.NET 3.0 and XP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brett
  • Start date Start date
B

brett

I'm planning to get a new laptop the beginning of 2007. I want an XP
laptop rather than Vista. Mainly because I have the feeling Vista will
not run much of the software I'm running now in XP. I guess MS has
some type of tool to verify your software but I have a lot of smaller
programs that MS doesn't know about and therefore can't verify. At the
least, Vista will be full of errors. The XP setup I have now works and
I'd like to keep it.

Here's a couple of questions I have:

1.) I want to develop for the .NET 3.0 framework, which is just an
install onto XP. But will I still have full access to all of the WPF
features that are seen in Vista? In other words, will 3D, glass,
curved windows, etc all be supported on XP?

2.) One other thing, I don't know of any companies planning to write
software for Vista or .NET 3.0. It seems once you acquire a good set
of .NET 3.0 skills, you have no where to use them (except at home on
your own time of course). Comments?

Thanks,
Brett
 
brett said:
I'm planning to get a new laptop the beginning of 2007. I want an XP
laptop rather than Vista. Mainly because I have the feeling Vista will
not run much of the software I'm running now in XP. I guess MS has
some type of tool to verify your software but I have a lot of smaller
programs that MS doesn't know about and therefore can't verify. At the
least, Vista will be full of errors. The XP setup I have now works and
I'd like to keep it.
Click to expand...

I would tend to disagree about your assertion that many apps won't run under
Vista, but I do agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Here's a couple of questions I have:

1.) I want to develop for the .NET 3.0 framework, which is just an
install onto XP. But will I still have full access to all of the WPF
features that are seen in Vista? In other words, will 3D, glass,
curved windows, etc all be supported on XP?
Click to expand...

Probably not.
2.) One other thing, I don't know of any companies planning to write
software for Vista or .NET 3.0. It seems once you acquire a good set
of .NET 3.0 skills, you have no where to use them (except at home on
your own time of course). Comments?
Click to expand...

There really isn't much (if any) .NET 3.0 development going on yet. 2.0 is
still relativley new and you won't see wide-scale 3.0 development for a
while.
 
brett said:
I'm planning to get a new laptop the beginning of 2007. I want an XP
laptop rather than Vista. Mainly because I have the feeling Vista
will not run much of the software I'm running now in XP. I guess MS
has some type of tool to verify your software but I have a lot of
smaller programs that MS doesn't know about and therefore can't
verify. At the least, Vista will be full of errors. The XP setup I
have now works and I'd like to keep it.

Here's a couple of questions I have:

1.) I want to develop for the .NET 3.0 framework, which is just an
install onto XP. But will I still have full access to all of the WPF
features that are seen in Vista? In other words, will 3D, glass,
curved windows, etc all be supported on XP?
Click to expand...

WPF works identically on XP and Vista.

Keep in mind though - the Vista GUI is NOT WPF. Rather, it's dozens of new
native Win32 controls and 100's of new windows features built into GDI32 and
USER32.
2.) One other thing, I don't know of any companies planning to write
software for Vista or .NET 3.0. It seems once you acquire a good set
of .NET 3.0 skills, you have no where to use them (except at home on
your own time of course). Comments?
Click to expand...

WPF is bleeding edge right now, so adopters will be few and far between
until some "killer apps" for WPF hit the streets and everyone jumps on
board.

-cd
 
WPF works identically on XP and Vista.
Keep in mind though - the Vista GUI is NOT WPF. Rather, it's dozens of new
native Win32 controls and 100's of new windows features built into GDI32 and
USER32.
Click to expand...

Many of the demonstrations I've seen with WPF show the windows using
3D, glass, etc. If I install .NET 3.0 on XP, which presentation
features will I not be able to use because they are Vista only?
WPF is bleeding edge right now, so adopters will be few and far between
until some "killer apps" for WPF hit the streets and everyone jumps on
board.
Click to expand...

Continue learning WPF is still a good strategy...hoping one day you can
apply those skills in the industry. It just seems chicking/egg at this
point. LINQ will be extremely useful but how will people handle the
very likely large resistance by their company to 3.0 upgrading?

For those learning .NET 3.0, how are you going about it (work, home,
etc)? Does any one have prospects of using it in production code?

Thanks,
Brett
 
brett said:
Many of the demonstrations I've seen with WPF show the windows using
3D, glass, etc. If I install .NET 3.0 on XP, which presentation
features will I not be able to use because they are Vista only?
Click to expand...

3D = WPF, Glass = Vista. I can't tell you exactly what the dividing line
is. WPF is all based on Styles, and Vista has a different set of default
styles than XP. If your WPF is based entirely on your own styles, it will
look identical on XP or Vista, if I understand things correctly.
Continue learning WPF is still a good strategy...hoping one day you
can apply those skills in the industry. It just seems chicking/egg at
this point. LINQ will be extremely useful but how will people handle
the
very likely large resistance by their company to 3.0 upgrading?

For those learning .NET 3.0, how are you going about it (work, home,
etc)? Does any one have prospects of using it in production code?
Click to expand...

I'm not using it in production code yet, but I expect to be using WCF in the
next couple months. WPF and Workflow will come in time. I have no use for
CardSpace - at least not yet.

-cd
 
Keep in mind though - the Vista GUI is NOT WPF. Rather, it's dozens of
new native Win32 controls and 100's of new windows features built into
GDI32 and USER32.
Click to expand...

So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone being
using WPF? What's it so good for?


Massimo
 
So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone being
using WPF? What's it so good for?
Click to expand...

Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which are
also not managed.
 
Thanks Carl. I guess in regards to which OS should I get for a new
laptop, that decision will be independent of what I want to develop for
(2.0 or 3.0). The OS decision seems more personal rather than
motivated by what is the best market. If I want Vista bells and
whistles and feel ok about any large potential errors usually inherit
with a new OS, Vista should be fine. If I want a guarentee of
stability and that everything I have installed now will continue
working, stay with XP. It doesn't matter in the way of development.

In reply to Scott, I'll have to stay with my original opinion about
incompatibility on Vista. There are already antivirus and firewall
apps that do not work on Vista. Since I have many smaller unpopular
apps, I'll never know if they work until I take the plunge. That's
just to risky for me. I'm already using many of the programs listed
here:
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.p...List#Heavy_problems.2C_currently_incompatible.

Brett
 
Does any one know if it is possible to remote desktop into Vista from
XP and vice versa?

Thanks,
Brett
 
Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which are
also not managed.
Click to expand...

So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs?

Ok.

But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET and purely
managed code in its own products...


Massimo
 
All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, SQL,
SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some cases by
years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take a while.
The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The biggest
problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, forward
compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 apps will
be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs the .NET
2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the basic
..NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies.

As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed code, the
answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to the
hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very nature is
unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is completely
managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. Digital
Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. (OpenVMS
is still around and being sold by HP.)

Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written entirely in
managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them to
managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as the
performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can be very,
very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance between keeping
the available, contiguous memory high and performance.

Mike Ober.
 
Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that
went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run
on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for
those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market
for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft.

The final product was called "Windows NT".

Robin S.
-------------------------
 
DEC never did understand the micro-computer revolution. They understood
that minis could replace a low end mainframes, but not that micros could
replace low end minis. Compaq, who bought DEC, and HP, who bought Compaq
have yet to figure out what to do with VMS.

Mike.
 
You're right. I'm actually surprised they still sell OpenVMS, though.
I worked on DEC Vax's for years; I loved how easy it was to cluster
the machines, run batch jobs, etc. There are probably even some
PDP-11's out there still running today.

Robin S.
 
Open VMS is on version 8.3 and runs on the Alpha and Itanium processors.
After watching the Channel9 video about managed OS's, it seems to me that MS
might actually be better off simply buying VMS from HP and incorporating it
into a future version of Windows. (My boss would have a heart attack if MS
did this.)

Mike.
 
Gosh, I didn't know they still sold Alphas. Makes me feel all nostalgic.

I was surprised that when MS developed NT using VMS, they didn't
incorporate more of its functions in it. Some stuff looks so much
like VMS, it's spooky -- ACLs and the backup/restore stuff come
straight to mind. You're right, they should have incorporated
more. Somehow, I don't think they're all that open to the idea. :-D

Robin S.
 
According to the letter we have from HP, the last Alpha sale order will be
accepted on Dec 30, 2006.

I think the reason more of VMS didn't end up in NT was a combination of
licensing and processor power. Remember, the 80386 processor wasn't nearly
as powerful as a VAX processor. As for the licensing, DEC did threaten to
sue MS over NT which is why DEC became the "preferred" NT support source for
a while.

Mike.
 
Well, that's the last of an era. It doesn't surprise me about the
litigation threat. Sort of Dog-in-the-manger of them -- we don't
want to develop it for the desktop, and don't want you to, either.
As if it would somehow slow down the deterioration of their sales.
The whole thing is pretty interesting! Thanks for the info. I
haven't talked to anyone in a long time who's heard of DEC or Vaxes
or VMS.
Robin S.
 
Back
Top