Moving from 1.1 to 2.0
-
You don't need Visual Studio to write for any version of .net.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
You don't need Visual Studio to write for any version of .net.
Yes, but there can't be many who do, say, ASP.NET without using VS.
Kevin
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
while VS2005 creates websites
VS 2005 can create both too. Web Apps. were added in SP1.
Kevin
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
while VS2005 creates websites
VS 2005 can create both too. Web Apps. were added in SP1.
Kevin
Oops. I guess I have to RTFM for the servicepacks too. Could have saved me som work some years ago.
-
Oops. I guess I have to RTFM for the servicepacks too. Could have saved me som work some years ago.
IIRC it was originally a standalone add-in for VS 2005 RTM. Then they bundled it into SP1.
Kevin
-
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
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 :)
-
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.
Me, for instance.
-
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
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
-
Yes, but there can't be many who do, say, ASP.NET without using VS.
Kevin
More reason not to do ASP.net. :-D
-
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
Doubtful. We still have clients working on programs in access 2.0. As long as everything works the client isn't going to upgrade.
-
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[^]
-
You don't need Visual Studio to write for any version of .net.
-
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
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
-
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
BigIntegerwill 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.
Luc Pattyn wrote:
3.0 is irrelevant
Unless we are talking C# vs. CLR. C# 3 is, like, way cool.
-
Luc Pattyn wrote:
3.0 is irrelevant
Unless we are talking C# vs. CLR. C# 3 is, like, way cool.
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.
-
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.
I <3 lambdas. No great shakes, but just plain cool.
-
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
Have them shoot for 4.0 and be done with it :)
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Coca-Cola In Israel..
-
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
Mark Nischalke wrote:
they wanted to upgrade their current asp.net application from .net 1.1 to .net 2.0
Without any reason :confused: I was working on 1.1 just 7-8 months ago and yeah have skipped 2.0. And now working on 3.5. One question : are you going to charge your client for this upgrade? As we might have same situation in very near time.
Believe Yourself™