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
Anyone used Portmon on a USB-RS232?
Started by ●August 15, 2007
Reply by ●August 23, 20072007-08-23
Reply by ●August 23, 20072007-08-23
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!
Reply by ●August 23, 20072007-08-23
"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
Reply by ●August 23, 20072007-08-23
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
