Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- From: "Trevor de Koekkoek" <trevor_dek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 22:00:23 -0400
"Brett Watters" <blwatters@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:445d1b1b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jim,
.NET 2 exists because .NET 1.1 doesn't workOdd. It works for so many other people.
Honestly, if you look at the features of .NET 2, it addresses
problems with Visual Studio .NET. So many VB folks purchases
VS.NET, shelved it, and immediately screamed for .NET 2.
Actually, no. VS2003 was more stable than VS2005, but VS2005 offers more
features (ie. .NET 2.0). Writing apps in VS2003 for Winforms or ASP.NET
worked quite well, but .NET 2.0 has many improvements to warrent people to
upgrade dispite the instability of VS2005.
-Trevor
.
- References:
- Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- From: Mat Ballard
- Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- From: Brett Watters
- Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- From: Jan Derk
- Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- From: Brett Watters
- Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- From: Jim Cooper
- Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- From: Brett Watters
- Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- Prev by Date: Re: DevCo = Developer Tools Group (DTG) !!!
- Next by Date: Re: Component pet peeves
- Previous by thread: Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- Next by thread: Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|