|
Eddie Velasquez wrote:
As any company in the world... after a while, old products are left to die.
The Windows 9X DDK was retired on September 2002. Silently. Now the Windows DDK is under...guess what... the XP umbrella. What do you think of this ?
Eddie Velasquez wrote:
I'm not a Web developer
That's the problem with discussions (also the beauty btw). Everyone has his own perception of technologies. For web developers, whether we are talking HTML, PHP or ASP.NET, that one is critical.
Eddie Velasquez wrote:
If VS97 was good enough why go with VS6?
Gotcha mate! The Windows media SDK was provided with VS6.0 compiled libraries. Now imagine you have to write an application relying on the SDK, BUT your company is using (that was in 98, it's over now) VisualStudio 97. What do you do? Cut the project down? Or send the dollars to Microsoft first by upgrading to VS6.0 (mandatory as I thought my former post was obviously implying) ?
Eddie Velasquez wrote:
It has fed a bunch of mouths in MY family for a long time.
Glad to know. I am not sure it's really representative of the situation though.
Eddie Velasquez wrote:
I haven't heard from my clients in a while
I am not sure it's good news. Aren't software companies making money on disributing bugged software? 
Taking advantage of InternetExplorer to steal user's name and password.
Taking advantage of InternetExplorer to steal user's clipboard.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote:
The anti-IE campaign is meant to promote a better IE.
It already exists. It's called AvantBrowser[^]. Simply awesome. Mozilla type wrapper around a pure IE core. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is said that 95% of the browsing public uses IE. Regardless, I know that nearly 100% of my visitors use IE. Why move away? If you want to move away then what was this all about?
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote:
The anti-IE campaign is meant to promote a better IE.
AvantBrowser is great because it extends IE with features that are missing at the same time providing the real world compatability that is beneficial to us all. If you want to change 95% of the browsing public, I say good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Welch wrote:
Why move away?
- IE is the tool allowing MS to prevent competition from happening (installed by default with the OS)
- IE is really insecure. Partially due to the fact the Jscript is COM-enabled and allows all sorts of untrusted code to be executed without being seen.
- IE has a broken rendering engine
- IE does not implement standards. IE implements his own standards, while web sites and web apps can be sold to customers only if they support say Netscape (occured with Cisco for example, who is as you can easily guess aware of security flaws).
- IE is lagging behind in terms of features (renderer)
Tom Welch wrote:
AvantBrowser is great because it extends IE with features
We are not talking the rendering engine.
Tom Welch wrote:
If you want to change 95% of the browsing public, I say good luck.
That's not really the point Tom. It's more to force MS to improve IE.
Taking advantage of InternetExplorer to steal user's name and password.
Taking advantage of InternetExplorer to steal user's clipboard.
|
|
|
|
|
Until .Net becomes universal, installation programs should check the target host to see if it is already installed. If not, they should inform the user that the program will not run without it, and offer to install it from the installation CD. If the customer declines, the installation should exit cleanly without changing the user's machine.
"The Lion shall lie down with the Lamb;
but the Lamb will not get much sleep..."
Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
Well said! I hate nothing more than CDs/installers that go right up and install something without your acknowledging what you're installing.
Of course, for the apps I write, that means it would be difficult if not impossible to ever use .NET, since my team writes installers and CD front ends/browsers. 
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that our company does most of our software installation jobs ourselves, we just bung dotnetfx.exe on the CD we take to the customers site.
--
Ian Darling
|
|
|
|
|
what *version* of the .NET redistributble you need... 
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! You can not install both versions and I have heard that the new version breaks applications created with the first version...
John
|
|
|
|
|
Sure you can install both 1.0 and 1.1 at the same time.
Applications run in the framework they were compiled in, and can be forced to run in another if specified in it's manifest.
|
|
|
|
|
Q.
If I already have the .NET Framework 1.0 installed, do I need version 1.1?
A.
You will need version 1.1 to run applications built using the .NET Framework 1.1. Applications built using version 1.0 will run just fine on version 1.1 of the .NET Framework Redistributable. The application vendor should inform you whether or not you need a particular version of the Redistributable to run the application.
For more technical information, see Versioning, Compatibility, and Side-by-Side Execution in the .NET Framework.
Q.
Can I run applications built using the .NET Framework 1.0 on version 1.1?
A.
Generally speaking, yes. Application vendors can build their applications in such a way, however, that they will only run against version 1.0. These situations are rare, but they can occur. If you are unsure, check with the application vendor. For more technical information, see Versioning,
I find the answers to these two questions in the FAQ for the .NET framework redisributable interesting. The first answer says that "Applications built using version 1.0 will run just fine on version 1.1 of the .NET" the second says not exactly...
John
|
|
|
|
|
This happens due to some code breaking changes introduced by version 1.1 of the .NET Framework.
You can teste your application thoroughly to see if it runs stable in a specific version of the CLR, but as a general rule of thumb it is best to run your application on the .NET Framework version in which it was compiled, just to play it safe. To ensure a program just runs on a specific .NET Framework version use an application configuration file
As to Side-by-Side execution, you can have several versions of the .NET Framework installed on a computer. They function independently. So you can have two programs running at the same time, one that uses .NET Framework 1.0 and another that uses .NET Framework 1.1.
|
|
|
|
|
apferreira wrote:
As to Side-by-Side execution, you can have several versions of the .NET Framework installed on a computer. They function independently. So you can have two programs running at the same time, one that uses .NET Framework 1.0 and another that uses .NET Framework 1.1.
Thanks for the info. Somewhere I read a message in a forum that stated that you could not install both at the same time.
John
|
|
|
|
|
... and target market. If most of your customers will have XP, then you can probably get away with not including it at all. Or if you distribute on a CD, you can put it there, no problem.
But if you have a 2 meg web download that you want anyone to run, you're pretty much toast. Including a 20 meg redistributable would be the equivilant of the tail wagging the dog.
Maybe in a few years, everyone will have XP and/or broadband connections... but for now, the majority of users are running something less than XP with a dial-up connection.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Err... WinXP don't have any .NET runtime installed as standard, so there is no difference between XP and all other Windows'...
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but IIRC, XP recognises .NET applications anyway, and indicates you need the framework. Pre XP systems don't do this.
--
Ian Darling
|
|
|
|
|
Really?
Did not know that...
Anyway, I don't see how this helps when talking about the size of the runtime. 
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Molin wrote:
Anyway, I don't see how this helps when talking about the size of the runtime
True enough  Shame you can't break it down into more modular bits - after all, most people won't need the ASP.NET bits for end-user applications. You could get the tools to generate a dotnetfx-dependencies.exe for your application, and it just includes the bits you use. That would probably help considerably.
--
Ian Darling
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Darling wrote:
Shame you can't break it down into more modular bits
I think that just makes distribution even harder because somebody wouldn't know what parts they already have.
Even though ASP.NET by default is only used by IIS, you can use ASP.NET from within your own winforms application by using the hosting API. There also wouldn't be much in savings by excluding ASP.NET from the redist, a meg or two at most.
You might have a case for making a server-only redist though, I can't think of how you would use the WinForms stuff from within ASP.NET (unless you generate your winforms app at runtime, but that seems a bit overboard). But again, you don't save a lot by doing so, so you might as well keep everything all together.
James
"I despise the city and much prefer being where a traffic jam means a line-up at McDonald's"
Me when telling a friend why I wouldn't want to live with him
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess you're right. I suppose I meant "Longhorn" instead of XP.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
Maybe in a few years, everyone will have XP and/or broadband connections... but for now, the majority of users are running something less than XP with a dial-up connection.
Too many people working on the CLR those days. The .NET run-time is to be upgraded at least once a year (2002 : .NET 1.0, .NET 1.0SP2, 2003 : .NET 1.1, 2004 : .NET 2.0, ...). With all sort of breaking changes, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
How do you make your applictions installer have the .NET redistributable also ?
Users.
Can't live with 'em, can't kill em!
|
|
|
|
|
hello adrian,
hehe, still trying to push .NET onto FCL, it will never happen
Crouching Tiger hidden dragon rules
Philip
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
