.Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0 - Framework and Interface Programming

This is a discussion on .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0 - Framework and Interface Programming ; On Mar 29, 6:21 pm, "Susie DBA [MSFT]" <susie...@hotmail.com> wrote: > hey I thought that 3.0 was installed on Vista machines! > > Is there somewhere IN WRITING that says that M$ _GUARANTEES_ 2.0 stuff > to work for 3.0 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 79

.Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

  1. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

    On Mar 29, 6:21 pm, "Susie DBA [MSFT]" <susie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > hey I thought that 3.0 was installed on Vista machines!
    >
    > Is there somewhere IN WRITING that says that M$ _GUARANTEES_ 2.0 stuff
    > to work for 3.0 and vice versa?
    >


    ..Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
    WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
    same.



  2. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

    On Mar 30, 1:02 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote:
    > Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care
    > about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though.


    Then its time to find another job. If they don't care about
    developers view points, then they are going to have a lot of
    problems. The first one being that their product may take longer to
    get to market because you're developers don't as sophisticated tools
    as your competitors do.


  3. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

    On Mar 30, 8:58 am, "Jim Rand" <jimr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
    > One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you are
    > creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible resource hog
    > when it comes to designing forms. In my case, I can't have the design
    > window open and work in the code behind window if it is a complex form as
    > this causes 1 to 3 second lag times between key strokes.


    How old is your machine? The designer can be slow, but once I switch
    to the code view things are fine... and I don't have the newest
    machine out there.

    > When working in
    > the form designer, the refractoring is a real pain in the butt when it comes
    > to renaming a control from "textbox1" to something meaningful like
    > "customerName". Sometimes this takes 1 to 2 seconds. Also, moving controls
    > around on the form may take 3 to 5 seconds.


    So, how long would it be for you to rename the same control in two
    different files? Probably longer than 1 or 2 seconds. This is
    especially true if you're working in a code library and change the
    name of a public or internal member.. its not instant, but its quicker
    and more reliable than doing it myself. I don't have as many problems
    moving controls around on a form... unless I have nested table layout
    controls, but you're not supposed to nest them anyway..

    > This perfomance problem never occurred with VS 2003 when running with 512
    > meg of memory (since upgraded to 1 gig of memory for VS 2005).


    I have 1GB RAM as well, and a crummy builtin video card.


  4. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

    On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <dunaw...> wrote:
    > .Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
    > WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
    > same.



    Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
    to be a known troll.


  5. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

    On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:58:54 -0700, Jim Rand <jimrand@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    > One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you
    > are creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible
    > resource hog when it comes to designing forms. In my case, I can't
    > have the design window open and work in the code behind window if it
    > is a complex form as this causes 1 to 3 second lag times between key
    > strokes.


    It sounds to me as though you have something wrong with your computer.
    Or, you haven't upgraded your hardware in a decade (and performance issues
    should then be no surprise).

    When VS2005 first came out, I was using it on a laptop with a PIII 550Mhz
    CPU, and 512MB of RAM.

    Was it sluggish? Sure. But it was still very usable, even with large
    numbers of source files and/or forms open.

    I can't imagine anyone with anything approximating a modern PC having any
    real performance trouble. If you have hardware that ought to run VS2005
    in a usable way and it doesn't, it seems likely you have some sort of
    configuration problem. And my experience has been that VS2005 is usable
    on fairly low-end, aged hardware (my laptop was from mid-2001).

    Pete

  6. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

    On Mar 30, 10:06 am, "Andy" <a...@med-associates.com> wrote:
    > On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <dunaw...> wrote:
    >
    > > .Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
    > > WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
    > > same.

    >
    > Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
    > to be a known troll.


    Yes, I am aware of that, but I optimistically tend to give people the
    benefit of the doubt. In this case, I didn't want Susie's post to
    confuse anyone else.

    Chris


  7. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0


    "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message
    news:1175260343.534679.203640@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
    > On Mar 30, 1:58 pm, "Jim Rand" <jimr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
    >> "but if management can't see that working more efficiently impacts the
    >> bottom line"
    >>
    >> One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you
    >> are
    >> creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible resource
    >> hog
    >> when it comes to designing forms.

    >
    > Out of interest, is this still true with VS2005 SP1 applied? I can't
    > say I've noticed problems with VS2005 myself, but I don't use the
    > forms designer much...
    >
    > Jon
    >


    What improved it greatly for me was making the size of my swap file more
    appropriate, and not letting Windows handle it. I saw another post (I think
    it was one of yours) saying to eliminate your swap file (set size = 0), but
    when I did that, Photoshop Elements wouldn't run (sigh). So I looked up how
    to set it, did that, and VS has worked much better since then.

    I think SP-1 helped, too. It fixed so many bugs, I wouldn't run VS2005 w/o
    it.

    Robin S.



  8. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0


    "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message
    news:1175239080.530662.182890@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
    > On Mar 30, 6:02 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote:
    >> > The refactoring tools alone in VS 2005 could be major selling point.

    >>
    >> Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care
    >> about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though.

    >
    > If that's truly the case, you should consider leaving. I know it
    > doesn't solve your current issue, but if management can't see that
    > working more efficiently impacts the bottom line, they're not worth
    > working for.
    >
    > Jon
    >
    >


    That's one viewpoint. I can also understand theirs. Fortunately for me and
    my management, today I set up a new VM with Windows XP. Neither 1.1 nor 2.0
    required reboots to install, so that pretty much wipes out their only
    objection.

    They have also asked me to internationalize their app, and that is a lot
    more robust in 2.0 than in 1.1, and that will help as well.

    Thanks,
    Robin S.



  9. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0


    "Chris Dunaway" <dunawayc> wrote in message
    news:1175280333.453875.211660@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    > On Mar 30, 10:06 am, "Andy" <a...@med-associates.com> wrote:
    >> On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <dunaw...> wrote:
    >>
    >> > .Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
    >> > WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
    >> > same.

    >>
    >> Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
    >> to be a known troll.

    >
    > Yes, I am aware of that, but I optimistically tend to give people the
    > benefit of the doubt. In this case, I didn't want Susie's post to
    > confuse anyone else.
    >
    > Chris
    >


    That's a good reason to respond to the troll. About the only reason I can
    think of, too.

    Robin S.



  10. Default Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

    Hi Robin,

    I'm just going to live with it for now.

    At a recent MSDN roadshow I asked one of the presenters if VS 2005 runs
    faster on Vista as his system didn't seem to suffer the same performance
    issues. He smiled and said that one of the benefits of working for
    Microsoft is he gets really fast computers - in this case a dual-core
    processor coupled with 4 gigs of memory.

    The only major issues that I have with VS 2005 are:

    1) The form designer performance. The rest of the time while working in
    the code, performance is ok.
    2) The dataset designer and the SQL code it generates. That was so bad
    that I rolled my own in MS Access which allows me to do in minutes what is
    impossible with the xsd designer.

    Next year should be great - a new machine, Windows Vista, and VS 2008 with
    the kinks worked out.

    Jim



+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. equal? versus eql? versus == versus === verus <=>
    By Application Development in forum RUBY
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-28-2007, 01:06 AM
  2. VB versus VBA
    By Application Development in forum ADO DAO RDO RDS
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2007, 03:19 PM
  3. Versus Series II: Sequels versus original games
    By Application Development in forum Java-Games
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-09-2005, 08:08 AM