.NET 2.0 vs .NET 1.1 | Tech Off

brownsoft

Its too bad that since I have invested in VS 2003(.NET 1.1) that I have to spend alot of $$ just to upgrade to .NET 2.0! Seems like most people will be switching to VS2005.

Will people still build apps for .NET 1.1?? Can you build Avalon/Inidgo apps with .NET 1.1?? Why doesn't M$ provide a dropin to VS2003 that allows them to compile either to .NET 1.1 or .NET 2.0???

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

People will continue to build apps for 1.1 at the very least until 2.0 is added to Windows Update.

mVPstar
I'm white because I smelt an onion.

Maurits wrote:

People will continue to build apps for 1.1 at the very least until 2.0 is added to Windows Update.

This is a bit off topic but, is 1.1 in Windows Update and is it one of those updates that users are "forced" to install.

I'm still a bit concerned about users having .NET one way or the other.

mVPstar

Sven Groot
You can't have everything; after all, where would you put it?

It's on Windows Update, but it's in the optional updates.

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

If you have (say) 1.1 installed, then 1.1 SP 1 is a "critical update"

It's an open question as to whether 2.0 will be a "critical update" if you have a 1.x release installed

Sven Groot
You can't have everything; after all, where would you put it?

Considering 2.0 is installed side-by-side with 1.1, it definitely won't be. If it's offered as a critical update, it will be offered as such on all systems, regardless of any earlier .Net versions installed.

I'm still a bit confused by the fact that Windows XP x64 doesn't come with .Net included, despite being based on Windows Server 2003, it's not offered on Windows Update, and if you install it manually, the updates for it are also not offered!

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

Sven Groot wrote:

Considering 2.0 is installed side-by-side with 1.1, it definitely won't be.

I'm not so sure... we'll see though Smiley

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Sven Groot wrote:

I'm still a bit confused by the fact that Windows XP x64 doesn't come with .Net included

On SlashDot, there's a rather large "Anti-CLR" bias. When there was an article about .NET being included with WS2003, the article stub actually said: "...yet another way for Microsoft to force .NET down our throats"

...which is odd considering that Microsoft's .NET department is the most open and least evil.

mVPstar
I'm white because I smelt an onion.

W3bbo wrote:

...which is odd considering that Microsoft's .NET department is the most open and least evil.

If not the whole company isn't at all evil. Smiley

I thought we don't care anymore about the SlashDot andromeda...

brownsoft wrote:
Why doesn't M$ provide a dropin to VS2003 that allows them to compile either to .NET 1.1 or .NET 2.0???

Yeah. Agreed.

mVPstar

Stuart Celarier
Don violates Stuart's service boundaries at PDC 03

brownsoft wrote:

...I have to spend alot of $$ just to upgrade to .NET 2.0!...

...Can you build Avalon/Inidgo apps with .NET 1.1??...

...Why doesn't M$ provide a dropin to VS2003 that allows them to compile either to .NET 1.1 or .NET 2.0???

You don't have to spend any money. For the first time in the product line, Microsoft will release Express versions of Visual Studio 2005 which will be available free of charge, suited for hobbyists, academia, novices, non-professionals and entry level professionals.

I don't think that upgrade prices from Visual Studio .NET 2003 to Visual Studio 2005 have been announced yet. So I am not sure what you mean by spending a lot of money to upgrade.

Avalon and Indigo are part of WinFX which depends on the .NET Framework 2.0. You can't build Avalon or Indigo apps with .NET 1.1.

Once you get a load of the features in VS2005, I don't think you'd be interested in boring old VS2003. And there are a lot of .NET 2.0 features (e.g., new data binding, master pages, etc.) that have new support in VS2005 - those are features that VS2003 would have no way to support without rewriting VS2003.

andokai

Sven Groot wrote:

I'm still a bit confused by the fact that Windows XP x64 doesn't come with .Net included, despite being based on Windows Server 2003, it's not offered on Windows Update, and if you install it manually, the updates for it are also not offered!

I think this is because there is no x64 version of .NET 1.x. There only will be version 2.0 and up.

Sven Groot
You can't have everything; after all, where would you put it?

andokai wrote:

I think this is because there is no x64 version of .NET 1.x. There only will be version 2.0 and up.

Yeah, so what? There's no x64 version of WMP, and that didn't stop them from including it.

There's only one thing about .Net 1.1 that doesn't work on XP x64, and that's ASP.NET, because the 64 bit version of IIS6 can't load the 32 bit ISAPI extension. But even that can be fixed by setting a metabase property that instructs IIS to run 32 bit applications instead. It even tells you that when you run the installer.

andokai

Sven Groot wrote:

andokai wrote: I think this is because there is no x64 version of .NET 1.x. There only will be version 2.0 and up.

Yeah, so what? There's no x64 version of WMP, and that didn't stop them from including it.

There's only one thing about .Net 1.1 that doesn't work on XP x64, and that's ASP.NET, because the 64 bit version of IIS6 can't load the 32 bit ISAPI extension. But even that can be fixed by setting a metabase property that instructs IIS to run 32 bit applications instead. It even tells you that when you run the installer.

I see. I'll just cower in this corner over here.

Sven Groot
You can't have everything; after all, where would you put it?

andokai wrote:

Sven Groot wrote:

andokai wrote: I think this is because there is no x64 version of .NET 1.x. There only will be version 2.0 and up.

Yeah, so what? There's no x64 version of WMP, and that didn't stop them from including it.

There's only one thing about .Net 1.1 that doesn't work on XP x64, and that's ASP.NET, because the 64 bit version of IIS6 can't load the 32 bit ISAPI extension. But even that can be fixed by setting a metabase property that instructs IIS to run 32 bit applications instead. It even tells you that when you run the installer.

I see. I'll just cower in this corner over here.

You do that. Tongue Out

Okay, maybe that post sounded a little more hostile than I intended.

Gambit

Sven Groot wrote:

It's on Windows Update, but it's in the optional updates.

My mom's brand new Dell machine had 1.1 pre-installed on her machine. Maybe the computer manufacturers are now going to start including .NET in their base Windows installs.

blairkenn
WNT <- VMS

Stuart,

The release products, albeit cheap, are not free.

* Are the Express Edition products free?
Our plan is to offer the Express products for $49 per product when they are released.

Here is the link to the Express FAQs.: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/faq/default.aspx#general

Blair.

Stuart Celarier
Don violates Stuart's service boundaries at PDC 03

blairkenn wrote:

The [Express] release products, albeit cheap, are not free.

Yeah, I know that's what it says, but ... I was told that they'd have a list price of $49, and then have a more or less permanent discount of about $49. Especially true for Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition. There was a story behind why it is that way, but I didn't stick around for it. That information is at least five or six months old, a lot might have changed in that time. I'd also expect lots of giveaways of the Express SKUs at conferences, user group events, etc.

Even $49 is not the lots of money the OP is worrying about, and very small compared to the cost of VS.NET 2003.

Tensor
Im in yr house upgrading yr family

While you have to pay for the VS 2005 IDE, dont forget that the vb.net and c# compilers have been free since day one of .NET. There are other, free, none-microsoft IDEs which target the .net framework. Or you could use notepad.

For myself, I very much doubt I will be able to imediatley upgrade to .net 2.0, as we have a large ongoing product whos finish date will overlap the release date of VS 2005. Once that product is finished we may port it to 2.0, but that certainly is not a priority.

PeterH
Iomesus

Is it possible to compile to .Net v1.1 with Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2? How?

Whenever I compile it is into .Net v2.0 by default.

Thanks.

nightski

If what your asking is if the .NET 2.0 compiler will emit 1.1 IL - the answer is no - and for good reasons (the 1.1 compiler didn't go anywhere hehe).

So if you want to compile 1.1 code, just use the 1.1 compiler. This makes sense, no?

Now, if you are using VS 2005 and are asking whether you can configure a 1.1 project in it - the answer is no. This also makes sense because the IDE has a lot of 2.0 features built in such as code highlighting and syntax checking.

Plus all your references in VS2005 by default are the 2.0 System.* dlls. Of course this can be changed, but it would be a mess.

Word of experience - just run VS 2003 and VS 2005 side by side.

Of course, there is also the issue that in VS 2005 an entirely different project file format, and build system are used. MS Build is completely new. However, MS Build will support the 1.1 compiler as a target, this just isn't implemented in VS 2005 for the reasons mentioned above.

brownsoft

Yeah, they will be priced at $49 but there will be alot of features that will not be there compared to the standard C# 2005/Profession C# 2005 edition.

Maybe what I am asking, will there be a need for .NET 1.1 stuff even after .NET 2.0 is finally released.

rhm
Love the OS, hate the advocates.

A need? What are you aiming to develop? If you are developing end-user software then your situation hasn't changed by the release of .net2. If you are developing controls then I believe that .net1.1 stuff will integrate with Windows.Forms apps done on VS2005 without changes. If you mean skills, .net2 isn't so different and if you get a job in the future where they use VS2005 I'm sure the fact that you've only got VS2003 experience won't be a problem. I mean everyone is new to it at some point.