Here are some screen shots. Please note, I don't want to piss Microsoft off. A alpha tester of it gave these to me. Here are some Whidbey/Visual Studio .NET screen shots.
*fixed*
alpha is before beta
Printable View
Here are some screen shots. Please note, I don't want to piss Microsoft off. A alpha tester of it gave these to me. Here are some Whidbey/Visual Studio .NET screen shots.
*fixed*
alpha is before beta
shot 2
shot 3
shot 4
"beta alpha tester"
.......... do you know what either of the words mean or do you just like throwing them together?
I can't believe microsoft is actually going to go through with this. Good god they must have the dumbest people working for them. The .NET plan is sooo flawed in sooo many ways, yet they are going to continue.... ugh
people need to get hurt :eek:
shot 5
shot 6
shot 7
shot 8
shot 9
shot 10
Again. I did not make the shots, my freind did.
Whats wrong with the .NET plan?Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
"beta alpha tester"
.......... do you know what either of the words mean or do you just like throwing them together?
I can't believe microsoft is actually going to go through with this. Good god they must have the dumbest people working for them. The .NET plan is sooo flawed in sooo many ways, yet they are going to continue.... ugh
people need to get hurt :eek:
man..ever even tried .net??Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
"beta alpha tester"
.......... do you know what either of the words mean or do you just like throwing them together?
I can't believe microsoft is actually going to go through with this. Good god they must have the dumbest people working for them. The .NET plan is sooo flawed in sooo many ways, yet they are going to continue.... ugh
people need to get hurt :eek:
new shot
Pretend I said nothing, I shouldn't of crapped on the thread. I'll save my rantings for Microsoft's horrible plan some other time.Quote:
Originally posted by Edneeis
Whats wrong with the .NET plan?
.....Quote:
Originally posted by area91
man..ever even tried .net??
I post in VB .NET almost everyday to help people and I've posted in the VB .NET code bank with a couple of little functions to using services.....
so yeah.. of course I have.
Why did you black out the shot? We can't go directly to the URL because you have to be logged in to do so at www.betaplace.com and even if you're logged in, you have to be accepted into the beta anywayQuote:
Originally posted by area91
new shot
just..,.he did it not me
Looks like we're ganna have problems with the damn 1.2 framwork ....again and again ....:confused:
sorry but i just dont get why u are always bitching with everything/one..Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
Why did you black out the shot? We can't go directly to the URL because you have to be logged in to do so at www.betaplace.com and even if you're logged in, you have to be accepted into the beta anyway
@pirate
why new problems with 1.2? compatibilities you mean?
Yes . There must be some problems between those two versions.Just the Same of what happened to 1.0 . Sounds every new version of this framework thingy kills the next generation....:DlolQuote:
Originally posted by PT Exorcist
sorry but i just dont get why u are always bitching with everything/one..
@pirate
why new problems with 1.2? compatibilities you mean?
I dont think so. The things that changed from 1 to 1.1 were mostly internal changes and additions. Little code should have been affected.
New classes added , few maybe removed (buggy or so) , a lot of new features so I should say new VS.NET 2004 . horible:confused:
Really I got lucky then only one method changed when I switched from 1.0 to 1.1.
I don't ***** about everything, I just ***** about stupid people and retarded corporationsQuote:
Originally posted by PT Exorcist
sorry but i just dont get why u are always bitching with everything/one..
.Net is still version 1. Everyone should have realized this a year ago when it came out. Windows version 1 was crap, but now I think 2000 is really good. Nothing is great at version 1. Look at Linux, it is based of Unix that has been around forever, its tried and tested. I am just now getting into .Net because I realized MS would be making changes and eventually put out a really good product. What I am saying is, if you think .Net is crap then don't use it. Wait until version 2 or 3 or 4 comes out, or stick with Java (which had problems in the first build). I really believe if you have built enterprise applications with .Net 1.0 then you deserve to have problems. But, these problems will work themselves out, just give it time.Quote:
Originally posted by Pirate
New classes added , few maybe removed (buggy or so) , a lot of new features so I should say new VS.NET 2004 . horible:confused:
Oh and thanks for the screenshots. I look forward to checking out 2004.
From MS Press:
Recent changes in VS . net include an interface with more gold in it that Mr T's Jewelry box.
Show me windows 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, ect... because that is what windows currently is planning for .NETQuote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
.Net is still version 1. Everyone should have realized this a year ago when it came out. Windows version 1 was crap, but now I think 2000 is really good. Nothing is great at version 1. Look at Linux, it is based of Unix that has been around forever, its tried and tested. I am just now getting into .Net because I realized MS would be making changes and eventually put out a really good product. What I am saying is, if you think .Net is crap then don't use it. Wait until version 2 or 3 or 4 comes out, or stick with Java (which had problems in the first build). I really believe if you have built enterprise applications with .Net 1.0 then you deserve to have problems. But, these problems will work themselves out, just give it time.
Oh and thanks for the screenshots. I look forward to checking out 2004.
Are you talking to me ? if yes , then I would say , I've heard a lot of such 'rubbish' when bashing MS' . The problem with me is that I'm stubborn and won't stop using them . Get it the way you like ;)Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
What I am saying is, if you think .Net is crap then don't use it.
I think that was for the Frog.
It was kind of just a general comment to anyone that bitched about MS. Your right frog, they didn't do 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 of Windows. No, everyone got stuck with crap for years. So, would you rather with .Net that they wait for a few years and put out 2.0? I personally would rather get the new builds as soon as possible so I can test them myself.
And hey, I don't want to stop people from complaining, I complained about it all too, it is just a little early to say .Net is horrible.
No, it isn't.Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
it is just a little early to say .Net is horrible.
With well over 80% of the internet on 56k, Microsoft expects everyone to download the new .NET framework every year which will be 20MB or larger just so they can add a couple of new things here and there.
Microsoft is only worried about microsoft. There only intrest is to make money by doing minimal upgrades.
56K person downloaded a program they needed and .NET framework 1.1 so they could run it, then the company moves to 1.2 framework. Guess what? They gotta go and download another huge file.
The whole compiling at run-time is just plain stupid. Maybe if it compiled the entire program at run-time, it would be optimized for that machine and it would be faster but noo, it only compiles part of the program. While you use the program, it is still compiling other parts of it. Good luck making any type of high end application or game with the .NET framework.
Microsoft is way to reliant on new hardware to make up for their bloated and pointless framework. There is nothing wrong with letting a program compile natively, but of course microsoft won't let that happen. If microsoft ripped the functions, data types, ect out of the framework and distributed/compiled the program natively, making games with VB might actually be realistic.
But no.
Now companies, in order to use anything new, they have to upgrade each and every year to take advantage of new things in the framework. If they are willing to shell out the tons and tons of money required to do it, then they have to make everyone of their clients download and update to the new version of .NET framework.
I like how Microsoft thinks an Explorer edition made in .NET will power Longhorn. If anyone here has ever tried the ALPHA, it is soooooooooooo crappy. ALPHA or not, most if not all of the code going to be used is inplace.
While a new apache modual just came out for .NET, you still have to be using Windows to run the server, which isn't very secure. Linux servers are faster and just better at serving than windows. The bloat in Windows alone makes Linux better to use, that and Linux's security is better than windows. I can't believe microsoft hasn't created a system wide encrpytion yet for windows so servers can use it for plain text files. And no, the encrpytion for files in XP Pro isn't the same.
I got a billion more reasons why .NET is horrible, but I am seriously trying to no crap on the thread. The worst part of .NET is that everything uses Garbage collection. That is 1 of the worst ways to deal with memory. Only thing worse is to not manage memory AT ALL.
Half of what you said you can fix with not jumping on version 1. And, if the rest is bad, don't use it. Use Java, or C++ or whatever. And, I doubt may people were jumping up and down to build games with it. For business applications .Net will work. People had the same complaints with VB6 and less, but it sure took off. No you shouldn't build games in it, and it has memory leaks, but I have made a lot of money building business applications with VB6, and I will with .Net also, just as soon as they get out of version 1. Also, I doubt MS is marketing .Net to individuals. They are marketing it to businesses, so if your business has a 56K connection then you have more to worry about then downloawding the framework.
No, every application made using any managed extensions requires the .NET framework to run.Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
Also, I doubt MS is marketing .Net to individuals. They are marketing it to businesses, so if your business has a 56K connection then you have more to worry about then downloawding the framework.
Not just the people developing the applications need to download it, but the people who want to use the application have to download it.
So if you're making a text editor to replace word or something, anyone who wants it has to download the framework
I understand that anything built for .Net will need the framework to run. Then bundle the framework with the application installation. It is the same thing VB developers have been doing for years with the old VB runtimes. And, just like now with the runtimes, MS will eventualy built the framework into new OS's.
[edit]
Anyway, there is not a single language that will work in every instance. If you are building something for users who can only get your stuff by downloading it, then don't use .Net
But, if you are building an enterprise application then .Net is a good if not better alternavtive to something like Java.
[/edit]
So you're willing to bundle over 20MB file just so your program can run?Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
I understand that anything built for .Net will need the framework to run. Then bundle the framework with the application installation. It is the same thing VB developers have been doing for years with the old VB runtimes. And, just like now with the runtimes, MS will eventualy built the framework into new OS's.
Also of people use the web to deliver there products digitally, most don't want to wait for an extra 20MB.
If it's over CD, then there isn't a problem until a new version comes out and an update for the program is out online. Then ya gotta download both if the other used the framework.
It's just a huge inconvience. There is no reaosn Microsoft couldn't have made everything compile natively or just package needed files atleast
I know it sounds bad now having to distribute the framework, and having to worry about updates, but in a few years you won't even care. The framework will be on everyone's machine either buit into the OS or installed with some new version of Office or something. Did you ever develope with VB6? How many times did you actually have to distribute the runtimes?
But the moral of the story is, don't be quick to jump on new technology, wait for someone else to work out the bugs. Oh, and just like with everything else MS has done, this will not fail even if it seems to not be the best technology out there. :D
MS already announced this. But there isn't much of a point including, say .NET 1.2 with Longhorn when you need to run an application using 1.3Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
I know it sounds bad now having to distribute the framework, and having to worry about updates, but in a few years you won't even care. The framework will be on everyone's machine either buit into the OS or installed with some new version of Office or something.
Either way you'll have to download it anyway
yes I did and even today you have to distribute the runtimes because MS didn't put it on even XP or 2K.Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
Did you ever develope with VB6? How many times did you actually have to distribute the runtimes?
Good lord did VB6 suck too =/
It will fail, but remain popular just like Internet Explorer is a failure as well as the Java language.Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
this will not fail even if it seems to not be the best technology out there. :D
Microsoft basically has everyone by the balls. Either use there stuff or die and when was the last time you seen Linux being sold on Compaqs? exactly.....
Keep bashing<or>defending MS .
Of course ....unsubscribe..... :wave: