Moving from 1.1 to 2.0
-
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
-
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
-
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
I occasionally maintain an application that has been ported to 3.5, but was originally written in 1.1. This of course means it pretty much is in 1.1. Not that bad, to be honest; I still view anything beyond VB 6 as a miracle. Our management has fairly good business/marketing reasons for making our apps backwards compatible with SQL 2000, but I don't know why you wouldn't upgrade to 3.5, unless they're running NT workstations or something.
-
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
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.
-
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[^]
-
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
A couple of days ago I saw a job ad in which they said they were migrating from 1.1 to 2. Strange. Only reason I can think of is that they have licences for VS 2005 but not VS 2008.
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
-
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.
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
BigIntegerimplementations 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. -
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
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.
-
A couple of days ago I saw a job ad in which they said they were migrating from 1.1 to 2. Strange. Only reason I can think of is that they have licences for VS 2005 but not VS 2008.
Kevin
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
The only part of 3.5 I use is
HashSet<T>; if you don't need that then there's no reason to go to 3.5. -
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?
Not me.
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Would you skip 2.0 and go to 3.5?
Yes. So that there is no need for yet another migration for at least a few years.
50-50-90 rule: Anytime I have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability I'll get it wrong...!!
-
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
BigIntegerimplementations 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.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.
-
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