If you had to move from VB6...
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Ever had to judge a new to-be-hired in interview ? REPOST
Next: Multiple Combo Boxes Highlighted - Solved
From: Paul Clement on 22 Feb 2010 11:35 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:02:15 -0700, "Tony Toews [MVP]" <ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote: � Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote: � � >� Not if it's a .Net product. My app depends on drag and drop � >� deployment with no install. .Net solutions don't allow for that. � >� � >� Tony � > � >That might be true for XP systems if the .NET Framework is not installed but it isn't true of Vista � >and Windows 7 where it comes pre-installed. � > � >Otherwise, for XP it's a one-time deployment. � � Some folks are still running my app on Windows 2000. I just had a � simple request for an Access 97 specific feature. (Which only took an � hour to add.) � � What about all the versioning problems? Or are there none with the � .NET Framework? � � Tony With respect to versioning it's generally only an issue if you have compiled/targeted your app for a version of the framework that is newer than what is installed. We run some 1.1 (VS 2003) components with 2.0 (VS 2005) apps without any issues. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Cor Ligthert[MVP] on 22 Feb 2010 13:07 Paul, If somebody starts giving names, then he shows he/she has not any argument anymore and he/she has lost the debate. Has always been true, therefore you see this so often done by kids. Cor "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote in message news:l47rn591p7i56eombup4ekph4i9icefbhn(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:09:23 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> > wrote: > > � Paul Clement wrote: > � > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:58:03 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> > wrote: > � > > � > � Paul Clement wrote: > � > � > Not much of an intellectual discussion on your part, > � > � > � > � Presumably an impossibility when dealing with people who refuse to > � > � display intellectual honesty. > � > > � > What was that you said in a recent post? "A fact not in evidence." > � > � Yes, that's what I'm saying. Thanks for the amplification. Hopefully, > � one of these days you *will* offer evidence of your intellectual > � honesty. Presumably, you only act like this online, because it would > � sure make life a living he11 offline. > > Well you've met me off line so you should know, but that's beside the > point. We may disagree with > one another but that doesn't infer intellectual dishonesty on either part, > however; if you are going > to infer that on my part, the burden is not upon me to disprove a > statement that you are unwilling > to substantiate. > > There is no intellectual honesty in attacking someone and calling them > names in a failed attempt to > marginalize them. It simply means that you don't have anything relevant to > contribute. > > > Paul > ~~~~ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Karl E. Peterson on 22 Feb 2010 14:12 Paul Clement wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:35:17 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > > � > � >> � Not if it's a .Net product. My app depends on drag and drop > � > � >> � deployment with no install. .Net solutions don't allow for that. > � > � >> > � > � >> for XP it's a one-time deployment. > � > � > > � > � > Last time I checked, "one" was more than "none"! > � > � > � > � Definately. And since most buisness are still using XP, then Vista or > 7, � > � there is definately a possibility that you might have to install > it... � > > � > Or deploy it with other Windows Updates as many companies do. > � > � There's that intellectual dishonesty I was talking about. Sure didn't > � take long for a relevant example. There is no functional difference, > � in the end, between "install" and "deploy" - HTH! > > Install, deploy, roll-out. I don't care which word or phrase you use because > it doesn't change the meaning of my statement. That's right. There's absolutely no difference. And yet, your need to repeat what was just said, but using a different word, *implies* there is a very distinct difference! Thank you for agreeing you were being intellectually dishonest there. > Nitpicking are you? Shall we ask the peanut gallery? -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Tom Shelton on 22 Feb 2010 14:32 On 2010-02-22, Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:02:15 -0700, "Tony Toews [MVP]" <ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote: > > � Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote: > � > � >� Not if it's a .Net product. My app depends on drag and drop > � >� deployment with no install. .Net solutions don't allow for that. > � >� > � >� Tony > � > > � >That might be true for XP systems if the .NET Framework is not installed but it isn't true of Vista > � >and Windows 7 where it comes pre-installed. > � > > � >Otherwise, for XP it's a one-time deployment. > � > � Some folks are still running my app on Windows 2000. I just had a > � simple request for an Access 97 specific feature. (Which only took an > � hour to add.) > � > � What about all the versioning problems? Or are there none with the > � .NET Framework? > � > � Tony > > With respect to versioning it's generally only an issue if you have compiled/targeted your app for a > version of the framework that is newer than what is installed. > That wasn't always an issue either... I had 1.1 code that ran on the 1.0 runtime. I just had to be carefull not to use stuff that got introduced in 1.1. -- Tom Shelton
From: Paul Clement on 23 Feb 2010 12:02
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:12:32 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: � > � > � Definately. And since most buisness are still using XP, then Vista or � > 7, � > � there is definately a possibility that you might have to install � > it... � > � > � > Or deploy it with other Windows Updates as many companies do. � > � � > � There's that intellectual dishonesty I was talking about. Sure didn't � > � take long for a relevant example. There is no functional difference, � > � in the end, between "install" and "deploy" - HTH! � > � > Install, deploy, roll-out. I don't care which word or phrase you use because � > it doesn't change the meaning of my statement. � � That's right. There's absolutely no difference. And yet, your need to � repeat what was just said, but using a different word, *implies* there � is a very distinct difference! Thank you for agreeing you were being � intellectually dishonest there. I didn't repeat anything but merely suggested that the Framework could be installed with Windows Updates, which is rather typical of most organizations running Windows operating systems. So what am I being intellectually dishonest about, or are you just being dishonest by making stuff up? Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) |