Peter Dickerson wrote:

> "The Real Andy" <therealandy@nospam.com> wrote in message 
> news:s81rc3t0rd31rg45foelopkm9vd4bap6lg@4ax.com...
> 
>>On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:00:28 +0100, Steve Goodwin
>><x@dontneedthisbit.p2cl.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <k9umc3hnql4f0oe13qao6m5k4m0262e5ep@4ax.com>, The Real Andy
>>><therealandy@nospam.com> writes
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:28:59 GMT, Joerg
>>>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Real Andy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:44:54 -0700, Joerg
>>>>>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>[mega snip I hope I got the attribution correct]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>You said before that it needed a previous version of the framework. If
>>>>>>its written for 1.1, then it aint going to work for 2.0 unless its
>>>>>>recompiled for 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that proves the point. .NET appears to lack in backward
>>>>>compatibility. Else routines written for 1.1 would work. Even Windows is
>>>>>better in that respect. I do not have to recompile anything from the DOS
>>>>>or Windows 98 era to run it on XP. It just works.
>>>>
>>>>You have missed the point I am afraid. Each version was designed to
>>>>run side by side, it still can. It was designed so that version
>>>>assemblies with the same name can run side by side. That is the whole
>>>>point of .net.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>MS has (well I think) documented a small'ish number of 'breaking
>>>changes' between .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 which (IIRC) are in relatively
>>>unused places.
>>>
>>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/netframework/aa497239.aspx
>>>
>>>If those 'breaking changes' are not in the areas a program uses then
>>>code compiled for .NET 1.1 runs OK under .NET 2.0 (as all my code does).
>>>
>>>And as others have said .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 are designed to (and
>>>always have for me) be installed side by side, although I'd be
>>>interested in how 1.1 installs if 2.0 is already installed...
>>
>>You can install any version next to the other. Have a look at
>>C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework
>>
>>
>>
>>>There could of course be things that the writers of a program have done
>>>that force the use of a particular version but that isn't the fault of
>>>MS or .NET. It occurs to me that if the program writers haven't written
>>>the installation package correctly that might also give grief.
>>
>>If you don't explicitly define what framework your app uses, then it
>>will default to the version that the current dev environment uses.
>>
>>
>>>Overall I personally find .NET pretty well designed and very productive
>>>to work with (for what it's designed for and coming from an ASM, C and
>>>C++ background that is).
>>
>>Its refreshing to see a fellow asm,c, c++ programmer that likes .net!
> 
> 
> ISTM that you are advocating an approach to backward compatibility that is 
> ripe for VM. Vista (say) should come with a VM monitor and a copy of all 
> previous versions of the OS (DOS, Win 3.1, Win95, NT, XP...) so you are 
> bound to have an environment compatible with old software.
> 

Then why is there so much software where a footnote says something like 
"not compatible with Vista"?

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

"The Real Andy" <therealandy@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:s81rc3t0rd31rg45foelopkm9vd4bap6lg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:00:28 +0100, Steve Goodwin
> <x@dontneedthisbit.p2cl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <k9umc3hnql4f0oe13qao6m5k4m0262e5ep@4ax.com>, The Real Andy
>><therealandy@nospam.com> writes
>>>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:28:59 GMT, Joerg
>>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Real Andy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:44:54 -0700, Joerg
>>>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>[mega snip I hope I got the attribution correct]
>>
>>>>> You said before that it needed a previous version of the framework. If
>>>>> its written for 1.1, then it aint going to work for 2.0 unless its
>>>>> recompiled for 2.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, that proves the point. .NET appears to lack in backward
>>>>compatibility. Else routines written for 1.1 would work. Even Windows is
>>>>better in that respect. I do not have to recompile anything from the DOS
>>>>or Windows 98 era to run it on XP. It just works.
>>>
>>>You have missed the point I am afraid. Each version was designed to
>>>run side by side, it still can. It was designed so that version
>>>assemblies with the same name can run side by side. That is the whole
>>>point of .net.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>MS has (well I think) documented a small'ish number of 'breaking
>>changes' between .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 which (IIRC) are in relatively
>>unused places.
>>
>>  http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/netframework/aa497239.aspx
>>
>>If those 'breaking changes' are not in the areas a program uses then
>>code compiled for .NET 1.1 runs OK under .NET 2.0 (as all my code does).
>>
>>And as others have said .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 are designed to (and
>>always have for me) be installed side by side, although I'd be
>>interested in how 1.1 installs if 2.0 is already installed...
>
> You can install any version next to the other. Have a look at
> C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework
>
>
>>
>>There could of course be things that the writers of a program have done
>>that force the use of a particular version but that isn't the fault of
>>MS or .NET. It occurs to me that if the program writers haven't written
>>the installation package correctly that might also give grief.
>
> If you don't explicitly define what framework your app uses, then it
> will default to the version that the current dev environment uses.
>
>>
>>Overall I personally find .NET pretty well designed and very productive
>>to work with (for what it's designed for and coming from an ASM, C and
>>C++ background that is).
>
> Its refreshing to see a fellow asm,c, c++ programmer that likes .net!

ISTM that you are advocating an approach to backward compatibility that is 
ripe for VM. Vista (say) should come with a VM monitor and a copy of all 
previous versions of the OS (DOS, Win 3.1, Win95, NT, XP...) so you are 
bound to have an environment compatible with old software.

Peter 

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:00:28 +0100, Steve Goodwin
<x@dontneedthisbit.p2cl.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <k9umc3hnql4f0oe13qao6m5k4m0262e5ep@4ax.com>, The Real Andy
><therealandy@nospam.com> writes
>>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:28:59 GMT, Joerg
>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The Real Andy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:44:54 -0700, Joerg
>>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>[mega snip I hope I got the attribution correct]
>
>>>> You said before that it needed a previous version of the framework. If
>>>> its written for 1.1, then it aint going to work for 2.0 unless its
>>>> recompiled for 2.0.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, that proves the point. .NET appears to lack in backward 
>>>compatibility. Else routines written for 1.1 would work. Even Windows is 
>>>better in that respect. I do not have to recompile anything from the DOS 
>>>or Windows 98 era to run it on XP. It just works.
>>
>>You have missed the point I am afraid. Each version was designed to
>>run side by side, it still can. It was designed so that version
>>assemblies with the same name can run side by side. That is the whole
>>point of .net.
>
>[snip]
>
>MS has (well I think) documented a small'ish number of 'breaking
>changes' between .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 which (IIRC) are in relatively
>unused places.
>
>  http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/netframework/aa497239.aspx
>
>If those 'breaking changes' are not in the areas a program uses then
>code compiled for .NET 1.1 runs OK under .NET 2.0 (as all my code does).
>
>And as others have said .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 are designed to (and
>always have for me) be installed side by side, although I'd be
>interested in how 1.1 installs if 2.0 is already installed...

You can install any version next to the other. Have a look at
C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework


>
>There could of course be things that the writers of a program have done
>that force the use of a particular version but that isn't the fault of
>MS or .NET. It occurs to me that if the program writers haven't written
>the installation package correctly that might also give grief.

If you don't explicitly define what framework your app uses, then it
will default to the version that the current dev environment uses.

>
>Overall I personally find .NET pretty well designed and very productive
>to work with (for what it's designed for and coming from an ASM, C and
>C++ background that is).

Its refreshing to see a fellow asm,c, c++ programmer that likes .net!

The Real Andy wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
>>> Until remarks like this vanish I won't touch Vista.
>>
>> Again, why quote all that junk?
> 
> Why does it matter? If you dont want to read it then DONT.
> Otherwise dont complain.

It occupies storage on many machines.  It carries no useful
information.  I have to skip over it and watch it all to see if
there is anything new of interest.  It consumes bandwidth.  It is
contrary to standard Usenet practice.  For starters.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:14:47 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Joerg wrote:
>> The Real Andy wrote:
>> 
>... snip 200 or so useless lines ...
>>
>>> Put it this way, unless you are a hardcore gamer (i dont think the
>>> open source graphic libraries are supported yet), or a hardware
>>> engineer, then Vista will suit your needs just fine.
>> 
>> Well, there's more to that. For example, some of the programs for a
>> computer controlled radio (Icom 1500 series) that I need for my job to
>> hunt noise sources supposedly do not work with Vista.
>> 
>> Just one example (not a program I need, but similar):
>> http://www.sailcom.co.uk/
>> Quote: "Mscan Meteo will not work with Miscrosoft Windows Vista"
>> 
>> Until remarks like this vanish I won't touch Vista.
>
>Again, why quote all that junk?

Why does it matter? If you dont want to read it then DONT. Otherwise
dont complain.

>
>-- 
> Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
>   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
>   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Joerg wrote:
> The Real Andy wrote:
>>
>>> Just one example (not a program I need, but similar):
>>>   http://www.sailcom.co.uk/
>>> Quote: "Mscan Meteo will not work with Miscrosoft Windows Vista"
>>
>> Oh well, his loss.
> 
> Sure but there are programs that are only used in an industrial setting
> and there the migration path is a whole lot slower. Often those are
> quite mission critical apps and IMHO there really isn't an excuse for an
> OS not to be backwards compatible to the version from half a year ago.
> The designers are supposed to test that.
>
>>> Until remarks like this vanish I won't touch Vista.
>>
>> You guys are going to love the next generation of windows, Vienna!
> 
> I might still be on XP/2000/NT by that time, just like now. Stability is
> another issue. My wife's PC froze up for the umpteenth time yesterday
> night and all she does is email. That can be inconvenient when I am on a
> four-week biz trip. In the DOS days that has never happened. Not once.
> 
> Hey, Chuck, was this short enough now? Sometimes I am admonished by
> people because I snipped too much, other times I am told I didn't snip
> enough ....

Whee.  Note that it is perfectly read (and understand) able.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The Real Andy wrote:

>>
>>Just one example (not a program I need, but similar):
>>http://www.sailcom.co.uk/
>>Quote: "Mscan Meteo will not work with Miscrosoft Windows Vista"
> 
> Oh well, his loss.
> 

Sure but there are programs that are only used in an industrial setting 
and there the migration path is a whole lot slower. Often those are 
quite mission critical apps and IMHO there really isn't an excuse for an 
OS not to be backwards compatible to the version from half a year ago. 
The designers are supposed to test that.

> 
>>Until remarks like this vanish I won't touch Vista.
> 
> You guys are going to love the next generation of windows, Vienna!


I might still be on XP/2000/NT by that time, just like now. Stability is 
another issue. My wife's PC froze up for the umpteenth time yesterday 
night and all she does is email. That can be inconvenient when I am on a 
four-week biz trip. In the DOS days that has never happened. Not once.

Hey, Chuck, was this short enough now? Sometimes I am admonished by 
people because I snipped too much, other times I am told I didn't snip 
enough ....

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:04:55 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

>The Real Andy wrote:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> 
>> I was a hardware guy, then moved to embedded firmware, now pretty much
>> software consulting. I still get the odd maintenance or feature
>> addition job with some embedded stuff, but few and far in between.
>> 
>
>Once when we had to wait out a major re-boot I had a brief chat about 
>this kind of migration with one of the SW guys I network with. He said 
>he used to be a HW engineer but the continuous obsolescence, allocation 
>and leadtime issues with parts drove him nuts and he switched careers. 
>Well, at least he still deals with some hardware because he own a large 
>sea-going sailboat. There, you either develop excellent mechanics skills 
>or you have to be a millionaire.
>
>> 
>>>>As for recompiling dos apps, that is because you are compiling to
>>>>native code. If you were to do the same, using a com dll, then you
>>>>would NOT be able to run the 2 side by side, you can only replace.
>>>>Therefore you get the same issue with backward compatibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, from a layman's perspective I can only say that all the old *.exe 
>>>files from my wild days will still run just fine. Except the ones with 
>>>the Borland runtime error but there is a kludge to make those work as 
>>>well without a re-compile.
>>>
>>>Besides quality, for us HW guys there are just two states when it comes 
>>>to SW: It either works or it doesn't. When I get my filter coefficients 
>>>nicely listed it's working, when I get an error box, well ... ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> Its the same for me. I am a harsh critic of software dev and tools,
>> but this time i think MS have finally got it right. No so much in .net
>> 1/1.1, but 2.0 was good.
>> 
>
>It would be for me as well but not if a routine that runs fine with 1.1 
>refuses to run with 2.0. To me that's a clear sign to stay away. Same 
>with Vista. I have seen too much SW that I need or may need where there 
>is a little note about compatibility and this either doesn't mention 
>Vista or explicitly says it won't work with Vista yet. I'll definitely 
>wait at least until those problems go away.
>
>
>> What annoys me most is the fact that when i do have to do firmware,
>> 90% of the tools that I have to use are from companies that have
>> disapearred into the ether. This is why now when i recommend tools I
>> will not approve of anything from a 2 man backyard operation. If I
>> want firmware tools, I want something that wii still be supported in
>> 10years, and for the company to still exist. Furthermore, I expect the
>> company to invest in dev and keep the tools up to date. A good recent
>> example of this was with Microchip tools. I had an ICE that cost
>> thousands of dollars, great tool, company gone. Now I also owned a
>> picstart plus programmer - still supported with a simple firmware
>> upgrade. Needless to say, the ICE has now been replaced with a
>> microchip ICD.
>> 
>
>Yep, and the other problem is that sometimes you find a nice product 
>from a healthy mid-size company but then a major corporate player 
>swallows them. After that it's a coin toss. In rare circumstances the 
>product is kept afloat. Many times they ditch it, other times they jack 
>up the price so much that the product ditches itself.

HAd that too. ABout 12 months ago I had to add some features to a
piece of hardware. IT uses Kadak amx kernel and the SDS toolcahin. SDS
has been swalloed up by someone, then another company. I recall
windriver was in there somewhere. Needless to say, i could not buy the
tools anymore or licence. I had to steal a copy, then copy the mac
address from one network card into another so that it would work.

I can still download windows 3.11, even DOS6.1 from MS..

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:19:05 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

8<

>>>
>>>This morning I talked with my sister in Europe and she needs a new PC. I 
>>>told her that it's kind of late because over here most can only be 
>>>bought with Vista on there. Which is why I bought one just before the 
>>>Vista release. To my surprise she said that there seems to be an 
>>>increasing number of PCs offered with XP over there.
>> 
>> 
>> Put it this way, unless you are a hardcore gamer (i dont think the
>> open source graphic libraries are supported yet), or a hardware
>> engineer, then Vista will suit your needs just fine.
>
>
>Well, there's more to that. For example, some of the programs for a 
>computer controlled radio (Icom 1500 series) that I need for my job to 
>hunt noise sources supposedly do not work with Vista.
>
>Just one example (not a program I need, but similar):
>http://www.sailcom.co.uk/
>Quote: "Mscan Meteo will not work with Miscrosoft Windows Vista"

Oh well, his loss.

>
>Until remarks like this vanish I won't touch Vista.

You guys are going to love the next generation of windows, Vienna!

Joerg wrote:
> The Real Andy wrote:
> 
... snip 200 or so useless lines ...
>
>> Put it this way, unless you are a hardcore gamer (i dont think the
>> open source graphic libraries are supported yet), or a hardware
>> engineer, then Vista will suit your needs just fine.
> 
> Well, there's more to that. For example, some of the programs for a
> computer controlled radio (Icom 1500 series) that I need for my job to
> hunt noise sources supposedly do not work with Vista.
> 
> Just one example (not a program I need, but similar):
> http://www.sailcom.co.uk/
> Quote: "Mscan Meteo will not work with Miscrosoft Windows Vista"
> 
> Until remarks like this vanish I won't touch Vista.

Again, why quote all that junk?

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com