@Microsoft
-
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)?
-
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)?
aspdotnetdev wrote:
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).
You're mistaken. 3.0, last I checked, required 2.0 to be there. 3.5 installs the older ones, but is a new version in itself.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
When did we assume this is going to be on a DVD?
I asked and you did not answer me. The fact is, people either have internet to download your program, or they have a DVD.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I never mentioned minimum specs to run the .NET framework for any version.
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
If the software doesn't require 3.5, why target it and potentially require an extra download (.Net Framework 3.5)?
I've already answered that.
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 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.
that is correct 3.0 gave VS2005 the features such as workflow and WPF VS2008 came with 3.5
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
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.
During development, the time when this annoys you, you will be touching every file in your app so get in the habit of cleaning up your usings. My net nazi got the link, damn.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
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).
You're mistaken. 3.0, last I checked, required 2.0 to be there. 3.5 installs the older ones, but is a new version in itself.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
When did we assume this is going to be on a DVD?
I asked and you did not answer me. The fact is, people either have internet to download your program, or they have a DVD.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I never mentioned minimum specs to run the .NET framework for any version.
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
If the software doesn't require 3.5, why target it and potentially require an extra download (.Net Framework 3.5)?
I've already answered that.
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:
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
If somebody has .Net 3.0 installed and your app targets that, they can download and install your app without an additional download. If your app targets .Net 3.5 and the user has .Net 3.0 installed, they will have to download not only your app but .Net 3.5 as well. If .Net 3.5 is indeed its "own framework" with no dependencies on .Net 2.0 as you suggest, that could be a very large download. Preventing the user from having to download something additional (i.e., .Net 3.5) seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to target an older version of the framework (i.e., .Net 3.0).
-
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
If somebody has .Net 3.0 installed and your app targets that, they can download and install your app without an additional download. If your app targets .Net 3.5 and the user has .Net 3.0 installed, they will have to download not only your app but .Net 3.5 as well. If .Net 3.5 is indeed its "own framework" with no dependencies on .Net 2.0 as you suggest, that could be a very large download. Preventing the user from having to download something additional (i.e., .Net 3.5) seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to target an older version of the framework (i.e., .Net 3.0).
Again, it depends on how many of your clients live in the third world and can't get half decent internet access. .NET 3.0, the WPF part at least, was really buggy. Why not target a framework with fixed bugs ?
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.