.NET3 is here!
-
http://msdn.microsoft.com:80/windowsvista/support/relnotes/netfx3/default.aspx[^] Even before Vista! (well, no surprise if it is included inside... ;P)
-
From the release notes:
To resolve this issue Be patient. There is no workaround. Setup has not failed.
:laugh:
-- Ranju. V http://blogorama.nerdworks.in --
I like
Please also reference section 2.8 of this page for additional information about system with pre-release versions of the Framework.
NOTE: There is no section 2.8 in the document. Oops.
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
-
Sweet, I have been waiting for this for a while now!
Matt Newman
Even the very best tools in the hands of an idiot will produce something of little or no value. - Chris Meech on IdiotsMatt Newman wrote:
Sweet, I have been waiting for this for a while now!
Really? Why? Do you have a valid (financially justifiable and technical) need for something it offers, or do you just want to play with it because it's new and/or potentially cool? Personally I don't have a need for the .Net framework, or at least I don't think so... Then again, I have a rather large code base in C++ and a bunch of third-party stuff I use. Or perhaps I'm just afraid of change. :rolleyes: But I have been getting into XML and XSLT and have found that it can be rather cool when an applicable need arises. Perhaps I need to expand my technical prowess in order to see opportunities to which I can apply .NET.
~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Are there enough "issues" in that list? WTF... :)
-
Matt Newman wrote:
Sweet, I have been waiting for this for a while now!
Really? Why? Do you have a valid (financially justifiable and technical) need for something it offers, or do you just want to play with it because it's new and/or potentially cool? Personally I don't have a need for the .Net framework, or at least I don't think so... Then again, I have a rather large code base in C++ and a bunch of third-party stuff I use. Or perhaps I'm just afraid of change. :rolleyes: But I have been getting into XML and XSLT and have found that it can be rather cool when an applicable need arises. Perhaps I need to expand my technical prowess in order to see opportunities to which I can apply .NET.
~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
startNitron wrote:
Really? Why? Do you have a valid (financially justifiable and technical) need for something it offers, or do you just want to play with it because it's new and/or potentially cool?
Well I am not paid by anyone to do any software development right now, so not really financially. Technically I prefer WPF over WinForms, and I was a fan of .NET Remoting so WCF should fit in nicely.
Nitron wrote:
Personally I don't have a need for the .Net framework, or at least I don't think so... Then again, I have a rather large code base in C++ and a bunch of third-party stuff I use. Or perhaps I'm just afraid of change.
Its a tool, you probably could do everything you need to do in .NET... but it would really be kind of pointless to convert everything if you had no specific reason to do so. The biggest reason I am looking forward to using it (still waiting for the damn 1.5 GB SDK to download) is I'm a tech junkie and love learning new things.
Matt Newman
Even the very best tools in the hands of an idiot will produce something of little or no value. - Chris Meech on Idiots -
http://msdn.microsoft.com:80/windowsvista/support/relnotes/netfx3/default.aspx[^] Even before Vista! (well, no surprise if it is included inside... ;P)
"just .NET 2.0 + WPF" Don't underestimate WPF. It is a massive change in the lives of Windows developers, at least those that ever get near (within a tier or two) UI. Some good, some bad, but significant either way. If you do any Windows forms work, then guess what, you have to learn a whole new language and the dev. paradigm that goes with it. If you're a middle-ware man or a low-level, bit-twiddler, then WPF shouldn't bother you, although there are some other significant WxF components aren't there?
-
"just .NET 2.0 + WPF" Don't underestimate WPF. It is a massive change in the lives of Windows developers, at least those that ever get near (within a tier or two) UI. Some good, some bad, but significant either way. If you do any Windows forms work, then guess what, you have to learn a whole new language and the dev. paradigm that goes with it. If you're a middle-ware man or a low-level, bit-twiddler, then WPF shouldn't bother you, although there are some other significant WxF components aren't there?
I don't think I'll have to worry about it for awhile. We're still using 1.1 in production, with talk of checking out 2.0. :) Things move a bit slower with existing code bases.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
I don't think I'll have to worry about it for awhile. We're still using 1.1 in production, with talk of checking out 2.0. :) Things move a bit slower with existing code bases.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Why not bounce on over to 3.0?
-
Why not bounce on over to 3.0?
Why bounce over to 3.0? Easy to say, not so easy to do when talking about regression testing large systems.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Why bounce over to 3.0? Easy to say, not so easy to do when talking about regression testing large systems.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
"Legacy Kills" :) Guess I'm lucky, we just threw out an 10 year old, MFC, code-base completely and started from scratch (UI design and everything) with 3.0 and WPF.
-
"Legacy Kills" :) Guess I'm lucky, we just threw out an 10 year old, MFC, code-base completely and started from scratch (UI design and everything) with 3.0 and WPF.
I'm not willing to consider .NET 1.1 legacy yet. It does the job of bringing home the bacon. There has to be a value added to justify rewriting code that works. Just so that it can use new features isn't enough unless there's a need for them. For existing code.. 100s of 1000s of lines, I'm not gonna rewrite them just so it can be in the new. And granted only some of the code would need to be changed, maybe, but the testing alone to certify it would be expensive. So... I can wait. I'm not even eager about 3.0. At best I'd like to use generics in 2.0, but even that can wait.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
I'm not willing to consider .NET 1.1 legacy yet. It does the job of bringing home the bacon. There has to be a value added to justify rewriting code that works. Just so that it can use new features isn't enough unless there's a need for them. For existing code.. 100s of 1000s of lines, I'm not gonna rewrite them just so it can be in the new. And granted only some of the code would need to be changed, maybe, but the testing alone to certify it would be expensive. So... I can wait. I'm not even eager about 3.0. At best I'd like to use generics in 2.0, but even that can wait.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
I can't disagree with you, I am accustomed to being in that situation myself. New for the sake of new doesn't take care of the bottom line. Currently 3.0 is a wash for us because of all the ramp up time for XAML, etc. and all the effort to work aropund WPF when it doesn't meet our needs, but our UI design team is going to be able to produce a much more compelling product so its worth it.
-
I can't disagree with you, I am accustomed to being in that situation myself. New for the sake of new doesn't take care of the bottom line. Currently 3.0 is a wash for us because of all the ramp up time for XAML, etc. and all the effort to work aropund WPF when it doesn't meet our needs, but our UI design team is going to be able to produce a much more compelling product so its worth it.
Yeah, I hear ya... we're evaluating WCF and Work Flow in general for a new architecture, but I'm not sure yet if we'll go that route, or just roll our own. Although .NET 2.0 is definately in the queue for that. So maybe then we'll bite the bullet and upgrade our dev systems to 2.0.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder