Re: Vista and .NET (Win32 life may be limited)

"Jon Robertson" wrote:
I.P. Nichols wrote:

My problem is that after scanning several blogs, including Danny
Thorpe's, I'm unable to find that revelant blog you refer to.

See my reply to myself later in this thread. The newsgroup post/blog
that I was referring to is at http://tinyurl.com/e9dc2

Still when all is said and done, I rather doubt that not beta testing
Delphi against beta .NET frameworks causes such long delays as we
have seen with adoption of .NET ver 2.0. From what I have recently
read (I think on SteveT or AllenB's blog) it seems that only now
after the RTM of the latest update is the work necessary to bring
v2.0 to fruition getting full bore attention.

You have to look at the whole forest, not just a few trees.

I (and others) interpreted Danny's comments to mean that there is a
licensing restriction that would prevent beta testing Delphi's support
for .NET 2.0 until after RTM. Taking a step back...

First, many thanks for the reference link, I well remember Danny's comments
about the uncertainty of a firm release date for .NET 2.0. Also I fully
understand Microsoft's firm position on not allowing the distribution of
beta bits or releases of Delphi based on .NET beta bits before it's been
RTM.

What I don't understand is the rational behind the last paragraph by Daniel
Rail which I quote below and where he uses the term "prereleases". In my
vernacular a prerelease isn't the same as a beta version but more like a
preview version that isn't yet feature complete and usually more widely
distributed than to a limited group such as Borland's tightly controled NDA
beta testers. But enough of this, it's now all water under the bridge until
next...

/ my quote begin/
Borland cannot ship product on .NET 2.0 beta. Microsoft has made that very
clear. We pushed hard to get license to distribute Borland product with .NET
2.0 beta bits on the CD, but Microsoft flatly refused

<snip>
We originally intended to release tools for .NET 2.0 in 2005. However, .NET
2.0 slipped out of our release window, and Microsoft refused to let us
release on .NET beta bits, so we adjusted our priorities to create DeXter on
..NET 1.1.


[...End Quote]


So, for those that have suggested that Borland could've played with .Net 2.0
beta and be ready for .Net 2.0 release. It seemed almost impossible to do
that without having bits of .Net 2.0 beta in preleases of BDS 2006. So,
basically it could've only been tested internally without any external
testers, and I'm sure that tool developers wouldn't have been happy to see
..Net 2.0 support, but without having access to it prior to the release

/my quote end/



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows XP SP# Final?
    ... If you go back to the download page that you cited and scroll down to the ... [end quote] ... I'd say it's still a beta release. ... I mean is it a beta form or the finished edition. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Audiosurf
    ... I preordered it the other day based on trying the beta. ... Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, ... Trim replies to quote only relevant text. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action)
  • Re: [Xnews] Access violation errors (continuing)
    ... Mike Dee wrote in ... You did read the 'changes' log for your (latest beta) version? ... ........The wiser among you may want to sit out a few rounds:) ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: ISA Server Beta
    ... > Are you sure about that Mariette? ... Quote from the email I received ... > beta testers, and is covered under your NDA. ... > Chad A. Gross - SBS MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Visual Studio 2005/.Net Framework 2.0 Certifications - Beta Offer
    ... Visual Studio 2005/.Net Framework 2.0 Certifications - Beta Offer ... You can be a step closer to becoming "Microsoft Certified Professional ... Only one entry per Beta exam, but if you take 2 different Betas you'll be ... To be eligible for the prize drawing, ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd)