Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Moving from 1.1 to 2.0

Moving from 1.1 to 2.0

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
learningcsharpasp-netquestion
34 Posts 19 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Daniel Grunwald

    You know you can use LINQ with .NET 2.0? Just set the C# 3 compiler to target .NET 2 and implement the Select/Where/etc. methods yourself (or use the Mono implementation). And there have been good BigInteger implementations for .NET available for quite some time. Main reason for .NET 4 for me personally is WPF. All previous WPF versions suck at text rendering, so upgrading to .NET 4 is pretty much required if you want to use WPF.

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Luc Pattyn
    wrote on last edited by
    #13

    Daniel Grunwald wrote:

    you can use LINQ with .NET 2.0

    I didn't know that; however I don't need nor like LINQ...

    Daniel Grunwald wrote:

    good BigInteger implementations for .NET available

    Yes, however getting one within the framework is a plus.

    Daniel Grunwald wrote:

    Main reason for .NET 4 for me personally is WPF

    I'm still keeping off WPF (read too many suckage stories in the Lounge), but it is good to know it is getting better. So I will make sure to run 4.0 when diving into WPF. Thanks. :)

    Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]


    Happy New Year to all.
    We hope 2010 soon brings us automatic PRE tags!
    Until then, please insert them manually.


    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • P PIEBALDconsult

      You don't need Visual Studio to write for any version of .net.

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Luc Pattyn
      wrote on last edited by
      #14

      you could even do it without Notepad. :laugh: :)

      Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]


      Happy New Year to all.
      We hope 2010 soon brings us automatic PRE tags!
      Until then, please insert them manually.


      P 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • T Tom Deketelaere

        3.5 won't install on windows server 2000. That might be a reason. A few of our clients still use server with 2000 on it so occasionally we have the same request.

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Media2r
        wrote on last edited by
        #15

        Server 2000 will be out of extendid support in four months, so I would imagine that would speed up migration projects quite a bit. //L

        T 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • N Not Active

          Had a request from a potential client were they wanted to upgrade their current asp.net application from .net 1.1 to .net 2.0. I suggested they move to .net 3.5 while they are doing it but they flat out refused it, no reason given. I believe their staff is so far behind the curve they are just now learning 2.0. How many people are still working with 1.1? Would you skip 2.0 and go to 3.5?


          I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

          J Offline
          J Offline
          Jorgen Andersson
          wrote on last edited by
          #16

          VS2003 creates Web Applications, while VS2005 creates websites. VS2008 can do both[^]. Guess what my recommendation is...

          K 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P PIEBALDconsult

            You don't need Visual Studio to write for any version of .net.

            K Offline
            K Offline
            Kevin McFarlane
            wrote on last edited by
            #17

            Yes, but there can't be many who do, say, ASP.NET without using VS.

            Kevin

            P 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J Jorgen Andersson

              VS2003 creates Web Applications, while VS2005 creates websites. VS2008 can do both[^]. Guess what my recommendation is...

              K Offline
              K Offline
              Kevin McFarlane
              wrote on last edited by
              #18

              Jörgen Andersson wrote:

              while VS2005 creates websites

              VS 2005 can create both too. Web Apps. were added in SP1.

              Kevin

              J 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • K Kevin McFarlane

                Jörgen Andersson wrote:

                while VS2005 creates websites

                VS 2005 can create both too. Web Apps. were added in SP1.

                Kevin

                J Offline
                J Offline
                Jorgen Andersson
                wrote on last edited by
                #19

                Oops. I guess I have to RTFM for the servicepacks too. Could have saved me som work some years ago.

                K 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • J Jorgen Andersson

                  Oops. I guess I have to RTFM for the servicepacks too. Could have saved me som work some years ago.

                  K Offline
                  K Offline
                  Kevin McFarlane
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #20

                  IIRC it was originally a standalone add-in for VS 2005 RTM. Then they bundled it into SP1.

                  Kevin

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • N Not Active

                    Had a request from a potential client were they wanted to upgrade their current asp.net application from .net 1.1 to .net 2.0. I suggested they move to .net 3.5 while they are doing it but they flat out refused it, no reason given. I believe their staff is so far behind the curve they are just now learning 2.0. How many people are still working with 1.1? Would you skip 2.0 and go to 3.5?


                    I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                    N Offline
                    N Offline
                    Nemanja Trifunovic
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #21

                    Mark Nischalke wrote:

                    How many people are still working with 1.1? Would you skip 2.0 and go to 3.5?

                    I stopped at 1.1 and went back to 98 some 5 years ago. Now I am introducing the cool new 0x features to the team (of course, only the subset provided by VS 2010). Hopefully we'll make the switch some time this year :)

                    utf8-cpp

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Luc Pattyn

                      you could even do it without Notepad. :laugh: :)

                      Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]


                      Happy New Year to all.
                      We hope 2010 soon brings us automatic PRE tags!
                      Until then, please insert them manually.


                      P Offline
                      P Offline
                      PIEBALDconsult
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #22

                      Me, for instance.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • K Kevin McFarlane

                        Yes, but there can't be many who do, say, ASP.NET without using VS.

                        Kevin

                        P Offline
                        P Offline
                        PIEBALDconsult
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #23

                        More reason not to do ASP.net. :-D

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • N Not Active

                          Had a request from a potential client were they wanted to upgrade their current asp.net application from .net 1.1 to .net 2.0. I suggested they move to .net 3.5 while they are doing it but they flat out refused it, no reason given. I believe their staff is so far behind the curve they are just now learning 2.0. How many people are still working with 1.1? Would you skip 2.0 and go to 3.5?


                          I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                          E Offline
                          E Offline
                          Ennis Ray Lynch Jr
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #24

                          In my opinion a successful migration is one that builds while only adding required functionality for the build to work. Thus a 2.0 migration is also a 3.5 migration. After successful you then add new features of the new build but do not change the old ones until they are broke.

                          Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • M Media2r

                            Server 2000 will be out of extendid support in four months, so I would imagine that would speed up migration projects quite a bit. //L

                            T Offline
                            T Offline
                            Tom Deketelaere
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #25

                            Doubtful. We still have clients working on programs in access 2.0. As long as everything works the client isn't going to upgrade.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • M Mario Luis

                              Exactly. At the moment all frameworks post 2 are more extensions and enhancements, not base changes. Not sure about 4 though. Breakdown -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework[^]

                              D Offline
                              D Offline
                              Dan Neely
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #26

                              4 is new. Making the use old frameworks work in VS2k10 required a new round of being clever for the visual studio team.

                              3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • P PIEBALDconsult

                                You don't need Visual Studio to write for any version of .net.

                                D Offline
                                D Offline
                                Dan Neely
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #27

                                True, but it's much easier with the IDE.

                                3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • N Not Active

                                  Had a request from a potential client were they wanted to upgrade their current asp.net application from .net 1.1 to .net 2.0. I suggested they move to .net 3.5 while they are doing it but they flat out refused it, no reason given. I believe their staff is so far behind the curve they are just now learning 2.0. How many people are still working with 1.1? Would you skip 2.0 and go to 3.5?


                                  I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                                  M Offline
                                  M Offline
                                  Member 96
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #28

                                  It should be entirely painless and almost instantaneous to move from 1.1 to 2 or 3.5. Since 3.5 is really 2.0 with extra bits there's no reason not to go straight to 3.5. Anyone who panics about that really doesn't understand what they should about .net 3.5. I did this a long time ago with a huge app with both asp.net and winform interfaces and others and there were really no issues at all, it's a no brainer.


                                  "I made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter." — Blaise Pascal

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • L Luc Pattyn

                                    Hi Mark, 1.1 is ancient history for me. I build for 2.0 on a daily base, I only go for 3.5 if the app warrants that, i.e. when new features are sufficiently relevant. and IMO LINQ is not. 3.0 is irrelevant, it is either 2.0 or 3.5 BigInteger will be sufficient to move a few apps to 4.0 in the near future. :)

                                    Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]


                                    Happy New Year to all.
                                    We hope 2010 soon brings us automatic PRE tags!
                                    Until then, please insert them manually.


                                    B Offline
                                    B Offline
                                    Brady Kelly
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #29

                                    Luc Pattyn wrote:

                                    3.0 is irrelevant

                                    Unless we are talking C# vs. CLR. C# 3 is, like, way cool.

                                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • B Brady Kelly

                                      Luc Pattyn wrote:

                                      3.0 is irrelevant

                                      Unless we are talking C# vs. CLR. C# 3 is, like, way cool.

                                      L Offline
                                      L Offline
                                      Luc Pattyn
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #30

                                      I was talking about CLR versions, but you're right, C# has its own version numbers. I'm not fond (yet) about the new goodies in C# 3.0, I'm actually quite satisfied with C# 2.0 and I definitely don't need the next PL/I language[^] :)

                                      Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]


                                      I only read code that is properly formatted, so far adding PRE tags is the easiest way to get it.


                                      B 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • L Luc Pattyn

                                        I was talking about CLR versions, but you're right, C# has its own version numbers. I'm not fond (yet) about the new goodies in C# 3.0, I'm actually quite satisfied with C# 2.0 and I definitely don't need the next PL/I language[^] :)

                                        Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]


                                        I only read code that is properly formatted, so far adding PRE tags is the easiest way to get it.


                                        B Offline
                                        B Offline
                                        Brady Kelly
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #31

                                        I <3 lambdas. No great shakes, but just plain cool.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • N Not Active

                                          Had a request from a potential client were they wanted to upgrade their current asp.net application from .net 1.1 to .net 2.0. I suggested they move to .net 3.5 while they are doing it but they flat out refused it, no reason given. I believe their staff is so far behind the curve they are just now learning 2.0. How many people are still working with 1.1? Would you skip 2.0 and go to 3.5?


                                          I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                                          R Offline
                                          R Offline
                                          Rocky Moore
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #32

                                          Have them shoot for 4.0 and be done with it :)

                                          Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Coca-Cola In Israel..

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups