific forum,
read your post, and decide to answer. Note that the ability and willingness
to answer a question is not limited to those having problems in the same
area (in fact, a reverse corrolation is arguable), and so discouraging
cross-posting is anti-productive.
> You answered your own question. If you annoy them, they might not answer
> or post their discontent and persuade others to not post.
And your solution is? Remember we are talking about the case of not getting
responses and/or the correct answer in the supposedly appropriate forum. So,
what do you suggest one does then? Post the same question in the same forum
over-and-over? Give up and never get the question answered?
The only 'solution' is to ignore the possibility some might be annoyed and
post in 'inappropriate' newsgroups, where there might be more and DIFFERENT
people to offer a different (or any) persepective on the problem. Obviously
you can't harm yourself, NOT posting the question isn't going to get it
answered either!
But I'm curious. Why are some people annoyed at cross posting at all? It
seems quite arbitray. Is there any reason based in logic for being annoyed
by this? If it happened too much, sure, the scope of individual newsgroups
definitions might blur, but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Newsgroup
titles should be suggestive, not mandates.
Finally, there is the problem of overlap. What if you have a question that
involves two supposedly mutually exclusive areas? Say, you found a bug where
a windows control is incompatible with DirectX. There is no "windows form
and DirectX" forum, and neither is appropriate. Especially since the problem
may lie with either DirectX or windows forms, or both. So, does one guess,
hoping to post in the forum where the problem truly lies (which if you knew,
you wouldn't need to ask...hehe)? Wouldn't it be logical to post the
question in BOTH areas?
And then there is THIS forum. It says MSDN general. And, as I understand it,
MSDN is the combination of all VS user manuals, and thus covers all of VS.
So is EVERY VS question appropriate here? Or is NO question appropriate that
could be answered appropriately elsewhere? I have run into the 'you should
be posting this in the newsgroup more specific to your problem" response,
when the problem was germain to the newsgroup, it's just that there was a
'better' one.
You know what we really need? A "microsoft.public.inappropriate.posting"
newsgroups to discuss the inapproriateness of posts! Then nobody could ever
respond to a post ala 'your post in inappropriate', since they would then
be posting in the wrong newsgroup, and would themselves, be posting
inappropriately...LOL
[==P==]
"David J. Craig" <SeniorDriversWriter@shogunyoshimuni.com.net> wrote in
message news:OF7iSlnEGHA.984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
> news:O1BZfGlEGHA.2712@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I assume you are being paid to find the answers to the questions your
> company has. Assuming a $300 per incident cost, which you do get 4 free
> with the old Universal subscription, means that if you are making $60k per
> year if you take over about 6 hours to find the answer it has cost your
> company more than the incident charge. I am doing a rough cost of a $60k
> salary being equal to somewhere around $83k in real costs for the company
> with benefits, taxes, unemployment comp, etc. for a person. I happen to
> think a $60k salary is low in most areas in the U.S.
>
> You answered your own question. If you annoy them, they might not answer
> or post their discontent and persuade others to not post.
>
> This is not a VS.NET newsgroup. Have you looked at the list of newsgroups
> where you are guaranteed answers to questions? The are given on the MSDN
> web site, but rules apply. You must register your newsgroup email address
> with your MSDN subscription to obtain the service.
>
>
>
| |
| Joe Fawcett 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
|
> But I'm curious. Why are some people annoyed at cross posting at all? It
> seems quite arbitray. Is there any reason based in logic for being annoyed
> by this? If it happened too much, sure, the scope of individual newsgroups
> definitions might blur, but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.
> Newsgroup titles should be suggestive, not mandates.
>
Peter
I agree with lot of what you say but I have not seen many people complain
about about cross posting.
Multi-posting is very annoying, as, other than the Microsoft people, most
responders are well meaning amateurs, i.e. not paid to reply, it is annoying
to to spend time composing a reply, testing the code etc. only to find that
it has been answered a few hours previously by someone else.
Cross posting to the relevant groups seems a sensible thing to do. Of course
cross posting across multiple news servers can be the same as multi posting
but given most news-readers capabilities I can't see a satisfactory solution
to that.
--
Joe Fawcett - MVP
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/p...E8-8741D22D17A5
| |
| Mike Kinsman [MS] 2006-01-09, 7:39 pm |
| This problem occurs due to an oversight in the MSDN Library for Visual
Studio 2005. The problem has been corrected and this content will be
available in future MSDN Libraries.
Details:
This content is missing from the library because the installed file
backup.hxs is not registered into mshelp. The file is installed in: Program
Files\MSDN\MSDN8.0\Language Neutral Files\win32com10.
Recommended Workarounds:
Use the new "search online" functionality in the new MSDN Library for
VS2005.
Install a previously shipped MSDN Library (January 2006, or October 2005)
for this content.
**Not Recommended**
It is possible to manually register backup.hxs using tools included in the
Visual Studio Help Integration Kit. Registering this file appropriately
will allow it to be searchable from within the MSDN Library, but it will not
display in the table of contents. Registering this file improperly can
result in breaking Visual Studio 2005, the MSDN Library for Visual Studio
2005, or both. As such, this solution is not recommended, and you must do
this solely at your own risk.
Thanks,
Mike Kinsman
Program Manager
MSDN Library
"Dr Pizza" <DrPizza@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:xn0egrinx2aor64000@msnews.microsoft.com...
> In other words, what bloody use is it at all?
>
> Consider http://quiscalusmexicanus.org/downl...MSDNEntries.png
>
> VS 2005 MSDN on the left, October 2005 on the right. Why the
> discrepancy? It's not just me; other people have confirmed it in their
> installations.
|
|
|
|
|