|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Getting 3.0 Facts StraightIf anybody has a url , that'd be great. My IT Department is asking for the exact lowdown on 3.0, from a machine/OS perspective. 3.0 projects can be developed on a. XP SP2 b. Vista c. ( I guess 2003Server, but how uses that as their personal OS) and deployed on 2003Server (some future version of Vista) Oh man. I know I screwed that up somehow. I found a few blogs, but would like group help with the concrete facts with this one.
Show quote
On May 2, 2:42 pm, "sloan" <s***@ipass.net> wrote: It is already deployed on all versions of Vista, and can be deployed> Ok. > > If anybody has a url , that'd be great. > > My IT Department is asking for the exact lowdown on 3.0, from a machine/OS > perspective. > > 3.0 projects can be > > developed on > a. XP SP2 > b. Vista > c. ( I guess 2003Server, but how uses that as their personal OS) > > and deployed on > 2003Server > (some future version of Vista) > > Oh man. I know I screwed that up somehow. > > I found a few blogs, but would like group help with the concrete facts with > this one. to WinXP SP2. Check out the system requirements: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=10CC340B-F857-4A14-83F5-25634C3BF043&displaylang=en
Show quote
On May 2, 2:42 pm, "sloan" <s***@ipass.net> wrote: OH yes.. your development assumptions are correct.> Ok. > > If anybody has a url , that'd be great. > > My IT Department is asking for the exact lowdown on 3.0, from a machine/OS > perspective. > > 3.0 projects can be > > developed on > a. XP SP2 > b. Vista > c. ( I guess 2003Server, but how uses that as their personal OS) > > and deployed on > 2003Server > (some future version of Vista) > > Oh man. I know I screwed that up somehow. > > I found a few blogs, but would like group help with the concrete facts with > this one. Thanks
Show quote "Andy" <an***@med-associates.com> wrote in message news:1178137778.544257.292810@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 2:42 pm, "sloan" <s***@ipass.net> wrote: > > Ok. > > > > If anybody has a url , that'd be great. > > > > My IT Department is asking for the exact lowdown on 3.0, from a machine/OS > > perspective. > > > > 3.0 projects can be > > > > developed on > > a. XP SP2 > > b. Vista > > c. ( I guess 2003Server, but who uses that as their personal OS) > > > > and deployed on > > 2003Server > > (some future version of Vista) > > > > Oh man. I know I screwed that up somehow. > > > > I found a few blogs, but would like group help with the concrete facts with > > this one. > > OH yes.. your development assumptions are correct. > sloan wrote:
Show quote > Ok. Giving the release the version number 3.0 has caused a lot of confusion. > > If anybody has a url , that'd be great. > > My IT Department is asking for the exact lowdown on 3.0, from a machine/OS > perspective. > > 3.0 projects can be > > developed on > a. XP SP2 > b. Vista > c. ( I guess 2003Server, but how uses that as their personal OS) > > and deployed on > 2003Server > (some future version of Vista) > > > > Oh man. I know I screwed that up somehow. > > I found a few blogs, but would like group help with the concrete facts with > this one. > 2.5 would have been a more fitting version number. ..NET Framework 3.0 is just framework 2.0 with WinFX, there are no changes in the framework itself. The real framework 3.0 will not be available until .NET Framework 3.5. //
> Giving the release the version number 3.0 has caused a lot of confusion. Yeah, I got that part of it.> 2.5 would have been a more fitting version number. // But I can develop and deploy 2.0 code on win2000. I'll use your hint "with WinFX" to find some more info as well. Thanks for the hints. Show quote "Göran Andersson" <gu***@guffa.com> wrote in message news:OFEpGnPjHHA.4188@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > sloan wrote: > > Ok. > > > > If anybody has a url , that'd be great. > > > > My IT Department is asking for the exact lowdown on 3.0, from a machine/OS > > perspective. > > > > 3.0 projects can be > > > > developed on > > a. XP SP2 > > b. Vista > > c. ( I guess 2003Server, but how uses that as their personal OS) > > > > and deployed on > > 2003Server > > (some future version of Vista) > > > > > > > > Oh man. I know I screwed that up somehow. > > > > I found a few blogs, but would like group help with the concrete facts with > > this one. > > > > Giving the release the version number 3.0 has caused a lot of confusion. > 2.5 would have been a more fitting version number. > > .NET Framework 3.0 is just framework 2.0 with WinFX, there are no > changes in the framework itself. The real framework 3.0 will not be > available until .NET Framework 3.5. > > -- > Göran Andersson > _____ > http://www.guffa.com  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics