The official source of product insight from the Visual Studio Engineering Team
On October 17th 2013, we announced the General Availability (GA) of Visual Studio 2013. We would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts while testing the pre-releases of Visual Studio 2013. While we read and consider all feedback from our community (Connect, UserVoice and Send-a-Smile), as with most development projects we could only implement some of the features and suggestions.
Since the GA, customers have adopted the product at a rate that is higher than that of Visual Studio 2012! Now that you have had about one month to use the product, we’d like to hear what you think about it. Let us know your impressions by taking the Visual Studio 2013 RTM survey.
We do these surveys with most of our public releases, and they help us gain deep insights on how we are doing with core areas such as quality, reliability, performance and overall satisfaction.
In this survey, we’re also looking for your opinions on areas such as .NET compatibility, project/solution compatibility and project type usage. Your input will help us continue to improve Visual Studio as we start planning for our next version. We greatly appreciate your feedback.
Deon Herbert Program Manager – Visual Studio Team
Don't you just love the lying? Look at this comment on their "Release to web" post (comment at the bottom currently), where they say this: "We’ve listened to the feedback from the community, and released an updated installer to get Visual Studio 2013 on machines with older versions of IE."
Don't you just love how they now throw around the phrase "we've listened to the feedback" ...and the phrase has no honest value anymore (when coming from them) ??
To be fair they are not the only ones, but nonetheless the last few years have really shown just how much they really have no intention of listening to their customers. The whole deal around developing the minor upgrade to vista in the form of windows 7 was one of the largest we're not listening while saying we are campaigns I have ever seen. I and many others feel the OS was a success, but it appears to be that they believe now it is a viable manner to use for all their products. It's clear that they have other agendas that they are pushing with only financial motives to do so, selling ones self down the river is the a very poor business plan. It might be argued that they are trying to fight obsolescence but at the cost of burning your current bridges it is a very poor decision.
I teach Information Systems at a College in Canada where we are licensed to use all of Microsofts software and see no advantage to upgrading our labs to VS2012 or 2013 even though we could do so at no additional cost. That goes for Windows 8 as well.
We teach/develop ASP.NET Intranet systems and have no use for Windows Store Apps which is the only real new functionality the new versions offer use. The new extra features offered is more than offset by the extremely poor usability of the UI and its general poor responsiveness, every version just gets slower and slower and we see the dreaded hourglass more and more.
We are going to give Microsoft one more chance to get things right on their next release and if we get another SCREAMING METRO MONOCHROME UGLY GLYPH WINDOWS APP we will switch to another product. Microsoft has more than proven they don't care one iota about their customers or their needs and are driving their own agenda for whatever reasons, which is their right.
But we have the right to switch to something else...
Unfortunately I do not see much chance of them changing direction on their new glyph obsession.
When I first opened the Windows 8.1 mail app I took one look at the new glyph menu and all I could think was "You know, some of us DO still know how to read", and was amused to find I was honestly insulted, but then I thought about the latest 'common core' standards and new educational methods...
But even with all that taken into account, the glyphs themselves might not have resulted in such a backlash if they were at least recognizable or relevant to the option they are trying to represent.
We develop both managed + unmanaged desktop+service applications, and ASP.NET MVC sites (for Mono) - so you don't care about us.
Setup and deployment - no suitable replacement or migration path.
Almost usable theme available out-the-box.
Better than 2012
Performance improved - but fresh install.. so time will tell.
Icons still poor, non-standard, and indistinguishable. Personal taste is irrelevant, they're just unusable.
6.5GB(!!) for minimal install.
Sign in to on-line account
Still no built-in way to turn of upper-case menu names.
Can't seem to remove the notifications, feedback icon, or Sign in buttons on top-right.
I don't know why, but my eyes feel strained after using it (even with lower-case menus, and no toolbar).
Not as bad as 2012 (but that would require more effort to make worse, than to improve).
Apart from the UI (which is only a slight improvement from 2012), it's almost the same. I've used it for a week, but I've yet to find any new features that I would miss at all if we stayed on VS2010.
For a second time I am unable to recommend upgrading, as there are no compelling reasons... and cost isn't an issue.
It seems that, like Office, Visual Studio has peaked years ago and you're making unwanted superficial changes to make people upgrade.
This is what happens when Microsoft has no major competitors to copy, chase, or cheat.
Typical of Microsoft ... Ignore the community that use your products!!!
Bring back the Setup & Deployment project. While we might "play" with Windows Store apps etc the majority of serious developers write / update commercial software that will never go near the store. I used to like Installshield but the new LE is absolutely awful.
@Davide, @Charles Ryan:
I can open up most unknown applications on various operating systems, all having different toolbar/menu icons, and I can (almost instinctively) recognise their intent.
Visual Studio 2012/13 is the extreme exception to that! And I've been using VS since, well.. when MSVC was 16bit.
The decision makers at Microsoft are too arrogant and ignorant to accept they have made a mistake, as all humans do. They then offend us with posts like this! Look at the one for VS2012 - it makes you wonder if the comments are actually displayed to them!
I've been using VS2013 for the last 3 days and I have to say that I like it. Integration with TFS is better, easier.
For the time being, congrats.
It is at best a 'disgusting' choice to include codelens and peek definition features in RC and preview but not in RTM Professional edition.
"we announced the General Availability (GA)"
Lest you get the peachy-keeners bashing you on the noggin with statues of Stonewall Jackson, please be advised that "GA" stands for Georgia. Stonewall is the General they want to know about, having never heard of this General "Availability."
Overall I like it - though no more than VS 2010. What I don't like is the darker UI. Please at least give us the option of using the earlier icons for cut, paste, etc. These are hard to discern.
Thanks, I will keep VS2010 waiting for another try.
If I will make similar UI like VS2013, I will lose my customers. It is enough some of them have to use O365 in browser, and hate it an every day.
Give back colors, give back clear borders between controls etc. And first read UX Guide you published in 2010.
We're sticking to VS2010 until we can covert your installers to a decent tool like WiX because InstallShield LE just doesn't suit our needs and we can't justify paying a stupidly high licensing fee every year. Thanks for leaving us high and dry.
Please add native support for Mercurial in Visual Studio!
I like the UI color combination especially the blue theme, it doesnt hurt the eyes and should rather stay like that. Also i like the peek definition and references above method names if project is on TFS it also shows you who did what and their comments which is good for team based development