apps don't work after installing VB Beta

[Max]

Anyone have this problem? I downloaded the Visual Basic 2005 Beta Express.
Turns out it's VB.NET not VB. Anyway, none of my asp.net apps work anymore
on this machine.

-Max

 

[Sahil Malik]

I had this problem too. Do you get a 500 error?

- Sahil Malik
You can reach me thru my blog http://www.dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/sahilmalik

 

[Max]

Ok I just discovered that IIS was changed to run under .NET 2.0 -- make a
long story and rant short is that turning it make to .NET 1.1 fixed the
problem.

The question remains is why? Won't my 1.1 apps run under 2.0? And is 2005
going to allow the creation of Windows apps, or just .NET apps? My
experience is hardly anyone can run .NET apps on Windows right now.

*slaps himself in frustration*

-Max

 

[Scott M.]

I downloaded the Visual Basic 2005 Beta Express. Turns out it's VB.NET not

VB.

What did you expect it to be? VB has been VB.NET for about 3 years now.

Anyway, none of my asp.net apps work anymore on this machine.

Because they are all trying to run against the 2.0 Framework Beta, rather
than the .NET Framework version that they were built with.

You should never install beta software on any machine that has software on
it that you care about.

Remove the 2005 beta and then delete (after the uninstallation of the beta)
the 2.0 Framework directory (something like:
C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.xxxx) and you should be fine.

 

[Max]

To reply directly, check your IIS and you'll see it is running 2.0 now.
Change it back to .Net 1.1. It appears the beta (at least for now) is not
exactly backwards compat.

I had javascript errors, not the 500. But the Javascript is rendered by my
asp.net app. Same difference I assume.

-Max

 

[Scott M.]

Ok I just discovered that IIS was changed to run under .NET 2.0 -- make a

long story and rant short is that turning it make to .NET 1.1 fixed the
problem.

The question remains is why?

Because VB 2005 runs with the 2.0 Framework and since IIS sees this as the
newest version, that's the version it uses. Be aware that setting IIS to
use the 1.1 Framework will get your old apps working again, but now you
won't be able to use any of the 2005 stuff.

Won't my 1.1 apps run under 2.0?

Because 1.1 apps don't know how to run under software that is newer than it
is.

And is 2005 going to allow the creation of Windows apps, or just .NET
apps?

Max, I don't think you fully understand what .NET is. You can build Windows
applications in .NET today and you'll be able to tomorrow. .NET doesn't say
what kind of interface your application is. .NET is how the code that your
application is written in runs. In .NET, you can create Windows apps, Web
Form (pages) apps, Web Service apps, Windows Service apps, Windows Console
apps, Class Libraries, Mobile Device apps, etc.

You need to understand that .NET is a replacement for COM, it has nothing to
do with what kind of application you decide to make.

My experience is hardly anyone can run .NET apps on Windows right now.

All you need is the .NET Framework (which can be installed on ANY Windows
version) and you can run .NET applications. FYI - The 1.0 version of the
Framework was part of Windows XP SP 1 and the 1.1 version is available from
the Windows Update web site.

 

[Max]

All you need is the .NET Framework (which can be installed on ANY Windows
version) and you can run .NET applications. FYI - The 1.0 version of the
Framework was part of Windows XP SP 1 and the 1.1 version is available
from the Windows Update web site.

Nice theory, but I found out the hard way that in the real world hardly
anyone has .NET framework installed. I developed a small app for a group of
gamers and none of them had the framework installed. All running XP, two of
them got errors when they attemped the install. One went to windows update
to install, but then when he installed my app it would not run on his
machine.

-Max

 

[Scott M.]

Max,

There is nothing I said that is theoretical. I did NOT say that XP has .NET
automatically installed. I said that the 1.0 version is part of XP SP1 and
that the 1.1 version is *available* for download.

The "one" person you mentioned that downloaded the Framework from Windows
Update may have downloaded the wrong version to be compatible with your
application.

That's really all there is to it. It's not theory. It's not really that
difficult to follow. But judging from some of your other
comments/questions, I would strongly suggest you do some research on exactly
what the .NET Framework actually is.

Good luck!

 

[Max]

Nah, people were getting errors installing the framework, not my app. I just
don't have the resources to support people's framework install. It's hard
enough just to get the framework installed on a server and running properly
in IIS.

My point is I don't see HOW .NET apps will replace Win32 apps. That's why I
was confused that Microsoft now refers to VB as "VB.NET under .NET 2.0." I
was hoping to see an upgrade to VS 6.0. Whatever. I'm a web developer so I
don't care.

-Max

 

[Scott M.]

There is so much wrong (and not my opinions...facts) with what you just
said, it's hard to know where to begin...

Nah, people were getting errors installing the framework, not my app.

While the framework is a rather large install (about 24 MB), it is a very
easy install. It is supported on all Windows versions, except 95 and is an
unatended install (no choices for the user to make). If someone is
encountering problems installing the framework, there is most likely
something more serious wrong with their OS to begin with or they didn't
follow normal installation procedure cautions (like shuting their AV
software down for the install or tell their firewall to allow the program).

I just don't have the resources to support people's framework install.
It's hard enough just to get the framework installed on a server and
running properly in IIS.

Actually, as just stated, it's a piece of cake to get the framework
installed. There is nothing to do with IIS. You had to mess with IIS
because you installed beta software that supercedes your current software.

My point is I don't see HOW .NET apps will replace Win32 apps.

This statement is like comparing apples and bicylces. It makes no sense.
Win32 apps can be made in COM or .NET. .NET is not a replacement for Win32
apps. You are confusing a type of application with the architecture that
runs that type of application.

That's why I was confused that Microsoft now refers to VB as "VB.NET under
.NET 2.0."

Again, you are confusing 2 different things. VB.NET is the name of the
Visual Basic programming language now. It has been that way since February
2002. What you know as VB 6.0 is dead and will stop being supported by MS
sometime next year. The .NET Framework is not the same thing as VB.NET.

I was hoping to see an upgrade to VS 6.0. Whatever. I'm a web developer so
I don't care.

This only reinforces my belief that you don't really have an idea of what
..NET is. For web developers, .NET is a HUUUUUGGGGEEE improvement to classic
ASP, VBScript & VS 6.0.

Please do yourself a favor and take the time to understand what .NET is and
what it does. Then you will realize how what you have been saying is like
insisting that 2 + "Green" = watermelons.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/gettingstarted/default.aspx

 

[Max]

I've failed in making any sense obviously. When I say Windows apps I mean
winforms, is that better? Sorry if I don't consider a .NET application as an
actual Windows application. COM yes, because it requires Windows. .NET does
not technically require Windows, it just happens that it's the only OS line
that it supports.

But how can you say the .NET framework is going to make VB 6.0 obscelete?
I've not seen one major winform app built on .NET yet. I don't know, is
Office using .NET yet? It's great for server and web apps though. I've been
using it since beta.

I kinda look at .NET like Java. No one will really use it for winforms,
except for portability reasons, and this is true so far.

Hope you prove me wrong though. MS seems to be placing a lot of effort into
pushing .NET winforms on us. Hopefully everyone will figure out how to
install it so we won't have to open a call center in Jamaica just to support
the install.

-Max

 

[Scott M.]

I've failed in making any sense obviously. When I say Windows apps I mean
winforms, is that better? Sorry if I don't consider a .NET application as
an actual Windows application. COM yes, because it requires Windows. .NET
does not technically require Windows, it just happens that it's the only
OS line that it supports.

No, that's not correct. A WinForms application can easily be made with
..NET. It's not a choice between .NET and a WinForms app. You can do
WinForms in .NET. In fact, you can actually build a WinForm and host that
WinForm from within an ASP.NET Web Application (pretty cool stuff!). And,
actually yes, MS .NET does require Windows. There are 3rd party versions of
the .NET Framework (not supported by MS) that allow for .NET development on
non-Windows platforms, but that is not in the main stream and not what
people are talking about when you talk about .NET here.

But how can you say the .NET framework is going to make VB 6.0 obscelete?
I've not seen one major winform app built on .NET yet. I don't know, is
Office using .NET yet? It's great for server and web apps though. I've
been using it since beta.

As with any new technology, there will be a period of time (years) where
both exist. But as far as Windows development is concerned, VB 6.0 is now
considered a legacy language (version 6 is almost 10 years old if you count
the beta time as well).

Sure, it will be a while before you walk into CompUSA and purchase a new
piece of commerical software written solely in .NET, but it will happen.
One of the way MS is trying to accelerate that day is by making sure that
Windows automatically has the .NET Framework installed on it. They couldn't
get the Framework into XP when it first shipped, but by adding it to service
packs and making it available from the Windows Update site, they are sure to
get it on to millions of PC's. As a software developer, you don't build
client application on a platform that not many people have. But when many
people do have it, you are more likely to build for that platform. AS MS
gets the Framework on to more and more machines, you will start to see
commercially available software written in .NET. And while Office is not
written in .NET, Office 2003 does support VSA (Visual Studio for
Applications, which uses .NET).

As you point out, server applications work very well in .NET and that's why
the first "push" of .NET development has been in the Enterprise Software
markets.

I kinda look at .NET like Java. No one will really use it for winforms,
except for portability reasons, and this is true so far.

Well, I don't think it is true at all. Just post a message in this NG with
a subjet of "Anyone using .NET for WinForms Applications" and you'll see how
wrong you are on that.

Hope you prove me wrong though. MS seems to be placing a lot of effort
into pushing .NET winforms on us.

I don't know where you seem to be getting that impression. Could you
elaborate? MS thinks (and I believe, rightly so) that we are moving towards
a more server-centric (distributed computing) world and while .NET doesn't
require that, it has many features built into it for that kind of
developoment.

Hopefully everyone will figure out how to install it so we won't have to
open a call center in Jamaica just to support the install.

All there really is to install it is to shut down your AV software, have IIS
already installed and run setup.exe. If your firewall asks you whether or
not to allow the software, answer yes.