|
I heard a rumor on another message board that Internet Explorer 7 will require and redistribute the .NET framework. Any of you guys know if there's any truth to that?
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
When's IE7 coming out? Any details?
(Will it finally have tabbed windows like every other Web browser?)
|
|
|
|
|
I actually got this answered in another forum. To quote the guy who answered,
"I did some more research on this and while it appears to be true, it's misleading.
Yes, IE 7.0 will require .Net.
However, supposedly IE will no longer be released independently of operating system releases, or at least not in advance of them. So, we'll see IE 7.0 in Longhorn, but who cares? DotNet is part of Longhorn as is.
What I couldn't find a straight answer to was whether or not IE 7.0 will also be available for 98/2000/XP at the time Longhorn launches, or if users would have to upgrade to Longhorn to get it. The general consensus seems to be that MS will NOT release it as an individual release, and people will have to keep upgrading their OS to get better browsers, or use a different non-MS browser.
Thus, the spoils of winning the browser war.  "
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's too bad, but I guess it explains why MS is in no hurry to release new versions of IE with feature enhancements, etc.
Too bad Mozilla is a way better browser than IE.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny - 98 will be out of support by then anyway (it should be already, but Microsoft extended it recently) - so no IE updates would be done for that anyway.
As for 2000/XP, if the next major revision of IE is built around the Longhorn technologies, IE would be implemented using Avalon and XAML and so forth - technology that wouldn't be ported to 2000/XP.
The current Longhorn preview actually has an IE version 6.05, and given the long lead time before it's due, there'll probably be an IE 6.5 or something in the interim (maybe late 04 or early 05), if only to tart up the current version and to prevent too much user haemoragging to Opera and Mozilla.
Ian Darling
"The different versions of the UN*X brand operating system are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 7, 2, 2.9, 3, 4.0, III, 4.1, V, 4.2, V.2, and 4.3" - Alan Filipski
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there will be a new version of IE released with Windows XP Service Pack 2. From what I hear, SP2 will be released sometime this year (I believe you can get SP2 in beta form right now, so a release this year is a safe assumption). So I'm assuming, then, that this new version of IE included in the service pack will be an interim version of IE, not IE7.
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
But it also then provides a chance for the other browsers to make a comeback at least until the time that everyone has Longhorn on their desktops. And by then who knows if MS will still own the desktop.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
And by then who knows if MS will still own the desktop.
Given the fact that the Linux camp is still having trouble deciding[^] on a standard windowing system, not to mention the fact that many tasks in most Linux distros can only be done via command line, or the fact that most Linux development is still based around the idea of "making it like Windows", I think it will be a long time before Linux is in widespread use on the desktop.
On the other hand, I do hope Mozilla catches on. IE needs a swift kick in the ass, that thing is still stuck in '90s, I never use it unless forced to. 
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
What compelling features does Mozilla have that IE doesn't? I've not used Mozilla but my impressions of browsers in the past have been.
1. IE was crap and virtually unusable from versions 1 to 3. Netscape was way better.
2. IE 4 was a bit better than Netscape 4.x.
3. IE 5.x was significantly better than Netscape 4.x. (I've not used Netscape since then.)
4. Opera 5+ had many compelling features that weren't in Netscape 4.x and not even in the latest versions of IE. Though IE was still better overall simply because you could view a wider range of sites with it. (I've not used Opera 7 though.)
5. I gather that Netscape 7 and Mozilla have at least some of those compelling features that Opera 5+ had.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
What compelling features does Mozilla have that IE doesn't? I've not used Mozilla but my impressions of browsers in the past have been.
Some compelling features off the top of my head:
-Built-in popup blocking
-Tabbed browsing (hooray for tabbed browsing! This is the biggest advantage over IE, IMO)
-An easier-to-manage download interface, especially true with the new FireFox version
-Built-in download pause/resume
Just to name a few. The new Firefox is really impressive so far as I've seen. The 2 downsides to Mozilla is that it launches slower than IE, and renders some pages differently than IE (codeproject renders slightly different for instance). On my speed demon machine at home it doesn't really matter, but I'm sure it'd matter for some people.
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
Judah H. wrote:
Some compelling features off the top of my head:
-Built-in popup blocking
-Tabbed browsing (hooray for tabbed browsing! This is the biggest advantage over IE, IMO)
-An easier-to-manage download interface, especially true with the new FireFox version
-Built-in download pause/resume
Yep. Those are pretty much the same features that Opera has had for some time. And I agree those are compelling. That's why I've had Opera on my PC for a while.
Judah H. wrote:
The 2 downsides to Mozilla is that it launches slower than IE, and renders some pages differently than IE (codeproject renders slightly different for instance).
Similar problems with Opera up to version 6 at least. That's why I still use IE as my primary browser and switch to Opera when I want to make use of the kind of features you mention. Full screen in Opera is implemented quite well. And Zoom is handy too.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Judah H. wrote:
I think it will be a long time before Linux is in widespread use on the desktop.
So do I. In general, open source products have largely been useful to developers, not end users. MS, for all its faults, typically scores far higher in ease of use and usability, things which techies often neglect.
It occurs to me that some time ago Unix/Linux should have tried to do effectively a MacOS X.
As an aside, I also think that development on Unix/Linux sucks. That's my experience of a few years ago at least when I had to do some Unix development. I thought perhaps things would have moved on a bit, but it's not clear that they have.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I want to create a small simple app that will help our users with there day to day jobs. In delphi this exe app would be around say 200k to download and install. Now if I create this in C# does anyone know how large this app could be. I've heard that you need to install the .NET framwork to run these apps and this is 20MB!! Is this correct or do you just need a cut down version? Or does XP / 2000 SPx include this framework?
Any info would be helpful - thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Creating a small application in C# usually results in a small EXE. However, you do have to distribute the .NET Framework Redistributable on machines on which you intend to deploy rich-client or console EXE applications, just as you must deploy the JRE for Java, VB Runtime Libraries for VB6, DLL's and MSVCR** for C++ applications, and, I imagine, runtime libraries for Delphi, as well. Windows XP and Windows 2000 SP* may include the redistributable, and it is definitely available through Windows Update. Plus, assuming the redistributable is already there, some applications may be deployed by "COPY *.*" rather than creating an installer.
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to call a delegate from a wellknown object, that has had a method added via the remoting client and recieved the following error:
System.Runtime.Remoting.RemotingException: This remoting proxy has no channel sink which means either the server has no registered server channels that are listening, or this application has no suitable client channel to talk to the server.
I only get this error if try to use a delegate for client callback from the wellknown object. If I strip out the delegate and event call from the wellknown object and remove the event handler from the client side... 1 way communication from client(s) to server works fine.
NOTE: I have also added a binary formatter with typeFilterLevel="Full" to the channel configuration, and made the client object serializable.
So my question is... How do I make the server object notify its clients that one of them has sent a message to the server, and what the contents of the message is? (message is a simple string at this point)
Could someone point me in the right direction please...
A word or two as to how i might accomplish this task...
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Thanks...
I have since decided i was barking up the wrong tree  , trying to use remoting for this task. It was really easy to do what i wanted with the System.Net stuff...
I could not believe how easy it was... Ofcourse had it not been for code project it would have taken me a lot longer to figure this out...
[Great article]
http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/socketsincs.asp?target=AsyncCallback
When all else fails... Read the instructions...
|
|
|
|
|
Please can any body explain me that what is .net Framework & CLR..?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm developing an Explorer bar using VS.NET 2003 (C#) on Windows XP. For
some time, I've noticed that I don't have filenames and line numbers
appearing in my exceptions' stack traces. On the other hand, debugging with
breakpoints, etc. seems to work fine in VS.NET 2003. I can't understand why
this isn't working -- and I think it used to work, perhaps under VS.NET
2002, but maybe not. The information doesn't appear in exceptions when
running under VS.NET or when not.
I am running my Explorer bar (which is a class library, not an application)
on the same machine (and user account) which built the library. The PDB
file is accessible to me, and its location does match the location in the
assembly. I am making Debug builds, and I do have "Generate debugging
information" enabled. As far as I can tell, the PDB and DLL files are
equally fresh and the same version?
Any tips? Is this a known bug? It's driving me batty trying to locate an
exception in code blocks without any help from line numbers.
Thanks!
Arun
|
|
|
|
|
I had a problem like this when i downloaded and installed Borland's C# builder to check it out. It's installer reconfigured all of the debugging ide stuff to point at the borland stuff. It does ask though before doing this and warn you that debugging will not work in Visual Studio anymore. I would imagine that Borland Delphi 7 does the same thing.
May or may not be your problem. If not 1 down x to go...
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I figured it out. I had been using the GAC, and the DLL was expecting the PDB to be in the GAC, too. I copied the PDB to the same directory in the GAC, and that worked. Later, I decided to not use the GAC for development work.
Thanks for responding!
|
|
|
|
|
How would I go about retreiving the current time and date on the user's computer using .NET?  Thanks.
Happy Programming!
WWW::CodeProject::BNEACETP
|
|
|
|
|
DateTime.Now
--Colin Mackay--
EuroCPian Spring 2004 Get Together[^]
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
Happy Programming!
WWW::CodeProject::BNEACETP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
