Talk:Microsoft Visual SourceSafe

message: A recent change says:
:the storage of binaries is not within the intended scope of the software.
I'm marking this as needing a citation, because as it happens I was just installing SourceSafe v 6.0 yesterday and the cheerful little marketing message that flash by as you install it specifically said that one of its advantages was that you could use it for storing all your binaries, Word documents, etc. etc. 
Where does Microsoft say this is not an intended use of SourceSafe? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick run through Google finds many web sites that support your statement.  SourceSafe has always had special code to handle binary files in a different way than text files.  I've heard the statement before in the real world, but I'm very much of the opinion that it's an after the fact legend made up by apologists when confronted about bugs in the software.  The phrase of the day is "The Henny Youngman Solution":  "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"  "Don't do that." - Richfife 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  p.s. It's not a recent change.  It just looks that way because I restored a vandalized paragraph - Richfife 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Microsoft's Henny Youngman practices article does not say anything at all about not using it for binaries. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late to this discussion, but VSS does have problems with corrupting binary files. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930282/ - 203.134.166.100 (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage of binaries not within the intended scope 

message: I've used both SVN, CVS, TFS, and Source Safe with different clients, and I can tell you without a doubt that Visual source safe was a step backwards in source control technology.  I wish I could say that you are probably better off not using source control at all rather than VSS, but I can't in all honesty go that far, though many braver experienced and skilled developers will make such a claim.  It really seems like it was microsoft's both cynical and successful attempt to gain control of source control market share, rather than to produce anything worth using.  Humanity as a whole has probably been hindered by this monstrosity, because of the negative impact it's had on software development.  Too many project leads that don't know better have set their company up on this POS.  For this reason I believe that most of this article should probably be about how it completely sucks and why, because that is where the true story of VSS lies.  I wouldn't be surprised if the reason that this article hasn't gone that way already is a combination of people having a vested interest in VSS or just technical ignorance. M4bwav (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but...  You have to back that up with reliable sources. - Richfife (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously, dudeM4bwav (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism are both too short and too weak for the reality of VSS 

message: Hopefully I'm formatting this right.  Talk always confuses me.  Some one added stuff to the article that said CVS and SVN have more features and are just as easier or some such.  While I don't deny that SVN and CVS have features that VSS lacks, VSS also has features that those lack, like single checkout mode.  As for comparing the VSS Explorer and VS Integration to Tortoise and Ank, not by any stretch of the imagination.  VSSE and Tortoise are completely different, one based on Windows explorer integration, and the other based on a proprietary tree/explorer type interface.  They are not drop in replacements for each other.  Personally I have found many, many situations that toroise is just simply not able to perform the same actions as VSSE.  Ankh is okay, but again, not "just as good as" VS integration.  It just doesn't have all the same features, for example you cannot rename files in certain situations using Ank.
In my experience, SVN + tortoise + Ank is far, far less stable than VSS 6.0c.  I have had many local file corruptions with SVN, and I haven't had a serious problem with VSS in years.  I do not like VSS 2005.  VSS's biggest flaw is in its changeset/merging capabillity, where while it does it well, it does it one file at a time.  SVN does handle this better than VSS.  I am not going to say that VSS is best and SVN should go away, however this is an article about VSS, and unqualified statements that SVN has more features and is just as easy to use should not be allowed to remain.
Dmprantz 19:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VSS also has features that those lack, like single checkout mode. -- Single checkout mode is a "feature"? Hahahahaha. Marnanel 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be like writing about Usain Bolt in the article about Ben Johnson. Qed (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Microsoft offers several alternatives on MSDN page about VSS including SVN and Vault. Leeor net (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVN and CVS "better and easier" 

message: The article states that source safe was purchased from one tree software, but it does not state a purchase price.  I cannot find one anywhere on the web.  Does anyone know if the price was ever released?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.172.12 (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purchase of Source Safe 

message: The article trivializes the OneTree product and states that first version actually released was 3.1. This was the Microsoft rebranding of the last OneTree version (2.x, I think 2.4?). OneTree had shipped several versions of SS on half a dozen platforms, including DOS, OS/2, Unix and Mac. The current article reads like it was written by Microsoft PR. Jeff Dickey (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting Source Safe history 

message: Just in case y'all wanted to know: both Office and Windows products are maintained with source depot, not VSS.  VSS is not scalable to the number of developers required for such systems.  Source depot was derived from an early version of Perforce, which Microsoft licensed.  In the case of source control, Microsoft is not really willing or able to play the "eat your own dogfood" game.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was working at Microsoft in the UK last year on their consultancy and services arm, they were using Team Foundation Server for new projects. Tasted like horse offel too. -- bitplane  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.92.129.45 (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Source Depot, eating own dogfood 

message: Google hits don't bear out the comment about source-shredder (I get 750 today, which given that much of the search is based on this page, is down in the noise level). Tedickey (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  shredder 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Visual SourceSafe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070103081938/http://msevents.microsoft.com:80/cui/eventdetail.aspx?eventid=1032254284&culture=en-us to http://msevents.microsoft.com/cui/eventdetail.aspx?eventid=1032254284&culture=en-us
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked. The archived version is no good. The essence of the link is a streaming video that hasn't got archived. The link is dead for good. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Visual SourceSafe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906173447/http://blogs.msdn.com/checkitout/default.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/checkitout/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello. I recently came into possession of a boxed copy of Visual Studio .NET 2002 Enterprise Developer Edition. Inside the box was a CD-ROM for Visual SourceSafe 6.0c. The CD is copyrighted 1995-2001, but that is as close to a confirmed release date that I can get from the CD's contents. The readme (Readme.htm) at the root of the CD is written for 6.0c and has a copyright year of 2001 and a last-modified date of 2001-09-17. Most of the files in VSS/Win32/ss.exe have last-modified dates of 2001-09-11, but some (ssgui.dll and ssscc.dll) have a last-modified date of 2001-12-17. In any case, I haven't seen anything on the CD from 2002 or later. Since there's multiple dates to go by, and none of them are an official release date, I just put the year of 2001 in the release table. Hopefully my tidbit here can help someone who has better information. Huntertur (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 6.0c Release Date