vb.net 2002 vs. vb.net 2003

M

metalaaron

Newcomer
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
3
Okay, I was just about to ditch my vb6 and go to vb.net when i started looking around and noticed that ms has come out with, yet, another version of visual studio.

should i skip visual studio.net 2002 and go for 2003?
 
If backward compatability with .NET 2002 is not an issue, yet. You cannot open a .NET 2003 project in .NET 2002 without some major tweaking (or simply adding all the code files to a new project), but other than that, yes. You should.

After all, would you buy VB5 or VB6, given the choice?
 
some still develop in vb6 because not everyone has .net framework. still though, i see it being a requirement by MS (imagine that) in the not so near future.
 
I wasn't comparing VB6 to VB.NET; I meant if you could buy either VB5 or VB6, which would you choose?
 
"still though, i see it being a requirement by MS"

What do you mean? The .NET framework already ships with windows xp (at least with 1.0 it does).. and even visual studio .net 2003 allows you to program for native windows (not sure if it allows that in VB though).

Pete
 
Over the next few years you will see VS.NET 2004 and VS.NET 2005. I think they either plan to release an update at least till then, or a total of 4 update paths. Not 100% sure. If you buy 2002 or 2003, they offer upgrades for like 25 bux or so, that way you can get the newest version for the cost of an update.
 
I have visual c++ 2002 and downloaded a sample 2003 project that wouldn't import, so I added all the files in a new project and this DLL wasn't there

#using <mscorlib.dll>

is that part of 2003 or something else?
 
Don't thingk so,
I have vs 2002 pro and its here.
Try reinstalling the frameworks,
I had it once where i uninstalled some file froms it :/
 
So far with all my customers still requesting VB6 code, and everything I need to do being a learning curve in VS.NET20xx, I suppose I'll stick with VB6 except to play with ASP.Net a bit.

Maybe by the time my customers request anything that requires, benefits from, .NET it will have settled down.

Spektre
 
Somebody in this discussion took for granted that there's no reson to prefer VB5 to VB6. Well, I have a different opinion for a very good reason. An executable produced with VB5 does not need any runtime libraries under Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP since these libraries are provided with the operating system. On the contrary, the VB6 OLEAUT32.DLL you can find in Windows 98 is older than that used by VB6 and so it needs to be updated.

In short, VB5 .EXEs are self-sufficient programs that need nothing else to run. That's way I'm still using VB5 and am hesitant to move to VB.NET. Distributing the .NET framework together with your app is not always easy to do.
 
esposito said:
Somebody in this discussion took for granted that there's no reson to prefer VB5 to VB6. Well, I have a different opinion for a very good reason. An executable produced with VB5 does not need any runtime libraries under Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP since these libraries are provided with the operating system. On the contrary, the VB6 OLEAUT32.DLL you can find in Windows 98 is older than that used by VB6 and so it needs to be updated.

In short, VB5 .EXEs are self-sufficient programs that need nothing else to run. That's way I'm still using VB5 and am hesitant to move to VB.NET. Distributing the .NET framework together with your app is not always easy to do.
Click to expand...

While VB6 does requier extra runtimes, I think its sad you feel you have to use VB5. Especially when its really not that big a deal to download 2 1mb files....
 
VB5 EXEs are not self-sufficient at all; it's just that the runtimes come with Windows 98. VB6's runtimes are included with Win2K+, and .NET's runtimes are included with XP SP2+.
 
Back
Top