Re: There is no .NET in Vista Code?

"Lurkio" wrote:
I.P. Nichols wrote:

Yes, but the points I am making (and those of the article I
linked to) about .NET aren't rants against Microsoft /per se/
(although I /am/ an admitted sceptic <g>) but expressions of
concern at serious flaws we see in the design of the framework.
If those points are fatuous then by all means tear them apart
but complaining about alleged bias and immediately jumping to
negative conclusions regarding the authors credentials makes it
look all the more like they've hit the target and that you don't
have an answer to their questions...

I don't remember Joel's rant as asking specific questions but mostly
complaints but if the question was "why can't I have a linker" then I gave
an answer to that question but I didn't say you would agree.

As for my immediately jumping to negative conclusion - give me a break -
upon reading his article I knew he didn't have a valid point about
absolutely needing Microsoft to supply a linker. Which BTW seems to be what
you keep coming back to and my answer to you is go try one of the available
linkers and see if you like it.

I definitely take your point about the validity of the
capability to seamlessly "float up" from 32-bit to 64-bit
(though having seen first hand how plenty of un-tethered
.NET apps seem to break when floating up to the latest
framework version, I would want to see this in action
before betting my mortgage on it <g>) but you fail to
acknowledge /my/ central point about the fact that
/there is no single, monolithic entity called .NET/ that
a developer can safely assume will be available on the
target customer machine.

Of course I can't guarantee what may or may not be on someone's machine but
I damn well can have my app test and report what's on his machine and make
recommendations if they need to install the runtime.

The spiffy new 32bit application you've tied to 1.1 can't
very well seamlessly float up to 64bit when the target
machine has only got 2.0 on it now, can it ? :-P

I don't have a 64bit machine to test on so I can't swear it will happen but
do believe that a well designed 1.1 would seamlessly float up to .NET 2.0 -
64bit.

You keep implying that it's almost a certainty that a 1.1 apps will break on
2.0 but all my experience and that of lots of others don't reach that
conclusion.

To again make sure I'm on firm ground I ran a little experiment this
morning. I went to my wife's email Dell with Win-XP SP2 home edition and
removed the .NET 1.1 that was installed on the machine by Dell. After
carefully checking that in fact it was removed I downloaded Omea Reader from
JetBrains and started installing it, soon as the installer started a dialog
box popped up saying it required .NET 1.1 or higher and asking if I wanted
to go to Microsoft and download it or continue - I choose continue and when
the installation was complete and I tried to run Omea and again a dialog box
said it need .NET installed and asked if I wanted to go to Microsoft and
install it and I said yes, it directed me the Microsoft download page for
..NET 1.1 at which point I exited back to the OS.

I then when to the start menu and selected Windows Update and after it
scanned my machine it said there were no critical updates but there were 10
option updates one of which was .NET 2.0 which I selected and it then first
downloaded the 22.4 MB file taking exactly 2 minutes on my wireless network
connected to internet via DSL. It then took 7 minutes to install and no
reboot was required.

I then started Omea and it was as happy as could be with no breaking. I then
networked to my own computer and copied over 3 apps that I had build with VS
2003 under .Net 1.1 and they all ran just fine.

Yeah, well in my opinion they certainly didn't think enough
about the PITA deployment issues it gives to many people out
in the real world...and these are simply going to get worse
as the accumulation of versions increases unless they do
something to address it.

Opinions are opinions and facts are facts. On my machine running Win-XP SP2
I have .Net 1.1 and 2.0 plus the Feb CTP of WinFX installed and I haven't
experienced *any* problems running *any* 1.1 or 2.0 or WinFX apps.

Understand I'm not saying that there may not be some apps that break but I
can't confirm your belief that it's a major PITA problem that's gonna get
worst.

I rather doubt that I have lessened you worst nightmare fears but at least
I've provided some food for thought.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: spyware not working
    ... You cannot really "download from a disc" - you could install. ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... More full function applications for CD/DVD burning would be: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Trojan / Adware infection on Windows XP Pro computer
    ... > can install on the infectedcomputer so that I don't have to contect to ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... - Roll back the clock with System Restore ... and some you can only download if you are registered - but it is best ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: As I use Internet Explorer I get this pop up-
    ... Download and install the Flash Player and Shockwave Players from the sites I ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... keep it clean,secure and running at its top performance mark. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: FTC Complaint filed
    ... used by Microsoft to load DRM, Media Connect, and WMP11. ... DRM patches were a selectable download at one time, ... There is no way to limit what M$ wants to install on your system because they hide the descriptions, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player)
  • Re: SPYWARE...HELP ME PLEASE!!
    ... They download but when I try to install them ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... More full function applications for CD/DVD burning would be: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)