• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

.NET!? GRRR

This topic is 5561 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

RRR! Well I dont like .NET cos it only works on Win2000, XP or NT4.0 The system i use runs Win98 which means il have to spend bout $200 for the upgrade (in my country, thats bout 30,000 bucks). YIKES! To hell with .NET!!! Or maybe il learn only C#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
quote:
Original post by liquidAir
The system i use runs Win98 which means il have to spend bout $200 for the upgrade

MS is obsoleting Win98 soon, so you should do that anyway.



For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can''t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don''t remain stone- written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us -- Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, maybe il stil continue using Win98. SE (Second Edition) I forgot to tel you that! at least its stil a functionin OS, isnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
MS is obsoleting Win98 soon, so you should do that anyway.

Interesting, do you know how they are planning to go about that? There are quite a few of us still using Win98 so how will MS convince companies to drop support for the OS in their applications?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they won''t offer support for those platforms anymore.

And are you talking about the .NET framework? cause that runs on any system >= windows95.

Visual Studio.NET works only on XP, NT and 2K, but I think (not 100% sure) that the SDK works on anything.

Also, VS.NET isn''t the only solution to creating .NET applications (although it is pretty darn good). Look into this guy:

Sharp Develop

It''s free.

-timiscool999
"I like waffles. Especially with syrup." -me

XBox controller v2.0

click for bigger picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Hi,

Officially M$ support for Win98 HAS ENDED!
The .NET Framework will run under any Windows (and some Linux ports).
I''m sorry to here that you need to spend 30k on WINDOWS but thats life(and exchange rates ), i''d hate to hear what a computer costs. .NET Umanaged C++ is one the BEST optimizing compilers out there. So don''t hesitate to spend the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by liquidAir
RRR! Well I dont like .NET cos it only works on Win2000, XP or NT4.0

Umm, no one says you have to use it!

Why do people whine about this stuff? Find something that you can use and use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.NET works on windows 98 etc but not win 95. If you go and read the info on the download for the .NET framework then you would know. The only thing it does not support is some server stuff.

go look at the SDK for .nET

[edited by - themonkster on December 4, 2002 1:37:46 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
what about something free like linux?


You get what you pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
You get what you pay for.

Is that why Microsoft keeps repeating that Linux actually costs more than Windows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, what are you getting at HenryApe? I''ve been running Linux since Red Hat 4.0 was around, and the only thing it costs me to use it was the price of the CD on the shelf at that time and the hardware I was running it on. Now, I can download the latest CDs directly from the Internet and burn them.

If I compared the cost of the software I needed to purchase on Windows (paint programs, image editors, 3D modellers, compilers, IDEs, FTP software, file sharing tools, source code management software, etc) it would (and has) costed many $1000''s of dollars.
And considering software has a shelf life of 2 years, I need to reinvest more money every 2 years to get updated to the latest versions.

Whereas Linux costed me the price of the CD to burn it on and the cost for bandwidth to download it. That''s all there is to it. No licenses. Free upgrades. Source code available for me to modify if need be. Everything I need is freely available and open.
Unlike closed tools which I can not change or modify if I need to (and inevitably every tool I ever used had something I wish I could change or fix).

Whatever rant you heard about is utterly false. Being a real user for many years I have saved a considerable amount of money not only on software but hardware. I still have my old outdated machines running Linux and still performing for me. Unlike under Windows where it would not even be possible to run XP on anything less than a P3. I have tried on a P2450 and it was unbearably slow (so was Windows 98 for that matter). My P3 550 barely runs Win98, but it is very useable with Linux.








Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he was referring to total cost of ownership (TCO), which includes maintenance, setup costs, salaries for support people, availability of said people, downtime, upgrade time, etc. besides the cost of software itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by DaMangz
Umm, what are you getting at HenryApe? I''ve been running Linux since Red Hat 4.0 was around, and the only thing it costs me to use it was the price of the CD on the shelf at that time and the hardware I was running it on. Now, I can download the latest CDs directly from the Internet and burn them.



When you''re running a business, the initial cost of the hardware and software is usually quite insignificant compared to the cost of hiring people to look after the system. Linux professionals generally cost a lot more than Windows professionals.

Of course, that''s really only an indicator of the relative "maturity" of the two operating systems. Once Linux gets better accepted in the industry, more people will be trained in using it, and the cost of said professionals will decrease.

If I had my way, I''d have all of you shot!


codeka.com - Just click it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Unlike under Windows where it would not even be possible to run XP on anything less than a P3. I have tried on a P2450 and it was unbearably slow (so was Windows 98 for that matter). My P3 550 barely runs Win98, but it is very useable with Linux.



Really??? I''m running WinXP on a Celeron 500 with 64mb RAM and it works fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement