Certainly I meant framework environment. Do you think that app developed in visual Studio 2003 can be recompiled with visual studio
2005? I had bad experience about that, yeah, I got a application from my workmate developed in 2005 where as my machine was having 2003. So, It didn't work for me.App was simple TCP/IP application with talking to com port.
ali
Yes, an app developed with 2003, can be compiled with 2005; and it can be compiled to target the framework that was deployed with 2003 (.net
1.1).As for an application developed in 2005, if you target it for .net 1.1 then you can compile it in 2003. Just be warned however that the .sln and .**proj files may not be compatible. Furthermore any automatically generated code, such as that for GUI apps may not port backwards to previous versions of visual studio either.
This does not matter. All versions of the framework can work side by side. If you write code that uses new classes in .net2.0, then of course it wont work in .net1.1. If you wtite it using the 1.1 classes, then it will work.
I found it hard to believe as well. Until I tried to load FreeWave, the software that came with the Instek GDS-2204 scope. Loaded .NET 2.0, got an error message about incompatibility. The manual recommended the older version so after some searching I found it, loaded it. Now it worked.
That just doesn't happen with, for example, MS-Office. I make sure my files are '97 compatible and I never had a single complaint that someone couldn't read a file, even with heavily loaded "jumbo files". Except for a few folks who used OpenOffice but that's a different story.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
For Instek's FreeWave it didn't.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
My experiences point in the other direction. On DOS, there was never any problem to terminate. Ever. In Win 3.2 it was kind of ok, just slower. Everything that followed made it more tricky to terminate a hanging process. IME XP is the worst here, freezing solid about five times a day. CTRL-ALT-DEL ... nada, keeps hanging. Of course, that PC also has the magic hard reset function, works every single time ;-)
No idea how Vista would fare but for now I won't touch that with a 10ft pole.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
the
You said before that it needed a previous version of the framework. If its written for 1.1, then it aint going to work for 2.0 unless its recompiled for 2.0.
Sounds like a PC problem. When ever i hit CTRL-ALT-DEL it works just fine. Considering how many PC's I come across i never really have a problem.
Vista craps on XP in that respect. I have not come across one operation that cannot be cancelled yet. The one that really pissed me of in XP was networking, and i reckon that most people would agree.
I found it odd how so many people bag Vista when in fact it works just fine. All the complaints I have read tend to stem from the false info about DRM and people trying to run software designed in the early
80's. As for the latter, well NT or XP wasn't any different to Vista in that respect. The only issue I have had with Vista was the fact that Nero did not work, forcing me to upgrade to Nero7.
... snip ...
I wouldn't touch it with _your_ 10 ft pole.
-- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
USB
that
but
start
the
Well, that proves the point. .NET appears to lack in backward compatibility. Else routines written for 1.1 would work. Even Windows is better in that respect. I do not have to recompile anything from the DOS or Windows 98 era to run it on XP. It just works.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
As for SW from the early 80's there is a lot of that here in my lab. Mostly SW that simply doesn't come any other way, where the design teams have disbanded decades ago but where there is no alternative. It must work, it's required in my case. One example are routines to design wave digital filters. So if an OS doesn't support this then that OS is off limits out here until they fix it.
Not sure about Vistas bloat factor but I've read that it needs at least
512MB of RAM. Well, I am not going to ditch any PC that has less ;-)-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
:-)
Thing is, I don't have to touch it ....
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
On Sunday, in article snipped-for-privacy@removethispacbell.net "Joerg" wrote: ...
Either your pole is too short or it is still in compressed proprietary format and needs installation, security key long enough to identify every individual flea on every dog on the planet, and phone home hourly.
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
GNU H8 & mailing list info
For those web sites you hate
USB
that
but
start
the
thing
like
like
You have missed the point I am afraid. Each version was designed to run side by side, it still can. It was designed so that version assemblies with the same name can run side by side. That is the whole point of .net.
As for recompiling dos apps, that is because you are compiling to native code. If you were to do the same, using a com dll, then you would NOT be able to run the 2 side by side, you can only replace. Therefore you get the same issue with backward compatibility.
Well for a start, I wouldn't upgrade to Vista in your situation, but Vista would not stop me buying a new PC. The only reason that I upgraded my main PC is because: a) it was free complimnets of my MSDN subscription b) i write software for a living and I need to keep up to date.
USB
that
to
but
Go
start
to
use the
start
thing
like
like
Ok, I am a HW guy and not a programmer. Actually wrestling with VBA right now, something I guess you could easily do in your sleep. But from a "user" point of view the situation is this: One program will not run under .NET 2.0 and an error messages requests to install 1.1. Another program will not run with 1.1 but needs 2.0. Not cool. IMHO a newer version of an environment needs to be able to run all the legacy stuff as well.
Again, from a layman's perspective I can only say that all the old *.exe files from my wild days will still run just fine. Except the ones with the Borland runtime error but there is a kludge to make those work as well without a re-compile.
Besides quality, for us HW guys there are just two states when it comes to SW: It either works or it doesn't. When I get my filter coefficients nicely listed it's working, when I get an error box, well ... ;-)
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Yes, if you write SW you've got to be able to at least test it on the newest OS. Plus learn the nasties and pitfalls of it.
This morning I talked with my sister in Europe and she needs a new PC. I told her that it's kind of late because over here most can only be bought with Vista on there. Which is why I bought one just before the Vista release. To my surprise she said that there seems to be an increasing number of PCs offered with XP over there.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
a USB
that
to
ports but
Go
start
to
won't
use the
start
thing
anything
like
like
I was a hardware guy, then moved to embedded firmware, now pretty much software consulting. I still get the odd maintenance or feature addition job with some embedded stuff, but few and far in between.
Its the same for me. I am a harsh critic of software dev and tools, but this time i think MS have finally got it right. No so much in .net
1/1.1, but 2.0 was good.What annoys me most is the fact that when i do have to do firmware,
90% of the tools that I have to use are from companies that have disapearred into the ether. This is why now when i recommend tools I will not approve of anything from a 2 man backyard operation. If I want firmware tools, I want something that wii still be supported in 10years, and for the company to still exist. Furthermore, I expect the company to invest in dev and keep the tools up to date. A good recent example of this was with Microchip tools. I had an ICE that cost thousands of dollars, great tool, company gone. Now I also owned a picstart plus programmer - still supported with a simple firmware upgrade. Needless to say, the ICE has now been replaced with a microchip ICD.
Put it this way, unless you are a hardcore gamer (i dont think the open source graphic libraries are supported yet), or a hardware engineer, then Vista will suit your needs just fine.
... snip about 160 lines ...
Please make a practice of snipping material not germane to your answer from replies.
-- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
Sorry boss.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.