If you're using VS 2003, it'll still use 1.1 to compile, even if you've installed the 2.0 framework. It's quite possible to run more than one framework at once - I run 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0, and use both VS2003 and VS2005 on the same machine, with no problems.
Is there a reason to keep 2003 once you get 2005 ?Originally Posted by stovellp
And alittle unrelated question, if 2003 works with 1.1, what worked with 1.0 ?
"I don't suffer from insanity but enjoy every minute of it" - Edgar Allen Poe
http://www.Bloodware.net - Developing free software for the community.
Visual Studio 2002 used 1.0, and Windows Server 2003 comes with both 1.0 and 1.1.
I keep 2003 because I sometimes have to work on old 1.1 projects. Other than that, I use 2005 for everything. Beta 2 is stable enough for most everything.
Do you choose to stick with 1.1, or is there a technical reason why you need to stay with 1.1 ?I keep 2003 because I sometimes have to work on old 1.1 projects.
"I don't suffer from insanity but enjoy every minute of it" - Edgar Allen Poe
http://www.Bloodware.net - Developing free software for the community.
At work we have a few 1.1 projects that are already in production (live) which we maintain. We've started moving them in 2.0, but bugs still need to be fixed in 1.1 versions as they come up. That's the problem with programming for a job - you don't always get to play with the latest gadgets
Unfortunately I'm cursed at the moment with Visual Studio 2002. I obtained a copy back when I was taking classes at a community college. For some reason the professor let us copy his disks (which in turn were copies of the original disks).
So now that Visual Studio 2005 is coming out, and is apparently pretty cheap for the standard, if you call $300 cheap, I'm having to decide whether or not to upgrade. A part of me wants to stick to free tools, but those free tools are slowing me down.
Edit: One of the biggest reasons I'm having to decide is that I'm a hobbyist developer. I'm not aiming at the moment to be a professional developer but then I've never thought over it much either.
Last edited by Frobozz; 10-10-2005 at 03:06 AM.
The .NET framework is designed so you can have multiple versions installed at once.
You'll find all the framework files ususally in:
C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework
In that folder is a folder with the current version of the framework. Chances are you have two - one for 2.0 and one for 1.1, and maybe even one for 1.0.
So when you install .NET 2.0, and you try and run an application built with 1.1, it will still work. It just uses the 1.1 library. 2.0 isn't really "backwards compatible" in that sense, it's just that the framework supports multiple versions.
It's a good marketing technique to have seperate IDE's for seperate versions. It's extra expense to the developers. I'm kinda glad about it, actually. If you use 2003, it's fully supported for 1.1 apps. If you use 2005, it's fully supported for 2.0. There's too much for each version to be just in one IDE. It'd be a headache for MS to merge it all!
I don't think there are too many people who would have agreed with you. For the prices MS charges they better have a headache!!!
Last edited by Devil Panther; 10-14-2005 at 03:56 AM.
"I don't suffer from insanity but enjoy every minute of it" - Edgar Allen Poe
http://www.Bloodware.net - Developing free software for the community.
You actually get quite a bit when you buy the standard edition for $300 unlike before. If I remember correctly, the previous standard editions were only one language (as opposed to five) and cost even more!
Oh man, sorry but I think you are soo wrong here.
First, Microsoft aren't in the developer tools market. The Visual Studio product line is a massive loss for Microsoft (as far as the money they make from it goes). If anything, they should be charging ten times more for the amount of productivity a tool like Visual Studio gives you.
But Microsoft don't care about making money from developers. The reason Visual Studio is so cheap is because the more people they can get using Microsoft technologies and writing Microsoft software, the more customers will be forced to use Windows and Office.
For example, Microsoft encourage developers to use Visual Studio and DirectX and give them a host of tools and a great platform to build games on, because they know that while Rome: Total War and counterstrike require Windows, no one will move anywhere else. That's why Microsoft love developers.
If they could, Visual Studio would be free. The thousand or so bucks they could have made from one developer would easily be made up for by the millions of dollars the customers of that developer would spend on other Microsoft software. The only reason VS isn't free is because Microsoft don't want to put alternative companies such as Borland out of business.
VS is worth a hell of a lot more than $300 though. But if anything, its companies like Borland we should be blaming for having to pay for these tools.
Well I have to agree VS 2005 is cheaper than usual, but never the less 300$ is far from cheap, and it reminds me of the old windows prices.
And as for the whole "developers loving MS", you're right, they try to make people to work more with windows, it's a very smart strategy.
"I don't suffer from insanity but enjoy every minute of it" - Edgar Allen Poe
http://www.Bloodware.net - Developing free software for the community.
One more question...
I heard that it's easier for cracker's to hack the .net framework and view the C# source code of the software...or I heard something like that. Is this true?
When C# programs are compiled, they are translated to bytecode rather than native machine language. But in the end it is no easier to view than native machine language that has been reassembled into C. I've seen C code generated from machine language and it is horrible!
Another factor to consider is that while you can reassemble it, due to optimizing and such the code will look nothing like the original source. If it can in fact it can be returned to C#, it wouldn't be worth the effort for any program of moderate size.
Last edited by Frobozz; 10-22-2005 at 01:32 PM.
http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/
Like mention above, .NET (C#) programs are compiled to Microsoft Intermediary Language. Using the tool above (and plenty of others exist) you can even look inside the .NET framework code. I use it all the time to see how things are done.
But in the end, it really doesn't matter. The reason is that nowadays, programs are good because of what they do, not how they do it. Many years ago if you wrote an application, it would have been good because it did things faster or better or with less space than its competitors. Nowadays, that's not so important, and the actual code behind it isn't. We're making a program that's 500,000 lines of C# code (100 SQL Server database tables), which sells at about $2,000 per user, and we're not scared of people using a tool like the above to read what our code is doing. Why? Because the actual code isn't original - it's all pretty standard. The real value is the ideas and design and effort and knowledge we've put into it - things you can steal without reading the code.
