The Visual C++ Release team is pleased to announce the release of Visual Studio .NET 2003 Service Pack 1. On August 15, 2006, this release became available to the public and can be downloaded or obtained on CD. Information on how to obtain the Service Pack is listed below.
All of us on the Visual C++ team are excited about getting this release into the hands of our customers. This Service Pack includes a number of stability fixes, security enhancements, and other solutions to customer issues that were identified between the time of the initial VS2003 product release and that of VS2005. We anticipate that Customers will gain additional environment stability through the inclusion of these critical fixes. We look forward to your feedback.
The Visual C++ Team
Review the list of included hotfixes: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918007.
Details about the Service Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;924009
Download the Service Pack: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=69d2219f-ce82-46a5-8aec-072bd4bb955e&DisplayLang=en
Download size: 160 MB
English, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Russian
• Windows NT 4
• Windows 2000
• Windows XP
• Windows Server 2003
• Windows Vista
• .NET Framework 1.1
• .NET Framework 1.1 SP1 (recommended Framework level)
I could not find in my "Visual C++ Owner's Manual how to internally instruct my program to use a certain font and a certain size, as can be done in Vsual Basic.
I wonder if such instruction is included somewhere in your new release.
Many thanks for your help,
With the VS 2003 Service Pack 1 released and the VS 2005 Service Pack 1 release imminent, it’s a good
I just spent a day uninstalling and reinstalling Visual Studio 2003 and then recompiling my code. It was due to my colleague Dudley hitting a bug in the service pack, and there being no way to uninstall the service pack.
By the way, the bug was an optimiser bug that did not occur in debug code. We had to crawl over the asm listings to find it. In trying to remove a load/store pair, the optimiser changed a reference to an array of unsigned long from [ecx+edx*4+4] into [ecx+edx*4+1] (which is not the address of an array element)
The code generated by the original compiler was correct, so now everyone in the company has to roll back their compiler version.