Oh but I did! Doom, Wolfenstein, Space Quest, Commander Keen and all those. 640K memory limits, using MEMDisk, rebooting in different configurations, that CD-ROM-driver-whose-name-escapes-me-right-now and on and on. Still, I expect Windows to be less of a chore, not more. regards, Paul Watson South Africa PMW Photography Gary Wheeler wrote: It's people like you that keep me heading for my big debut on CNN...

Excellent document ! Thanks for the post. There are no failures.. only extended learning opportunities.

A friend of mine works at such a dungeon, at I visit her from time to time. It is great to sit a t the bar and chatter with her, and watching all the people torturing themselves :cool: And it's even *some* workout, since it's 30 minutes by bicycle if I go FAST. I enjoy cycling as a way to get from A to B, even if it takes longer than (e.g.) by car. I have real motivation problems when it's just "for fun", i.e. do your daily X hours/kilometers. And running is to ineffective to get from A to B :rolleyes: we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr. sighist Fold With Us! || Agile Programming | doxygen

ClickOnce bridges this gap and - if you think about it - is no different in terms of deployment than ActiveX controls (though it still uses a much better sandbox). The assemblies are downloaded and installed - just like ActiveX DLLs/OCXs/etc., or even Java JARs or .class files (if you're using the Microsoft JVM, which is now deprecated). It prompts the user. This is my fault for not being more dilegant with regards to reading about ClickOnce. This is almost exactly what I want. I'll just need to wait until .NET 2.0 comes out of beta. You are correct, ClickOnce really does bridge the gap. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Your problem is quite the opposite. With .NET Code Access Security, security takes a front seat to user experience, which is good for many reasons. For one - it's security. 'nough said. I agree. I don't forsee this changing in our future until people change. It's practically impossible - even for AI (hey, bad people can fool humans, too) - to detect a malicious user from a decent user. I think this sums it all up. The focus will need to be on training people and not allowing them to do things that are unsecure just because they are ignorant on the subject matter. That's why we have the proliferation of virii everywhere. This has been a very insightful conversation. I went in expecting the .NET 1.1 framework to already be up to standards in regards to web deployement, however I see that they are making great strides to achieve this in .NET 2.0. Thanks - Drew

You should make sure the client - as well as your development team - is updated to the newest .NET Framework Service Packs, available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/downloads/[^]. Be sure to download the right versions and locales, as well as for the right platform (Windows Server 2003 uses a different installer technology than the rest of the current Windows platforms). For changes made in Windows XP SP2 that affect developers, read http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=WindowsXPsp2Dev[^]. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Software Design Engineer Developer Division Sustained Engineering Microsoft [My Articles]

Navin wrote: a scenario where that job description, as written, makes sense But then, the requirements would have included Java. There is no doubt when the first automobile race occurred. It was when the second automobile was built. - Richard Petty