[Update] Microsoft .NET Framework version 2.0

[MLC]

The Microsoft .NET Framework version 2.0 redistributable package installs the
..NET Framework runtime and associated files required to run applications
developed to target the .NET Framework v2.0.

The .NET Framework version 2.0 improves scalability and performance of
applications with improved caching, application deployment and updating with
ClickOnce, support for the broadest array of browsers and devices with
ASP.NET 2.0 controls and services.

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second
Edition; Windows ME; Windows Server 2003; Windows XP

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...cb-4362-4b0d-8edd-aab15c5e04f5&DisplayLang=en
Date Published: 10/27/2005
Language: English
Download Size: 22960 KB

 

[John Corliss]

The Microsoft .NET Framework version 2.0 redistributable package installs the
.NET Framework runtime and associated files required to run applications
developed to target the .NET Framework v2.0.

The .NET Framework version 2.0 improves scalability and performance of
applications with improved caching, application deployment and updating with
ClickOnce, support for the broadest array of browsers and devices with
ASP.NET 2.0 controls and services.

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second
Edition; Windows ME; Windows Server 2003; Windows XP

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...cb-4362-4b0d-8edd-aab15c5e04f5&DisplayLang=en
Date Published: 10/27/2005
Language: English
Download Size: 22960 KB

God help us.

--
Regards from John Corliss
My current killfile: aafuss, Chrissy Cruiser, Slowhand Hussein, BEN
RITCHEY and others.
No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware,
PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware,
viruses or warez please.

 

[Adam Piggott]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

God help us.

God give us more hard disk space and CPU cycles, at least. v1.1 is ~40MB
installed on my PC and anything in .NET is teeth-pullingly slow. I know a
PIII733 isn't fast these days but with a gig of RAM my PC does pretty well
at everything else.

- --
Adam Piggott, Proprietor, Proactive Services (Computing).
http://www.proactiveservices.co.uk/

Please replace dot invalid with dot uk to email me.
Apply personally for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDYiC37uRVdtPsXDkRAuj5AJ4hU9NK9Z3c+hA7CwwzvRS1xmFnqwCgnTXU
vFSrLgP/GpTsuUj9CpsSy1c=
=5lXv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Edbro]

Does ver 2.0 replace 1.1 or do we need both? Will programs written for
ver 1.1 run using ver 2.0?

I remember programs written in Visual Basic needed the Vbrunxx.dll from
the version that the program was written in.

 

[Nunya Bizniss]

God help us.

Hmmmmmmm.... Visual Basic with Valium, not a pretty sight.

 

[MLC]

venerdì 28 ottobre 2005 Edbro ha scritto:

Does ver 2.0 replace 1.1 or do we need both? Will programs written for
ver 1.1 run using ver 2.0?

I remember programs written in Visual Basic needed the Vbrunxx.dll from
the version that the program was written in.

I've not downloaded it yet, so I don't know, sorry.
Hope someone else can answer.

--
Maria Luisa C - 29/10/2005 10.10.47
You have to stay in shape. My grandmother, she started walking five
miles a day when she was 60. She's 97 today and we don't know where
the hell she is. Ellen DeGeneris
-

 

[John Corliss]

God help us.

Oh yeah:

"Disk Space Requirements: 280 MB (x86), 610 MB (x64)"

Given the increasing unreliability of hard drives the larger they get,
such increasing hard drive space demands only mean that you'll be
replacing your hard drive sooner and sooner.

The problem as I see it is that the old system of Microsoft kissing the
hardware manufacturers collective asses is starting to break down due to
greed. They increasingly are making newer versions of Windows and their
other software require more and more new hardware. For instance, this
little jewel:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122738,00.asp

--
Regards from John Corliss
My current killfile: aafuss, Chrissy Cruiser, Slowhand Hussein, BEN
RITCHEY and others.
No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware,
PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware,
viruses or warez please.

 

[Mel]

Oh yeah:

"Disk Space Requirements: 280 MB (x86), 610 MB (x64)"

Given the increasing unreliability of hard drives the larger they get,
such increasing hard drive space demands only mean that you'll be
replacing your hard drive sooner and sooner.

The problem as I see it is that the old system of Microsoft kissing the
hardware manufacturers collective asses is starting to break down due to
greed. They increasingly are making newer versions of Windows and their
other software require more and more new hardware. For instance, this
little jewel:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122738,00.asp

AACS: Advanced Access Control System. A specification for guarding
next-generation optical-media content created by the film, electronics,
and software industries.

HDCP: High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection. Intel's content
protection scheme for digital displays, not supported by most currently
available PC monitors.

PVP-OPM: Protected Video Path Output Protection Management. Downgrades
video resolution or blocks the picture entirely if the connected display
doesn't support content protection.

PVP-UAB: Protected Video Path User-Accessible Bus. Encrypts video
content as it passes over the PCI Express bus from the high-def disc to
prevent other PCI Express devices from intercepting the video stream.

More technologies that erode the ability of the consumer to enjoy their
media purchases without purchasing additional hardware.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Does ver 2.0 replace 1.1 or do we need both? Will programs written for
ver 1.1 run using ver 2.0?

I remember programs written in Visual Basic needed the Vbrunxx.dll from
the version that the program was written in.

I do know that Paint.Net wouldn't run on 2.x betas. But that's the software
developer's fault, not a .Net's issue.

 

[Bob Adkins]

God help us.

Hmmmmmmm.... Visual Basic with Valium, not a pretty sight.

I'm not a huge fan of .Net, but I really like the programs coded in the
increasingly popular c# compiler. I would hate to give up an entire class of
programs on principle.

 

[NoWhereMan]

I'm not a huge fan of .Net, but I really like the programs coded in the
increasingly popular c# compiler. I would hate to give up an entire class of
programs on principle.

I would, if the principle was wrong.
Why don't they code in a huge-library-less language? They'd code good
programs, too.

 

[Al Klein]

news:[email protected]...

God help us.

Hmmmmmmm.... Visual Basic with Valium, not a pretty sight.

An overdose of Valium and an eating disorder.

Dot NOT is the environment your mother warned you about.

 

[Al Klein]

Does ver 2.0 replace 1.1 or do we need both? Will programs written for
ver 1.1 run using ver 2.0?

Programs written for 1.1 won't run even on 1.1. Crawl very slowly
maybe, if you're lucky.

Seriously, neither environment is compatible - 1.1 upward or 2.0
downward. You'll need both version installed and they you'll have to
do a lot of praying. I have a few programs that won't run on a
computer with both versions installed, although they'll run on
identical computers with only the correct version installed. Right
now I'm running RSSReader on this computer, with both versions
installed, but I have some 1.1 programs that won't work properly on
this one. It might be as simple as one call doesn't work, but that
does me no good, does it, unless I wrote the program and can write
around the program?

Gates, you've done it again. Turned gold into trash. Next time do it
with *YOUR* money, not mine.

 

[NoWhereMan]

Does ver 2.0 replace 1.1 or do we need both? Will programs written for
ver 1.1 run using ver 2.0?

Programs written for 1.1 won't run even on 1.1. Crawl very slowly
maybe, if you're lucky.
[...]

Gates, you've done it again. Turned gold into trash.

btw, not sure of the gold, yech

 

[Al Klein]

I would, if the principle was wrong.
Why don't they code in a huge-library-less language? They'd code good
programs, too.

Nothing wrong with libraries ... if only the routines that are used
get linked in. Loading the computer with gigs of library to run a
bloated product that could have been written to take a meg of space is
ridiculous. Not everyone runs a 4 GHZ, 64 bit CPU and 8 gigs of RAM.

I remember when we used to write perfectly usable programs for the
trash-80 - 16,384 bytes - BYTES, not megs - of memory. We used
assemblers and shoehorns. Now half a GIG of memory is blamed for just
the OS running slowly.

Dot NOT has nice colors, being able to use one routine to handle more
than one event is efficient and being able to float a panel is nice,
but that could have been added to VB6. And the new file handling
method is just new, not better.

 

[NoWhereMan]

Nothing wrong with libraries ... if only the routines that are used
get linked in. Loading the computer with gigs of library to run a
bloated product that could have been written to take a meg of space is
ridiculous. Not everyone runs a 4 GHZ, 64 bit CPU and 8 gigs of RAM.

Of course, I agree. That's exactly what I meant