Difference Between original VB.net and VB.net 2003

**Rev. Michael L. Burns** · Apr 25th, 2003, 10:20 AM

I purchased Visual Studio.net shortly after it first came out but have not had much chance to fool with it do to illness and several ongoing vb6 projects. I see now that there is a new version of vb.net available, vb.net 2003. Does anyone know what the major improvemnents and additions are and if is really worth ungrading to it?

Thanks,
Michael

**Nigh™a®e** · Apr 25th, 2003, 10:26 AM

Check http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...3/default.aspx for the new features and http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/default.aspx for all you wanna know about vs.net

**Dmyze** · Apr 25th, 2003, 10:44 AM

I was at the launch Event in Seattle Yesterday. I would say that VS.NET 2003 is the way to go. Two things that I was most impressed by:

1) Declaring variables in For Loops:

For each strString as String in MyStringCollection

next

2) Intellisense in the Debug Window.

Plus for a limited time you can upgrade for only $29 see

http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/vstudi...3/default.aspx

I think this page goes over the changes:

http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/msdnma...3/default.aspx

**BukHix** · Apr 25th, 2003, 01:11 PM

Rev. Michael L. Burns, I am not sure if there is a time limit on the offer but MS is offering the 2003 Upgrade for $30 to registered users of VS.Net 2002

MS Upgrade Offer

Oh it looks like the offer is good until September 30, 2003

**Cander** · Apr 25th, 2003, 01:13 PM

hoping we can still turn in our registrations here at work and get that deal. I dont think anyone did.

**Nigh™a®e** · Apr 25th, 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by BukHix
Rev. Michael L. Burns, I am not sure if there is a time limit on the offer but MS is offering the 2003 Upgrade for $30 to registered users of VS.Net 2002

MS Upgrade Offer

Oh it looks like the offer is good until September 30, 2003

Sure why should the let licensed users of vs.net 2002 pay the full price, its still the same, only some new features.

I think when you install the .net framework 1.1, mobile framework, .... all the extra free downloads, you have the full 2003 exept from the changes in the IDE

**hellswraith** · Apr 25th, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Nigh™a®e
Sure why should the let licensed users of vs.net 2002 pay the full price, its still the same, only some new features.

I think when you install the .net framework 1.1, mobile framework, .... all the extra free downloads, you have the full 2003 exept from the changes in the IDE

Yes, the but the changes in the IDE matter. I have heard of a huge speed increase, plus numerous bug fixes. There will be a service pack later on, but when the 2003 version only cost 29 to upgrade to, why not.

**BukHix** · Apr 25th, 2003, 01:37 PM

The increase in load time alone will probably make up for the $29 pretty darn quickly.

**DevGrp** · Apr 25th, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Cander
hoping we can still turn in our registrations here at work and get that deal. I dont think anyone did.

Ok I dont think you have to turn in your registration. I was reading the FAQ on MS site and it says that the VS.NET 2003 will check to see if VS.NET 2002 is installed on your computer before it will install. If its not installed you will have to provide the CDs for VS.NET 2002 and it will check it. I thinks it similar to the way the photoshop upgrade goes. I was trying to install photoshop 7, but it was an update. I did'nt have photoshop 6 installed, so it asked me to insert photoshop 6 cd and when I did it checked it then installed photoshop 7.

Here is a snippet

The product you receive from this offer will require that you either possess the CDs of the eligible products (see above) or have them installed already on the same computer. If you do not have either of the above, you will be unable to install Visual Studio .NET 2003. Please do not order a product if you do not have the corresponding Visual Studio .NET 2002 product.

Here is the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ho...3/default.aspx

**Rev. Michael L. Burns** · Apr 25th, 2003, 02:27 PM

Thanks guys. The upgrade sounds great except I have the Visual Studio.Net Academic version which the website says isn't a qaulifying upgrade if I understand it correctly. Don't want to shell out 30 bucks for something that won't install.

Michael

**nemaroller** · Apr 25th, 2003, 03:24 PM

Ah the beautiful Wisconsin Integrated Software Catalog....

A whole .Net studio for $35.....

It's a shame though, you sure you can't upgrade an academic version?

**Rev. Michael L. Burns** · Apr 25th, 2003, 05:56 PM

According to the information on the following link it says no

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ho...3/default.aspx

I'm in Wisconsin but have never heard of the Wisconsin Integrated Software Catalog. Where can I get it?

Michael

**Rev. Michael L. Burns** · Jun 3rd, 2003, 05:32 PM

Just for information. I went ahead and purchased the Visual Studio.Net 2003 Upgrade in hopes that it would upgrade from Visual Studio.Net Academic and it won't. Promps me for Disk 1 of Visual Studio.Net Professional 2002.

Oh well. Can't feed the machine something I don't have.

Michael

**Iamthewalrus15** · Jun 3rd, 2003, 05:59 PM

Biggest DAMN scam(sorry this really ticks me off) that MS has done to date! They make what is essentially a servic pack, and call it a new product just to charge. And even STUPIDER is the REAL reason. its so the 2003 matches the name with 2003.net server.. THATS the real reason, and to make us pay for that, and go thru installs and such makes me furious. all that crap so the sv.net2003 matches server 2003.

**nemaroller** · Jun 3rd, 2003, 06:53 PM

yea this pisses me off mostly because I can't upgrade my VS studio 2002 academic.... I could see maybe 5 years down the road, but just over 12 months later they release a new version and charge for it?? christ.... maybe I should get back into Java...

**Edneeis** · Jun 3rd, 2003, 08:40 PM

If you think its just a service pack then stick with 2002, whats the big deal? You know it also has a different version of the Framework. For VB programmers there isn't a lot of change but for the other lingos in the studio, especially C++ there is. I don't think it was just because of the name.

Besides the $29 upgrade makes up for it. It sucks it doesn't work on the academic version but how much did that version cost (compared to the other versions)?

**Iamthewalrus15** · Jun 4th, 2003, 02:19 PM

teh big deal is if you stick with 2002 then you can't use the new framework, so MS continues to change the newer framework and therefor to recieve any new features or bug fixes we must upgrade. To me it goes as far as being illegal. I paid for a product, the product has bugs in it, now they require me to pay them to fix the bugs in the product that should not have come with bugs in the first place(because the new framework has the bug fixes and cant be used on the old product)

It's the concept of the matter more than the 29$

**Pirate** · Jun 4th, 2003, 06:02 PM

all what I say about VS.NET 2003 is faster 50 times than VS.NET 2002 . I love it really .

**nemaroller** · Jun 4th, 2003, 07:10 PM

PFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!

(no need to rub it in)

**EyeTalion** · Jun 4th, 2003, 08:25 PM

Pirate, when you say VS.NET 2003 is faster, where do you see the increase in speed?

**Edneeis** · Jun 4th, 2003, 08:46 PM

The IDE seems much faster to me too. The initial loading, all the little intellisense, and dynamic help stuff, plus compiling.

**Pirate** · Jun 4th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Edneeis
The IDE seems much faster to me too. The initial loading, all the little intellisense, and dynamic help stuff, plus compiling.

exactly . and code execution is faster too .

Thread: Difference Between original VB.net and VB.net 2003

Thread Tools

Display

Difference Between original VB.net and VB.net 2003

Posting Permissions