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 23 Feb 2010 13:33 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:23:38 -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 now you're saying there *is* a difference between install and � deploy. No I didn't, but there is difference between deploying/installing the .NET Framework with an app and doing so as a matter of course with Windows Updates. Of course the installation of run times never stopped anyone (including you) from using Classic Visual Basic. � > So what am I being intellectually dishonest about? � � QED. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Paul Clement on 23 Feb 2010 13:44 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:31:17 -0800, Tom Shelton <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> 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. � > � > Right, but with respect to the app you would still need to compile/target it for 1.0. � > � � No. You would compile in VS2003 and run on the 1.0 framework. You just had � to setup the config file to allow the older runtime. And you of course had to � make sure you didn't use anything that wasn't in 1.0. � � You can't run 2.0 binaries on 1.1 or 1.0 because the metadata format changed to accomodate � generics. And since 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 are all the same runtime no one has really � needed that feature for a while... That is what I meant by targeted (I suppose "configured" would probably be clearer), as opposed to compiled. Otherwise, the .NET Framework version loaded is determined by the PE CLR header of the application assembly and the .NET Framework versions that are installed. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: Tom Shelton on 23 Feb 2010 13:52 On 2010-02-23, Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:31:17 -0800, Tom Shelton <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> 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. > � > > � > Right, but with respect to the app you would still need to compile/target it for 1.0. > � > > � > � No. You would compile in VS2003 and run on the 1.0 framework. You just had > � to setup the config file to allow the older runtime. And you of course had to > � make sure you didn't use anything that wasn't in 1.0. > � > � You can't run 2.0 binaries on 1.1 or 1.0 because the metadata format changed to accomodate > � generics. And since 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 are all the same runtime no one has really > � needed that feature for a while... > > That is what I meant by targeted (I suppose "configured" would probably be clearer), as opposed to > compiled. Otherwise, the .NET Framework version loaded is determined by the PE CLR header of the > application assembly and the .NET Framework versions that are installed. > > > Paul > ~~~~ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) -- Tom Shelton
From: Karl E. Peterson on 23 Feb 2010 13:57 Paul Clement wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:23:38 -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 now you're saying there *is* a difference between install and > � deploy. > > No I didn't, Yes I did, No I didn't, Yes I did, No I didn't! Seriously, d00d, doesn't it get tiring arguing with yourself? -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Paul Clement on 23 Feb 2010 14:07
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:10 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: � > � So now you're saying there *is* a difference between install and � > � deploy. � > � > No I didn't, � � Yes I did, No I didn't, Yes I did, No I didn't! � � Seriously, d00d, doesn't it get tiring arguing with yourself? We were getting along fine until you butt in. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) |