Does anyone have any information about the .NET Framework v2 release date?
-
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
Sometime in 2005 is the latest...
--
Carsten Thomsen
Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
"Mark Janssen" <markjanssen@so fthome.net> wrote in message
news:c6qu7m$5e5 $1@news1.tilbu1 .nb.home.nl...[color=blue]
> Does anyone have any information about the .NET Framework v2 release date?[/color]
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
Sometime in 2005 is the latest...
--
Carsten Thomsen
Enterprise Development with VS .NET, UML, and MSF
"Mark Janssen" <markjanssen@so fthome.net> wrote in message
news:c6qu7m$5e5 $1@news1.tilbu1 .nb.home.nl...[color=blue]
> Does anyone have any information about the .NET Framework v2 release date?[/color]
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
CT wrote:[color=blue]
> Sometime in 2005 is the latest...
>[/color]
That sucks, I was hoping to use it on my new website :(.
Mark
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
CT wrote:[color=blue]
> Sometime in 2005 is the latest...
>[/color]
That sucks, I was hoping to use it on my new website :(.
Mark
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
Longhorn is delayed.....
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1546151,00.asp
How about late 2005 or early 2006 for a reality check?
There is nothing of significant R.O.I. in Yukon to justify the switch from
SQL2000 to Yukon right now.
Thus, it's a BIG "NOT ENOUGH!" that programmers can write .NET, C# and
VB.NET code in SQL Server...
just how many procedures need to be done that way to justify a $50,000 price
tag? ZERO or many as many as I can count one one hand, 5?
Unless, I port ALL my code into SQL Server, then I can see it as being
significant.
Whatever needs to be done is being done right now.
Thus, why should I rewrite something that already works anyway?
And before anyone even attempts to reply, state the R.O.I. where there is an
existing SQL SErver 2000 and justify the switch and where it can't be done
some else with the same COST.
and don't feed me any of that XML nonsense....the only thing right now is
BLOGS and that's it after 5 years of constant propaganda and that's FREE,
which means zero profit.
HIPPA can be done other ways beside XML and it's also a lot faster and
simplier.
XML was designed for "unknown" data, not KNOWN data structures like HIPPA
Why should I describe something that I already know what it's going to be
anyway? Get the point?
"Mark Janssen" <markjanssen@so fthome.net> wrote in message
news:c6rdtr$ndn $1@news5.tilbu1 .nb.home.nl...[color=blue]
> CT wrote:[color=green]
> > Sometime in 2005 is the latest...
> >[/color]
>
> That sucks, I was hoping to use it on my new website :(.
>
> Mark[/color]
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
Longhorn is delayed.....
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1546151,00.asp
How about late 2005 or early 2006 for a reality check?
There is nothing of significant R.O.I. in Yukon to justify the switch from
SQL2000 to Yukon right now.
Thus, it's a BIG "NOT ENOUGH!" that programmers can write .NET, C# and
VB.NET code in SQL Server...
just how many procedures need to be done that way to justify a $50,000 price
tag? ZERO or many as many as I can count one one hand, 5?
Unless, I port ALL my code into SQL Server, then I can see it as being
significant.
Whatever needs to be done is being done right now.
Thus, why should I rewrite something that already works anyway?
And before anyone even attempts to reply, state the R.O.I. where there is an
existing SQL SErver 2000 and justify the switch and where it can't be done
some else with the same COST.
and don't feed me any of that XML nonsense....the only thing right now is
BLOGS and that's it after 5 years of constant propaganda and that's FREE,
which means zero profit.
HIPPA can be done other ways beside XML and it's also a lot faster and
simplier.
XML was designed for "unknown" data, not KNOWN data structures like HIPPA
Why should I describe something that I already know what it's going to be
anyway? Get the point?
"Mark Janssen" <markjanssen@so fthome.net> wrote in message
news:c6rdtr$ndn $1@news5.tilbu1 .nb.home.nl...[color=blue]
> CT wrote:[color=green]
> > Sometime in 2005 is the latest...
> >[/color]
>
> That sucks, I was hoping to use it on my new website :(.
>
> Mark[/color]
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
"anon" <anon@hotmail.c om> wrote in message
news:%23d5I5DlL EHA.3696@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Longhorn is delayed.....
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1546151,00.asp
>
>
> How about late 2005 or early 2006 for a reality check?
>[/color]
OP's question was about .NET v2, not Longhorn.
Willy.
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
"anon" <anon@hotmail.c om> wrote in message
news:%23d5I5DlL EHA.3696@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Longhorn is delayed.....
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1546151,00.asp
>
>
> How about late 2005 or early 2006 for a reality check?
>[/color]
OP's question was about .NET v2, not Longhorn.
Willy.
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
Longhorn uses the new sql server indexing, right? and the new sql server has
..NET right? Longhorn depends on Yukon stuff anyway....MS is certainly not
going to use only sql 2000, but Yukon....
It's all related some way, some how, anyway....
"Willy Denoyette [MVP]" <willy.denoyett e@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:uilrP$oLEH A.2592@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "anon" <anon@hotmail.c om> wrote in message
> news:%23d5I5DlL EHA.3696@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
> > Longhorn is delayed.....
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1546151,00.asp
> >
> >
> > How about late 2005 or early 2006 for a reality check?
> >[/color]
>
> OP's question was about .NET v2, not Longhorn.
>
> Willy.
>
>[/color]
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
Longhorn uses the new sql server indexing, right? and the new sql server has
..NET right? Longhorn depends on Yukon stuff anyway....MS is certainly not
going to use only sql 2000, but Yukon....
It's all related some way, some how, anyway....
"Willy Denoyette [MVP]" <willy.denoyett e@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:uilrP$oLEH A.2592@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "anon" <anon@hotmail.c om> wrote in message
> news:%23d5I5DlL EHA.3696@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
> > Longhorn is delayed.....
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1546151,00.asp
> >
> >
> > How about late 2005 or early 2006 for a reality check?
> >[/color]
>
> OP's question was about .NET v2, not Longhorn.
>
> Willy.
>
>[/color]
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
"anon" <anon@hotmail.c om> wrote in message
news:erSGpAwLEH A.624@TK2MSFTNG P11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Longhorn uses the new sql server indexing, right? and the new sql server[/color]
has[color=blue]
> .NET right? Longhorn depends on Yukon stuff anyway....MS is certainly not
> going to use only sql 2000, but Yukon....
>
> It's all related some way, some how, anyway....[/color]
Yes, everything is related somehow ;-)
--
Miha Markic [MVP C#] - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com
Comment
-
Re: .NET 2 release date
"anon" <anon@hotmail.c om> wrote in message
news:erSGpAwLEH A.624@TK2MSFTNG P11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Longhorn uses the new sql server indexing, right? and the new sql server[/color]
has[color=blue]
> .NET right? Longhorn depends on Yukon stuff anyway....MS is certainly not
> going to use only sql 2000, but Yukon....
>
> It's all related some way, some how, anyway....[/color]
Yes, everything is related somehow ;-)
--
Miha Markic [MVP C#] - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com
Comment
Comment