Try Visual Studio.NET 2003 for free

[Grok]

Three-hour Terminal Services session to try VS.NET 2003 Enterprise.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/tryit/

[MyndFyre]

I wish it were for Whidbey.  Via MSDN I already have VS .NET 2k3 Enterprise Architect.  

[GoSuGaMING]

what are you doing to do in 3 hours?

[MyndFyre]

what are you doing to do in 3 hours?

The nicest thing about VS .NET 2003 that you can see over Terminal Server will be C#'s new auto-complete feature.  Along with a feature that automatically adds the necessary overrides to a class that implements an interface, the auto-complete has been upgraded well.

I don't believe it's meant for you to make a program.  I presume it's meant to be a selling point.

[quasi-modo]

I prefer dreamweaver to vs.net myself for day to day use... though it is kind of a bane not being able to compile my code into a dll with dreamweaver.

[GoSuGaMING]

I prefer dreamweaver to vs.net myself for day to day use... though it is kind of a bane not being able to compile my code into a dll with dreamweaver.

VS.Net seems like it just does alot of the work for you...

uh... dreamweaver is for websites....

[MyndFyre]

I prefer dreamweaver to vs.net myself for day to day use... though it is kind of a bane not being able to compile my code into a dll with dreamweaver.

VS.Net seems like it just does alot of the work for you...

uh... dreamweaver is for websites....

Uh, dreamweaver MX and MX 2004 both allow you to utilize the .NET platform for ASP.NET-driven websites.  What peofeoknight is trying to say is that while Visual Studio .NET allows you to compile all of your server-side code into .NET assemblies before deploying them to the server, Dreamweaver requires you to compile the code the first time the page is hit from a client.

[quasi-modo]

dreamweaver seems to be friendlier on the design end but is no slouch when you start the scripting, though vs.net seems to be way more geared to the scripting.