.net v1 or .net v2 4

[sacsac]

I'm just about to start migrating from VB6 to .NET using VS2003, and I'm confused about the different available versions of .NET. I've already got .NET V1 on my computer, but should I upgrade to .NET V2 before starting out, or does it not really matter? I'm concerend that I'll spend much time developing on one platform, only to discover that my clients can not run the app because their version of .net is incompatible!

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

[jshurst]

VS2003 uses version 1.1 of the .net framework. VS2005 uses v2.0.

If you have a choice then go ahead and move up to VS2005. You'll need to ask your client's which version that they are using, however, unless they are really picky then it should be up to you (as the .net framework is free).

 

[sacsac]

Thanks jshurst - that clears things in my mind!

 

[sacsac]

Does this mean that if a user has a mixture of applications developed in both VS2003 & VS2005, he will need both the .NET1 AND .NET2 frameworks installed on his PC? Is it possible to have them both installed?

 

[ThatRickGuy]

Yes, you would need both. And you can actually have all three installed at the same time (1.0, 1.1, and 2.0).

-Rick

VB.Net Forum forum796 forum855 ASP.NET Forum
I believe in killer coding ninja monkeys.

 

[sacsac]

ThatRickGuy" - many thanks.

 

[LNBruno]

So M$ has completely abandoned the concept of backward compatibility?

<sarcasm> Brilliant! </sarcasm>

< M!ke >

 

[ThatRickGuy]

Uhm, no, all three version can be run at the exact same time with no problems. Backward compatibility is 100% there. Not only is the compatibility still there, but v2 is free to make huge changes and improvements with out be restricted to matching the v1 namespaces.

-Rick

VB.Net Forum forum796 forum855 ASP.NET Forum
I believe in killer coding ninja monkeys.

 

[LNBruno]

I understand, Rick. My point is that I have to have all three, not just the latest. That seems to be a bad implementation strategy, to me, and is reminiscent of the DLL h-e-double hockey sticks of old VB.

Sorry, stepping off soapbox now...

Have a nice weekend!




< M!ke >

 

[ThatRickGuy]

It's not nearly so bad as the old days. I can build an app on the v1.1 framework. I can then rebuild that app on the v2.0 framework. I can put both frameworks and both apps on the same computer and they work perfectly. No worrying about changes from v1.1 to 2.0. If I couldn't have .Net 1.1 and 2.0 installed at the same time I would either have to worry about backwards compatibility in 2.0 or I would have to re-write all of my legacy apps (again) in 2.0 to continue maintenance.

-Rick

VB.Net Forum forum796 forum855 ASP.NET Forum
I believe in killer coding ninja monkeys.

 

[sacsac]

What worries me about all this is the fact that the software which I purchased some time back and am just about to START using (i.e. VS2003, not VS2005), is becoming 'redundant' before I even distribute an app!! If VS2003 uses the .NET 1.1 framework, this seems to mean that any end user will have to have this version installed on their PC. How long will MS make it available for download before advising us that it is deprecated? I can see being forced into having to upgrade VS every couple of years in order to be producing apps using the currently available .NET version. Or have MS given us an undertaking to continue making earlier versions of .NET freely available? Wasn't life easy with VB5 & VB6 !

 

[jshurst]

I don't see what the problem is here. The .net framework can be distributed with your application. The 1.1 framework isn't going anywhere. By the way, what is stopping you from using VB5?

 

[jo0ls]

There is a thing called MSBee to build 1.1 apps in VS2005 - it's on GotDotNet.com

 

[sacsac]

Thanks jshurst. I didn't realise that there would be an option to distribute the 1.1. framework myself - please remember that I haven't actually yet produced an app in VS2003, and am just about to embark on re-writing all my old VB5/VB6 apps. The reason for not using VS2005 is that I have already purchased VS2003, and it has been on my shelf unused for a couple of years - do not really want to shell out more money until I'm sure which way to go!

 

[sacsac]

Thanks joOls for the info about MSBee. I'll have a look.

 

[jshurst]

Np. You know that there are free "express" versions of vs2005 (although they are broken up into smaller pieces - vb, c#, visual web developer, sql server). I would use these so that you can utilize the .net framework.

VS2003 will be good to have as well because with the express versions you can not create windows services, if you need to do that sort of thing.

Either one will be fine though.

 

[sacsac]

Thanks yet again jshurst. I'd thought about the Express versions, but for some reason had the idea that you couldn't compile the EXE from these (??). I will only want to create standard EXEs & linked DLLs (which I think they now call Class Modules?), so maybe the Express version of VB2005 would be OK?

 

[jshurst]

I haven't heard anything about that, but that would certainly be a problem if you couldn't.

To be honest I'm more of a web programmer, so I haven't really investigated vb express to much ;-) If you find out that what you say is true then please post it so I'll know.

 

[LNBruno]

Sorry to get my favorite geek peeps so stirred, but my initial cheap/sarcastic shot seems to have stirred something.

M$ has built itself/made billions following Henry Ford’s model of planned obsolescence:

Forgive me if I leave out something, but…

Once it was DOS versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and all its interim children, then Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, NT, NT 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, Windows 4, the five different flavors of 2000, Me, lucky 13 versions of XP, server 2003, and on the horizon (pun TOTALLY intended) are Vista and Longhorn, and, somewhere out there are “Fiji” and “Vienna” -- then let’s not forget the miracle of Visual Basic/Studio 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 6, .NET 2K3, 2K5…

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all about quick, fast, and easy, and constant improvement, BUT:

Every database/application I’m on requires backwards compatibility. I can’t make changes to databases that result in a loss of accumulated data. I can’t take away functionality of existing applications; I can only “enhance,” or add, or migrate. My clients aren’t looking for rewrites to meet current technology; they don’t want to spend money to be “neat & cool” or “cutting edge” or even “trailing edge;” they want to spend money on building on what they already have. That, I thought, was what dot net was supposed to provide. Obviously, not.

CFOs still seem to rule CIOs; and IT has never been a cash-cow.

We were sold on how .NET was going to relieve us from DLL hell, and it has. As long as all your users, like Henry Ford’s first customers, want "black," you're in great shape. If, though, you have a wide range of customers crossing a broad branch of departments in multiple divisions or subsidiaries who are all looking for black, blue, red, green, neon yellow.... well, apparently, DLL hell has been replaced with Framework hell.

IMHO, we’ve been sold a bill of goods.

To say that Framework 1.1 isn’t going away is as naïve as saying that classic VB version whatever will always be supported. Reality isn’t a TV show.

Every time M$ comes up with a new game plan, I’m scrambling trying to figure a workaround to make what’s old work with what’s new; absolutely no different from the old days (and I’m talking VB 2).

So in ten years, how many frameworks will be installed on all my users PCs? How many versions of the same app am I going to have to support?

So, yeah, Rick (don’t take it personally – I’m having the same argument with more people than just you); I am thinking about backwards compatibility and re-writing legacy apps as I’m delivering our first dot net app because, unfortunately, new development gets about 20 percent of the budget (in good years) while maintenance really is about 80+ percent of IT where I live.

Forgive me. It was a bad day. It took me much too long to find through n-tiers that you can’t put a string into a SQL 2K stored procedure parameter that expects a smallint.

Nothing but my best wishes to all who aren’t working in India.

< M!ke >

 

[sacsac]

Well LNBruno - that just about says it all!!!