upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

re:upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

You meant that you're using 2002 of course? (since VS 2000 doesn't
exist).

One thing that really irritated me was that while VS 2002 produces
code that runs on the 1.0 or 1.1 version of the framework with no
work on your part, VS 2003 makes it much harder - you need to
reproduce a pile of incomprehensibl e statements in a config file to
get this to work.

You might want to wait until VS 2005 to see if they fix this - there's
not much improvement overall in 2003.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------

Re: upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

Hi Agnes,

There is no much pain upgrading from 2002 to 2003, you can state it a
disadvantage that your users have to use dotNet 1.1.

In my opinion is 2003 much more robust than 2002, it has less bugs in the
IDE and the upgrade from VB6 to Net is much more complete. You can also
shorten your code a little bit. Maybe you have seen samples here which are
impossible to do with VB2002. It has as well one more control "the
folderdialog". As last the MSI from 2003 is much smaller than with 2002.
There will be more, however that I do not remember me now.

I hope this gives some ideas?

Cor

Re: upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

* thenedman2004@y ahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (TheNedMan) scripsit:[color=blue]
> You meant that you're using 2002 of course? (since VS 2000 doesn't
> exist).
>
> One thing that really irritated me was that while VS 2002 produces
> code that runs on the 1.0 or 1.1 version of the framework with no
> work on your part, VS 2003 makes it much harder - you need to
> reproduce a pile of incomprehensibl e statements in a config file to
> get this to work.[/color]

Mhm... VS.NET 2002 will compile .NET 1.1 assemblies, so that's a big
difference. In current development, I would try to avoid to target .NET
1.0 because there is absolutely no reason to stick with .NET 1.0.
[color=blue]
> You might want to wait until VS 2005 to see if they fix this - there's
> not much improvement overall in 2003.[/color]

ACK, wait if possible but be aware that there will be massive changes.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

Re: upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?


"TheNedMan" <thenedman2004@ yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:40d9010f$1 _2@Usenet.com.. .

| One thing that really irritated me was that while VS 2002 produces
| code that runs on the 1.0 or 1.1 version of the framework with no
| work on your part, VS 2003 makes it much harder - you need to
| reproduce a pile of incomprehensibl e statements in a config file to
| get this to work.

I know that VS2002 compile only 1.0 and with .config you can do whatever you
want.

Do you really know how to edit & compile 1.1 with VS2002 ?
Can you tell me how to do it or where to find info about that ?

Many thanks
Giuliano

Re: upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

Herfried,[color=blue]
> Mhm... VS.NET 2002 will compile .NET 1.1 assemblies, so that's a big[/color]
Is that a typo?

In my experience VS.NET 2002 only compiles .NET 1.0 assemblies, while VS.NET
2003 only compiles .NET 1.1 assembles.

For details of side by side & having an assembly run under a different
version of the framework see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...dexsidenet.asp

Yes there are unsupported procedures to get VS.NET 2002 to almost create a
1.1 assembly, however in my experience it causes VS.NET 2002 to become even
more unstable then it already is...

Hope this helps
Jay

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:2jt1g8F13f ds6U1@uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> * thenedman2004@y ahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (TheNedMan) scripsit:[color=green]
> > You meant that you're using 2002 of course? (since VS 2000 doesn't
> > exist).
> >
> > One thing that really irritated me was that while VS 2002 produces
> > code that runs on the 1.0 or 1.1 version of the framework with no
> > work on your part, VS 2003 makes it much harder - you need to
> > reproduce a pile of incomprehensibl e statements in a config file to
> > get this to work.[/color]
>
> Mhm... VS.NET 2002 will compile .NET 1.1 assemblies, so that's a big
> difference. In current development, I would try to avoid to target .NET
> 1.0 because there is absolutely no reason to stick with .NET 1.0.
>[color=green]
> > You might want to wait until VS 2005 to see if they fix this - there's
> > not much improvement overall in 2003.[/color]
>
> ACK, wait if possible but be aware that there will be massive changes.
>
> --
> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
> <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>[/color]

Re: upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow_MVP @msn.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:%23HILioSW EHA.1128@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. ..

[cut]

| Yes there are unsupported procedures to get VS.NET 2002 to almost create a
| 1.1 assembly, however in my experience it causes VS.NET 2002 to become
even
| more unstable then it already is...

Which procedures ? Do you have any link ?

Giuliano

Re: upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

Giuliano,
I use VS.NET 2003, so I don't have the link. It shows up in the general &
framwork newsgroups every once in awhile.

Rather then waste your time on finding the link I would recommend upgrading
to VS.NET 2003.

Just a thought
Jay

"Giuliano" <noanswer@noans wer.it> wrote in message
news:ee78D9SWEH A.2844@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow_MVP @msn.com> ha scritto nel
> messaggio news:%23HILioSW EHA.1128@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. ..
>
> [cut]
>
> | Yes there are unsupported procedures to get VS.NET 2002 to almost create[/color]
a[color=blue]
> | 1.1 assembly, however in my experience it causes VS.NET 2002 to become
> even
> | more unstable then it already is...
>
> Which procedures ? Do you have any link ?
>
> Giuliano
>
>[/color]

re:upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

VS 2002 assemblies will run on 1.1. You can't use features from 1.1
since VS 2002 itself runs on 1.0, but my point was that it is
drop-dead easy to produce for any version of the framework with VS
2002 since 1.0 is forward compatible with 1.1.

Look at the documentaion for trying this with VS 2003 - if you're
comfortable with the config file gobbledeegook that you have to
include then go for it. Personally, I don't want to distribute this
sort of crap - I'll wait for 2005 (assuming Microsoft fixes it
there).


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------

Re: upgrade vs.net2000 to 2003 ?

* "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow_MVP @msn.com> scripsit:[color=blue]
> Herfried,[color=green]
>> Mhm... VS.NET 2002 will compile .NET 1.1 assemblies, so that's a big[/color]
> Is that a typo?[/color]

As always, it's a typo. I remember that's not the first time I pressed
"2" instead of "3" in posts about this topic :-(.
[color=blue]
> In my experience VS.NET 2002 only compiles .NET 1.0 assemblies, while VS.NET
> 2003 only compiles .NET 1.1 assembles.[/color]

ACK!

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>