@Microsoft
-
OK, so does search and replace not work in VS2008 ? Works for me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You and your fancy-dance technology tricks. :rolleyes:
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
-
You and your fancy-dance technology tricks. :rolleyes:
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
Well, I was going to say, if it works for me, surely it's not hard ? :P I keep meaning to ask, what do you think of the new Maiden ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Your knowledge of these things is probably greater than mine but I thought that when VS2008 was released it was with .NET 3.0 and 3.5 came along later.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I don't believe so. .NET 3.0 was a patch that gave VS it's first ability to create WPF projects. The next IDE along was .NET 3.5.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
3.0 was a patch to add WPF ( and LINQ, I thought ) to 2.0. Why would you target the patch version ( I believe you install it by running an installer on top of 2.0 ) and not 2.0 or 3.5 ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
So why not target a lower version for those silly users that don't like to upgrade until absolutely necessary?
-
So why not target a lower version for those silly users that don't like to upgrade until absolutely necessary?
I guess that depends on your method of distribution. .NET 3.0 was pretty buggy, although .NET 3.5 is not perfect. If you're distributing over the web, why not ask them to download one thing instead of two, and if you're distributing on a CD/DVD, why not give them the more up to date version on the DVD ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, I was going to say, if it works for me, surely it's not hard ? :P I keep meaning to ask, what do you think of the new Maiden ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I like it - a lot. It's not classic Maiden, but it's better than a shed load of the dross that's being churned out now. Following your advice I got the new A7X CD yesterday. I prefer that, if truth be told - but The Final Frontier is a good album. Mind you, Maiden have the best music video I've seen in a very long time - WHAT KEPT YOU EDDIE? Clickety[^]
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
-
I don't believe so. .NET 3.0 was a patch that gave VS it's first ability to create WPF projects. The next IDE along was .NET 3.5.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yes. You are correct. 3.0 was released during the life of VS2005 to bring WPF etc. VS2008 was released with 3.5.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
I guess that depends on your method of distribution. .NET 3.0 was pretty buggy, although .NET 3.5 is not perfect. If you're distributing over the web, why not ask them to download one thing instead of two, and if you're distributing on a CD/DVD, why not give them the more up to date version on the DVD ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
why not ask them to download one thing instead of two
What do you mean? How would targetting .NET 3.5 mean they need to download 1 thing instead of 2?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
why not ask them to download one thing instead of two
What do you mean? How would targetting .NET 3.5 mean they need to download 1 thing instead of 2?
3.0 was a patch to 2.0. 3.5 is a single download. I thought you were advocating targeting the 'earlier' framework, which is 3.0, and which is what the OP is talking about.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I like it - a lot. It's not classic Maiden, but it's better than a shed load of the dross that's being churned out now. Following your advice I got the new A7X CD yesterday. I prefer that, if truth be told - but The Final Frontier is a good album. Mind you, Maiden have the best music video I've seen in a very long time - WHAT KEPT YOU EDDIE? Clickety[^]
I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be
Yeah, the clip is great. The first two songs on the CD are the best, IMO, and I agree, I like A7X a lot more, but the Maiden is still very, very good.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
3.0 was a patch to 2.0. 3.5 is a single download. I thought you were advocating targeting the 'earlier' framework, which is 3.0, and which is what the OP is talking about.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I thought 3.5 was also built atop 2.0[^]. Also, Vista comes with .Net 3.0, so it seems like there may be a reasonably large user base out there who may not have upgraded but who do use 3.0. Don't see a reason to target a later version when all you need is the earlier version. More users may be able to use the software that way.
-
Works for me too. Apparently not for the OP though. And of course there is always the 'Remove and Sort Unused Usings' context menu. Although you have to do that file by file.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
Henry Minute wrote:
'Remove and Sort Unused Usings'
That's a good Zen question. What's the sort order of an unused using after it's been removed. ;) Marc
-
right click sort and delete - difficult stuff this programming!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Henry Minute wrote:
'Remove and Sort Unused Usings'
That's a good Zen question. What's the sort order of an unused using after it's been removed. ;) Marc
Hang on, I'll just get my Harley Manual out and check. I'll get back to you. :)
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
right click sort and delete - difficult stuff this programming!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I thought 3.5 was also built atop 2.0[^]. Also, Vista comes with .Net 3.0, so it seems like there may be a reasonably large user base out there who may not have upgraded but who do use 3.0. Don't see a reason to target a later version when all you need is the earlier version. More users may be able to use the software that way.
3.5 is a whole framework. 3.0 is a patch. I guess I don't get why you can't put a more up to date framework on your DVD. That's what we did. If the minimum specs to RUN the framework were different, that would be a good reason to target backwards.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So, should I right click -> sort and delete in every code file in Solution or can I PowerCommands [^] to do that for me? Definitely agree with you on "difficult stuff this programming", though.
search and replace ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
search and replace ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, apparently.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
3.5 is a whole framework. 3.0 is a patch. I guess I don't get why you can't put a more up to date framework on your DVD. That's what we did. If the minimum specs to RUN the framework were different, that would be a good reason to target backwards.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
3.5 is a whole framework. 3.0 is a patch
I'm pretty sure both are atop 2.0 (i.e., 3.0 doesn't "patch" 2.0, it is an addition to it, just like 3.5). If you install .NET 3.0 or 3.5, I'm pretty sure .NET 2.0 will also be installed (or will need to already be installed). And I assume .NET 3.5 will include 3.0.
Christian Graus wrote:
I guess I don't get why you can't put a more up to date framework on your DVD.
When did we assume this is going to be on a DVD? If on a DVD, I say target the most recent framework and include it on the DVD. If they're going to go through all the trouble of obtaining physical media, you might as well upgrade.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the minimum specs to RUN the framework were different, that would be a good reason to target backwards.
I never mentioned minimum specs to run the .NET framework for any version. I just said it comes with Vista, so anybody who buys Vista will have this framework installed by default, including the users who don't ever perform upgrades unless they absolutely must (so they'd still be left with 3.0 installed). I'm just talking about what the OP should target... I don't see any problem with targeting 3.0. It may prevent some users from having to perform a download of a new framework (supposing the software is a download). If the software doesn't require 3.5, why target it and potentially require an extra download (.Net Framework 3.5)?