|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
.Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to migrate it to .Net 2.0. Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to acceptance". If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And maybe some kind of number of computers? Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay with 1.1. Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? Anyone know where it is? I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. Thanks, Robin S. The plug in you are looking for is perhaps :
http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?ProjectName=MSBee I don't have any stat to offer but it's likely a site that shows browser statistics could (.NET versions installed on the client computer are part of the user agent string). -- Patrice "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> a écrit dans le message de news: Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mn***@comcast.com...Show quote > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". > > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. > > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And > maybe some kind of number of computers? > > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay > with 1.1. > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? > > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? > Anyone know where it is? > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. > > Thanks, > Robin S. > Thanks for that. I'll check it out.
Robin S. ------------------------ Show quote "Patrice" <http://www.chez.com/scribe/> wrote in message news:ec$bu1VcHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > The plug in you are looking for is perhaps : > http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?ProjectName=MSBee > > I don't have any stat to offer but it's likely a site that shows browser > statistics could (.NET versions installed on the client computer are part > of the user agent string). > > -- > Patrice > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> a écrit dans le message de news: > Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mn***@comcast.com... >> >> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the >> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to >> migrate it to .Net 2.0. >> >> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework >> before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to >> acceptance". >> >> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, >> unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. >> >> Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the >> number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And >> maybe some kind of number of computers? >> >> Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one >> thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay >> with 1.1. >> >> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to >> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? >> >> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with >> VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? >> Anyone know where it is? >> >> I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin S. >> > > I don't understand why this is a concern? Why not package the framework
along with your application? I mean, if your app is going to have an install package, why not just make it install .NET 2.0? I don't believe the install of .NET requires a reboot. Even if it did, it's not the worst thing in the world, is it? -- Show quote- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". > > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. > > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And > maybe some kind of number of computers? > > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay > with 1.1. > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? > > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? > Anyone know where it is? > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. > > Thanks, > Robin S. > Not to me, it's not. See my general response to my original post.
Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway. Robin S. --------------------- Show quote "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com> wrote in message news:uwVos5VcHHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I don't understand why this is a concern? Why not package the > framework along with your application? I mean, if your app is going to > have an install package, why not just make it install .NET 2.0? > > I don't believe the install of .NET requires a reboot. Even if it > did, it's not the worst thing in the world, is it? > > -- > - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] > - mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the >> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to >> migrate it to .Net 2.0. >> >> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework >> before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to >> acceptance". >> >> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, >> unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. >> >> Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the >> number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And >> maybe some kind of number of computers? >> >> Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one >> thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay >> with 1.1. >> >> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to >> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? >> >> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with >> VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? >> Anyone know where it is? >> >> I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin S. >> > > I believe that the machine will only need to be rebooted if it's doing
something with IIS. For what it's worth, I have only had to reboot one server when installing .Net 2 when I needed to put SQL Server 2005 Express on it. RobinS wrote: Show quote > Not to me, it's not. See my general response to my original post. > > Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can > install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway. > > Robin S. Hi,
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> writes: We are distributing a software package that downloads the .NET 2.0> Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can > install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway. runtime if required (after a user prompt). The download & install works without problems on our testing farm (most of them virtual machines), no reboot is required. We are using NSIS, not MSI, but I do not know if that would make any difference. Best regards, Martin "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:fvmdnWCgZt94SpfbnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com... I've installed .Net 2.0, along with our applications, on about 25 PC's. About 2/3 were XP and the rest Windows 2000. I have never> Not to me, it's not. See my general response to my original post. > > Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can > install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway. > > Robin S. > --------------------- > had to reboot a single machine after the .Net 2.0 install. -- Al Reid Hi,
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message Yes, we developers always want that :) , the very same happen in my current news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. company. > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework You will have to do the same with either framework. What if the target > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". computer has win2K? Besides IIRC XP SP2 shipped with .NET 1.0, not 1.1 ( I may be wrong with this though). Additionally 2.0 has been pushed using MS Update for a while now. > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, What is wrong with a old good reboot? :)> unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. Besides installing either framework does not requires a reboot.
Show quote
"Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP )" <machin TA laceupsolutions.com> wrote in Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install. message news:%23atT$KWcHHA.2416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hi, > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the >> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to >> migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Yes, we developers always want that :) , the very same happen in my > current company. > >> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework >> before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to >> acceptance". > > You will have to do the same with either framework. What if the target > computer has win2K? > Besides IIRC XP SP2 shipped with .NET 1.0, not 1.1 ( I may be wrong with > this though). Additionally 2.0 has been pushed using MS Update for a > while now. > However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require, the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is widespread, it's better to do 1.1 Are you *SURE* about .Net 2.0 being pushed by Windows Update? If that was true, then I could probably use that as a selling point. > Thanks,>> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, >> unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. > > What is wrong with a old good reboot? :) > > Besides installing either framework does not requires a reboot. > Robin S. RobinS wrote:
> Are you *SURE* about .Net 2.0 being pushed by Windows Update? If that was Of course it's not pushed as a "critical" patch,> true, then I could probably use that as a selling point. but if they click the 'Microsoft Update' or Windows update (whatever) and then click the 'Custom' button instead of the 'Express' button, then they will see the .NET Framework under "Software, Optional" link. Selecting that will install it. So, it is part of the auto update, but it's optional. On Mar 28, 5:04 pm, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote: I haven't had to reboot after installing the framework. Not even to> Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install. > However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require, > the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is > widespread, it's better to do 1.1 install my own software. I can understand download size being discouraging, but rebooting? I'm sorry, but that part of the argument is just plain stupid. Its was pretty standard to have to reboot after installing ANYTHING in windows for a while, so much that its a running joke in Linux crowds. > Are you *SURE* about .Net 2.0 being pushed by Windows Update? If that was Yes, although I think its an optional component, so your use may have> true, then I could probably use that as a selling point. to go to the windowsupdate site on their own. Actually, .Net 3 is now available on WU as well. Andy Hi,
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message I have been isntalling the framework for a while now, and I dont remember news:9eGdnQYCa8LNRZfbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > > Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install. > However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require, > the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is > widespread, it's better to do 1.1 ever having to reboot to install the framework
Show quote
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message I have never in my life run an installation package and decided to uninstall news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". > > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. > > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And > maybe some kind of number of computers? > > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay > with 1.1. > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? > > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? > Anyone know where it is? > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. it because it required a reboot. Download size is understandable - but you have an install program anyway. Unless you are writing a virus, I don't think you should need to worry about it ;) -- Show quoteLTP :) To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not
discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers on my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO of the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks? So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement isn't getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-( Robin S. ------------------------------------ Show quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". > > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. > > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And > maybe some kind of number of computers? > > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay > with 1.1. > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? > > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? > Anyone know where it is? > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. > > Thanks, > Robin S. > Robin,
How do you know any of your customers have 1.1 installed? That is not a given, except for Server 2003. While 1.1 is in SP2 of XP, it was NOT automatically installed. If you don't want to install anything else ever, don't use .NET (or java for that matter). Bob Show quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:6uednecyLfUASpfbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... > To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not > discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers on > my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO of > the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks? > > So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement > isn't getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-( > > Robin S. > ------------------------------------ > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the >> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to >> migrate it to .Net 2.0. >> >> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework >> before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to >> acceptance". >> >> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, >> unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. >> >> Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the >> number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And >> maybe some kind of number of computers? >> >> Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one >> thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay >> with 1.1. >> >> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to >> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? >> >> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with >> VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? >> Anyone know where it is? >> >> I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin S. >> > > I don't know they have 1.1 installed. This is a product for the general
public. The question is if anybody knows how many of the general public have any version of the .Net framework installed, and if they know the distribution. Robin S. -------------------------- Show quote "Bob Milton" <DocBob1945@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:uxjkU0XcHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Robin, > How do you know any of your customers have 1.1 installed? That is not > a given, except for Server 2003. While 1.1 is in SP2 of XP, it was NOT > automatically installed. If you don't want to install anything else ever, > don't use .NET (or java for that matter). > Bob > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:6uednecyLfUASpfbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com... >> To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not >> discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers >> on my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO >> of the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks? >> >> So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement >> isn't getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-( >> >> Robin S. >> ------------------------------------ >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >>> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the >>> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to >>> migrate it to .Net 2.0. >>> >>> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net >>> framework before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers >>> to acceptance". >>> >>> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is >>> moot, unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. >>> >>> Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the >>> number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And >>> maybe some kind of number of computers? >>> >>> Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one >>> thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to >>> stay with 1.1. >>> >>> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to >>> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? >>> >>> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with >>> VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? >>> Anyone know where it is? >>> >>> I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin S. >>> >> >> > > RobinS wrote:
> I don't know they have 1.1 installed. This is a product for the general This is not going to be an answerable question, Robin. It was a lot like > public. The question is if anybody knows how many of the general public > have any version of the .Net framework installed, and if they know the > distribution. > > Robin S. the original VB runtimes. Most users really didn't know if they had it or not. It's the same with .Net. Most users don't really know if they have it or not... This is especially true for the general public. If you had an IT department at your client's site, then they would probably know... "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message Where was this "concern" when the project was started? Were they too busy news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". playing golf? > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, This can be dependent on what other updates the user has on their computer. > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. My experience is that no reboot is ever required for both. > Based on managements concern, sticking with 1.1 would seem to be the best > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And > maybe some kind of number of computers? > > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay > with 1.1. > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? "marketing" decision however we are programmers here so we are probably biased towards 2.0. E.g. once you use generics, there is no going back (i know it doesn't rhyme!!!). > google MSBee> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? > Anyone know where it is? > My advice is to include the 2.0 framework in the installation package, keep > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. the code at 1.1 and only install the 2.0 framework if 1.1 is not installed. Then later if you migrate to 2.0 a lot of your existing customers will be ready to go. PS RobinS wrote:
> Vista ships with .NET 2.0, so over time more users will already have > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? ..NET 2.0. FYI, our product is in the same position, developed with 1.1 and VS2003. We support either 1.1 or 2.0 and install 2.0 if neither version is installed. No reboot required. Cheers, On Mar 28, 6:14 pm, Peter Bromley <n***@nowhere.com> wrote:
> RobinS wrote: Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually..> > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? > > Vista ships with .NET 2.0, so over time more users will already have > .NET 2.0. > > FYI, our product is in the same position, developed with 1.1 and VS2003. > We support either 1.1 or 2.0 and install 2.0 if neither version is > installed. No reboot required. > > Cheers,
Show quote
"Andy" <an***@med-associates.com> wrote in message ..Net 3.0 is .Net 2.0 plus some extra stuff. So the fact that MS has sold 20 news:1175171058.109456.233830@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 28, 6:14 pm, Peter Bromley <n***@nowhere.com> wrote: >> RobinS wrote: >> >> > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to >> > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? >> >> Vista ships with .NET 2.0, so over time more users will already have >> .NET 2.0. >> >> FYI, our product is in the same position, developed with 1.1 and VS2003. >> We support either 1.1 or 2.0 and install 2.0 if neither version is >> installed. No reboot required. >> >> Cheers, > > Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually.. > million consumer copies of Vista may help me. Robin On Mar 29, 11:25 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote: Yes, but my point was you could move right to .Net 3 and use WPF, you> .Net 3.0 is .Net 2.0 plus some extra stuff. So the fact that MS has sold 20 > million consumer copies of Vista may help me. already are starting to get spread as Vista sells. Try to sell the developers standpoint; .Net 2 DOES make things much easier to do than in .Net 1.1. I haven't looked at .Net 1.x since I started on 2.0. The refactoring tools alone in VS 2005 could be major selling point.
Show quote
"Andy" <an***@med-associates.com> wrote in message Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care news:1175186800.784433.130280@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 29, 11:25 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote: >> .Net 3.0 is .Net 2.0 plus some extra stuff. So the fact that MS has sold >> 20 >> million consumer copies of Vista may help me. > > Yes, but my point was you could move right to .Net 3 and use WPF, you > already are starting to get spread as Vista sells. > > Try to sell the developers standpoint; .Net 2 DOES make things much > easier to do than in .Net 1.1. I haven't looked at .Net 1.x since I > started on 2.0. > > The refactoring tools alone in VS 2005 could be major selling point. > about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though. Robin S. On Mar 30, 6:02 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote: If that's truly the case, you should consider leaving. I know it> > 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. 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 "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. 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. 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. 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). Question? Would I go back to .Net 1.1 with VS 2003. Answer. No. Partial classes and binding sources are two things I would not give up as they really do impact developer productivity. As a side note, my maxed-out 4 year old Toshiba Satellite is slated for replacement in 2008 once Vista settles down and VS 2008 is available. With a water-cooled tripple-quad core Intel processor with 16 gazillion gigs of memory, performance should not be an issue. I'd buy a brand new machine today but management (me) said no, you (me) have to wait it out during this transition period. On Mar 30, 1:58 pm, "Jim Rand" <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Out of interest, is this still true with VS2005 SP1 applied? I can't> "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. say I've noticed problems with VS2005 myself, but I don't use the forms designer much... Jon I don't know for sure. According to various sources, SP1 does not address
the performance issue. After reading about some of the problems with SP1, I've elected not to attempt to install SP1 given the fact that VS 2008 is right around the corner. Jim Show quote "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@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 >
Show quote
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message What improved it greatly for me was making the size of my swap file more 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 > 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. 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
Show quote
"Jim Rand" <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message I think upgrading to SP1 helped this problem.news:umdbtA5cHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > 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 I mucked around and wrote something that would generate the strongly typed > that I rolled my own in MS Access which allows me to do in minutes what > is impossible with the xsd designer. dataset w/o the table adapters, but haven't actually had time to implement it yet. > Next year should be great - a new machine, Windows Vista, and VS 2008 LOL. You're such an optimist. :-D> with the kinks worked out. > > Jim > > VS 2008 with the kinks worked out. Robin S. Robin,
This year my company deployed a .Net 1.1 app in asp.net. I've installed the application on over 30 computers and have not had to restart the computer once for the .Net stuff. The only thing that caused me to have to reboot the machine is if the user had not updated their MDAC components. Bruce Show quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:ML-dnXei5_OuopLbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Jim Rand" <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:umdbtA5cHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> 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. > > I think upgrading to SP1 helped this problem. > >> 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. > > I mucked around and wrote something that would generate the strongly typed > dataset w/o the table adapters, but haven't actually had time to implement > it yet. > >> Next year should be great - a new machine, Windows Vista, and VS 2008 >> with the kinks worked out. >> >> Jim >> > > > >> VS 2008 with the kinks worked out. > > LOL. You're such an optimist. :-D > > Robin S. > Thanks, but I was looking for information that would support .Net 2.0, not
1.1. :-( As it turns out, you don't have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0, either. Oh, and by the way, .Net 1.1 is not included in Windows Vista. Thanks anyway. Robin S. ------------------------------------------ Show quote "Bruce W. Darby" <kraco***@atcomcast.net> wrote in message news:OsudnTpvPOAFdL_bnZ2dnUVZ_oernZ2d@comcast.com... > Robin, > > This year my company deployed a .Net 1.1 app in asp.net. I've installed > the application on over 30 computers and have not had to restart the > computer once for the .Net stuff. The only thing that caused me to have > to reboot the machine is if the user had not updated their MDAC > components. > > Bruce > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:ML-dnXei5_OuopLbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Jim Rand" <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >> news:umdbtA5cHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> 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. >> >> I think upgrading to SP1 helped this problem. >> >>> 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. >> >> I mucked around and wrote something that would generate the strongly >> typed dataset w/o the table adapters, but haven't actually had time to >> implement it yet. >> >>> Next year should be great - a new machine, Windows Vista, and VS 2008 >>> with the kinks worked out. >>> >>> Jim >>> >> >> >> >>> VS 2008 with the kinks worked out. >> >> LOL. You're such an optimist. :-D >> >> Robin S. >> > > I know, but for the most part, I was just hoping what little information I
could provide you would be in the smallest way useful. :) Hope you were able to convince them. Bruce Show quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:HLmdnbP5Yqfhmb7bnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com... > Thanks, but I was looking for information that would support .Net 2.0, not > 1.1. :-( > > As it turns out, you don't have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0, > either. > > Oh, and by the way, .Net 1.1 is not included in Windows Vista. > > Thanks anyway. > Robin S. > ------------------------------------------ > "Bruce W. Darby" <kraco***@atcomcast.net> wrote in message > news:OsudnTpvPOAFdL_bnZ2dnUVZ_oernZ2d@comcast.com... >> Robin, >> >> This year my company deployed a .Net 1.1 app in asp.net. I've installed >> the application on over 30 computers and have not had to restart the >> computer once for the .Net stuff. The only thing that caused me to have >> to reboot the machine is if the user had not updated their MDAC >> components. >> >> Bruce >> >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> news:ML-dnXei5_OuopLbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >>> "Jim Rand" <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >>> news:umdbtA5cHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> 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. >>> >>> I think upgrading to SP1 helped this problem. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I mucked around and wrote something that would generate the strongly >>> typed dataset w/o the table adapters, but haven't actually had time to >>> implement it yet. >>> >>>> Next year should be great - a new machine, Windows Vista, and VS 2008 >>>> with the kinks worked out. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> VS 2008 with the kinks worked out. >>> >>> LOL. You're such an optimist. :-D >>> >>> Robin S. >>> >> >> > > The jury is still out, but I'm hopeful. Here are the reasons, in case
anyone else wants to see them. I got some of the numbers from the web, and some from a friend who works at MSFT. 1) Internationalization has a lot of new and helpful stuff in .Net 2.0. For one thing, the resource manager handles not just strings, but bitmaps, images, audio, etc. For another, the TableLayoutPanel and FlowLayoutPanel can help with the resizing of the form because of the differences in the length of strings. (More controls support the AutoSize property, too). .Net 2.0 supports Arabic and Hebrew, and has properties to help internationalize currency names and handle right-to-left languages. 2) When you deploy the .Net 1.1 framework, if you want the installation script to be in the local language, you must deploy that version of the framework. For .Net 2.0, they are all included in the same version. 3) ClickOnce deployment is only available in .Net 2.0, which they can use to deploy their app and handle incremental updates. 4) More than 90% of the computers sold in 2006 had the .Net 2.0 framework installed. It was included in the Windows XP Media Center edition shipped to millions of consumers in 2005 and 2006. It was also included in the Windows XP Tablet Edition. 5) All versions of Windows Vista have .Net 2.0 installed. According to MSFT, over 20 million copies of Vista were sold in the first two months after its launch. 6) Windows Vista does *not* have .Net 1.1 installed. 7) The .Net 2.0 Framework is included in many of MSFT's own products, like Encarta, the new Expression products, Windows Live OneCare, and of course Visual Studio 2005. 8) The adoption of .Net 2.0 was much higher in its initial phases than .Net 1.1, and is spreading substantially faster than .Net 1.1 did. And some general info about .Net proliferation (not version-specific) for anyone who's interested: * Software built by MSFT partners and MSFT itself is responsible for the ..Net Framework being installed on over 200 million systems worldwide. .Net software runs in 95% of the Global 1000. * For custom-developed apps, 44% of respondents in the US use the .Net development platform. * The vast majority of Windows XP machines in the US have the .Net Framework installed. * More than 65% of Windows XP computers worldwide have the .Net Framework installed. * MSFT estimates that about 500M PCs worldwide have some version of the ..Net Framework installed. So that's what I found out. The most interesting stuff (to me) was the internationalization capabilities. Robin S. ----------------------------- Show quote "Bruce W. Darby" <kraco***@atcomcast.net> wrote in message news:9pudndQW3NVTlb7bnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com... >I know, but for the most part, I was just hoping what little information I >could provide you would be in the smallest way useful. :) Hope you were >able to convince them. > > Bruce > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:HLmdnbP5Yqfhmb7bnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Thanks, but I was looking for information that would support .Net 2.0, >> not 1.1. :-( >> >> As it turns out, you don't have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0, >> either. >> >> Oh, and by the way, .Net 1.1 is not included in Windows Vista. >> >> Thanks anyway. >> Robin S. >> ------------------------------------------ >> "Bruce W. Darby" <kraco***@atcomcast.net> wrote in message >> news:OsudnTpvPOAFdL_bnZ2dnUVZ_oernZ2d@comcast.com... >>> Robin, >>> >>> This year my company deployed a .Net 1.1 app in asp.net. I've installed >>> the application on over 30 computers and have not had to restart the >>> computer once for the .Net stuff. The only thing that caused me to have >>> to reboot the machine is if the user had not updated their MDAC >>> components. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>> news:ML-dnXei5_OuopLbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com... >>>> >>>> "Jim Rand" <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >>>> news:umdbtA5cHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> I think upgrading to SP1 helped this problem. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> I mucked around and wrote something that would generate the strongly >>>> typed dataset w/o the table adapters, but haven't actually had time to >>>> implement it yet. >>>> >>>>> Next year should be great - a new machine, Windows Vista, and VS 2008 >>>>> with the kinks worked out. >>>>> >>>>> Jim >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> VS 2008 with the kinks worked out. >>>> >>>> LOL. You're such an optimist. :-D >>>> >>>> Robin S. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > On Mar 30, 8:58 am, "Jim Rand" <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote: How old is your machine? The designer can be slow, but once I switch> 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. to the code view things are fine... and I don't have the newest machine out there. > When working in So, how long would it be for you to rename the same control in two> 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. 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 I have 1GB RAM as well, and a crummy builtin video card.> meg of memory (since upgraded to 1 gig of memory for VS 2005). On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:58:54 -0700, Jim Rand <jimr***@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you It sounds to me as though you have something wrong with your computer. > 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. 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
Show quote
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message That's one viewpoint. I can also understand theirs. Fortunately for me and 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 > > 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. On Mar 30, 1:02 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote: Then its time to find another job. If they don't care about> Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care > about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though. 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. Andy wrote:
> Yes, my bad. But, in my defence, the BCL version is 2.0, the added > Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually.. > features are 3.0. :-) Just to let you know, if you deploy to vista machines .NET 2.0 is installed
there by default! which is nice for once to finally have it installed by default Show quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". > > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. > > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And > maybe some kind of number of computers? > > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay > with 1.1. > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? > > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? > Anyone know where it is? > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. > > Thanks, > Robin S. > and there in lies your arguement with the CEO ...
CEO's should be concerned with one thing .. supplying those that do the work with the appropriate tools and work environment. period. I know this may sound ridiculas ... but who came first the software or the CEO ... If you want to produce state-of-the-art technology or best of the bread software (terms CEO's understand) - you cannot restrict your developers to OLDER technologies simply because they have some preconceived idea that if a user has to reboot they won't want your product!!! Get proof that user's hate to reboot after installing your software ... I am sorry, but if your software is that good ... the CEO and User will not care if they have to reboot after install. If your CEO is bent on 'if the user needs to reboot, use a lesser technology' , then you have a very strong case for VB6 ... 'cause you can be certain that they user will not need to reboot... As far as reboot after .net2 framework is installed, this is not the case - I just released a new application to a client with over 50 desktops (all of which needed the .net 2 framework) and they did not have to reboot once... So, before you go down any path, I would strongly recommend that you test the install of the various .net framework's in all situations...so you can say for sure what is happening ... and what will be required by your potential 'general public' customers. I bet if you made a business case as to why you want .net2 framework (added functionality, added productivity, added features ...) you would not be having this discussion with your 'paycheck' signature. Plus, any NEW computer comes / ships with .net 2.0 framework...that should be proof in-itself that you should be using 2.0 framework. Try to draw a line for your CEO showing the planned path of Microsoft and they support and upgrade paths ... show him or her how 1.1 goes and 2.0 goes... I just cannot believe that a CEO is making such a technical decision that ultimately impact the future of the product, based on the fact of a single reboot!!! WOW !!! get off the boat now !!! Jeff. PS: your CEO probably believes that 10 'junior' - dime a dozen - programmers writing 10,000 lines of code each are better than 2 'seasoned' - hard to find, easy to retain if kept interested and viod of decision as mentioned - programmers writing 5,000 lines of code each! More lines code = better product ... or this maybe your managers 'yard stick' for evaluating you and your peers. Good luck. Show quote "Smokey Grindel" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eFt8cCfcHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Just to let you know, if you deploy to vista machines .NET 2.0 is > installed there by default! which is nice for once to finally have it > installed by default > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the >> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to >> migrate it to .Net 2.0. >> >> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework >> before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to >> acceptance". >> >> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, >> unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. >> >> Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the >> number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And >> maybe some kind of number of computers? >> >> Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one >> thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay >> with 1.1. >> >> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to >> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? >> >> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with >> VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? >> Anyone know where it is? >> >> I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin S. >> > >
Show quote
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message Another points to consider is that Vista installs .NET 3.0 automatically, news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to > migrate it to .Net 2.0. > > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to > acceptance". > > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot, > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed. > > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And > maybe some kind of number of computers? > > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay > with 1.1. > > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1? > > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? > Anyone know where it is? > > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here. > > Thanks, > Robin S. and 3.0 is 2.0 with some additional Vista stuff. 100% of Vista machines will run your app if you go 2.0.  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics