Best News Yet

[max caber]

As of Thursday, "The European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) approved
Microsoft's C# programming language and a component of its .Net Framework,
called CLI (Common Language Infrastructure), as standards."

http://www.itworld.com/Man/3830/IDG011214standards/

This may open the gate for third parties to create .NET platforms and IDEs
that run on XP Home edition!!!

[Patrick Troughton]

<Yawn>...still looking for something legit to complain about, eh Dr. Bill?

/Pat

"W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>In article <3c1b77d0@147.208.176.211>,
>"max caber" <maxcaber@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> As of Thursday, "The European Computer Manufacturers Association
>> (ECMA) approved Microsoft's C# programming language and a component
>> of its .Net Framework, called CLI (Common Language Infrastructure),
>> as standards."
>
>> http://www.itworld.com/Man/3830/IDG011214standards/
>
>> This may open the gate for third parties to create .NET platforms
>> and IDEs that run on XP Home edition!!!
>
>Don't bet on it. Another link about that was posted Thursday, with
>this telling bit:
>
>: But Microsoft will retain control over who gets to license the
>: technology and how it will be distributed, a company spokesman said.
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200...html?tag=mn_hd
>
>And an indication of the nature of that control (same article):
>
>: Microsoft is working on its own version of .Net building blocks for
>: the FreeBSD version of Unix with help from Corel. But that version
>: of .Net for FreeBSD will be released under a "shared source" license
>: that lets researchers see and modify underlying source code but not
> ^^^^^^^
>: use it in commercial projects.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>--
>
>W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

[Jay King]

wait.. do you mean that windows XP home edition cant run
VisualStudio.net???? *** g-dammit sorry but c'mon microsoft would yuo stop
trying to gouge the **** students here.. christ
"max caber" <maxcaber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c1b77d0@147.208.176.211...
>
> As of Thursday, "The European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA)
approved
> Microsoft's C# programming language and a component of its .Net Framework,
> called CLI (Common Language Infrastructure), as standards."
>
> http://www.itworld.com/Man/3830/IDG011214standards/
>
> This may open the gate for third parties to create .NET platforms and IDEs
> that run on XP Home edition!!!

[W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD]

In article <3c1b77d0@147.208.176.211>,
"max caber" <maxcaber@yahoo.com> writes:

> As of Thursday, "The European Computer Manufacturers Association
> (ECMA) approved Microsoft's C# programming language and a component
> of its .Net Framework, called CLI (Common Language Infrastructure),
> as standards."

> http://www.itworld.com/Man/3830/IDG011214standards/

> This may open the gate for third parties to create .NET platforms
> and IDEs that run on XP Home edition!!!

Don't bet on it. Another link about that was posted Thursday, with
this telling bit:

: But Microsoft will retain control over who gets to license the
: technology and how it will be distributed, a company spokesman said.

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200...html?tag=mn_hd

And an indication of the nature of that control (same article):

: Microsoft is working on its own version of .Net building blocks for
: the FreeBSD version of Unix with help from Corel. But that version
: of .Net for FreeBSD will be released under a "shared source" license
: that lets researchers see and modify underlying source code but not
^^^^^^^
: use it in commercial projects.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Ian Lowe]

Hi, Max,

<snip>

> This may open the gate for third parties to create .NET platforms and IDEs
> that run on XP Home edition!!!

There are already 3rd parties developing IDE's for .NET. See, for example,
http://www.cshrp.net/content.aspx?showID=469. I don't know if this, or
others, run on WinXP Home (I don't have that OS and therefor can't test it),
but you may want to try it out.

Ian.

[max caber]

The problem with VS.NET and XP Home, is that XP Home Edition does not have
a "Web Server/ASP Engine" like 95 and 98. This stops the install of VS.NET.
I learned this the hard way after buying a new laptop, and then having to
take it back the next day. I tried to install NT2000, but my new laptops
didn't have NT2000 drivers. This is true for most new laptops.

I have seen some of the 3rd party development platforms for C#, but you must
have a machine with IIS to test "Web Services" and ASPX pages. You can only
develop WinApps and Console Apps.

The only advantage that Java has over .NET, is that you can download and
install Java on every popular OS, and then install a JSP/J2EE platform in
a matter of minutes. Plus it is free, and so are many J2EE platforms. I
am hoping that this new ECMA and ISO in the future standards, triggers the
development of the same for .NET

[Cali LaFollett]

> There are already 3rd parties developing IDE's for .NET. See, for example,
> http://www.cshrp.net/content.aspx?showID=469. I don't know if this, or
> others, run on WinXP Home (I don't have that OS and therefor can't test
it),
> but you may want to try it out.

I could be wrong but I believe the C# Open Source ShareDevelop project out
on http://www.icsharpcode.net should run on WinXP home edition. It's a
rather nice little IDE being only written mainly by one guy. I also believe
he just posted a new update to it the other day too.

Can learn at lot about C# from looking through his code. The IDE isn't
restricted to only C# though. He has created it to be "pluggable" and
already has VB as well as other plugins to it.

Check it out!

Cal

[Jay Glynn]

VisualStudio works fine on Home edition. You can't run IIS on the Home
edition however.

> wait.. do you mean that windows XP home edition cant run
> VisualStudio.net???? *** g-dammit sorry but c'mon microsoft would yuo
stop
> trying to gouge the **** students here.. christ

[Jay Glynn]

Not having IIS available does not STOP the install. It just puts up a
warning that tells you you won't be able to develop ASP applications. There
is a bit of a difference there.

>
> The problem with VS.NET and XP Home, is that XP Home Edition does not have
> a "Web Server/ASP Engine" like 95 and 98. This stops the install of
VS.NET.
> I learned this the hard way after buying a new laptop, and then having to
> take it back the next day. I tried to install NT2000, but my new laptops
> didn't have NT2000 drivers. This is true for most new laptops.

This is not true. I just bought a new Dell (Latitude 610), I can get drivers
for any NT, 2K, 98 and XP.

>
> I have seen some of the 3rd party development platforms for C#, but you
must
> have a machine with IIS to test "Web Services" and ASPX pages. You can
only
> develop WinApps and Console Apps.
>
> The only advantage that Java has over .NET, is that you can download and
> install Java on every popular OS, and then install a JSP/J2EE platform in
> a matter of minutes. Plus it is free, and so are many J2EE platforms. I
> am hoping that this new ECMA and ISO in the future standards, triggers the
> development of the same for .NET
>

[Michael Q. Gautier]

You can install VS.NET and develop ASP.NET and WebServices, just can't test
on the local system if it is XP Home or NT 4. Also, you can do more than
just Windows and Console apps, don't forget Class Libraries.

As far as Java having an advantage over .NET, well, a rich development environment
at the same level of Visual Studio.NET is not available from Sun (Java's
vendor). Like .NET you can download the Java JDK in a matter of minutes,
but unlike .NET you still need a separate web execution environment/enterprise
platform.


"max caber" <maxcaber@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The problem with VS.NET and XP Home, is that XP Home Edition does not have
>a "Web Server/ASP Engine" like 95 and 98. This stops the install of VS.NET.
> I learned this the hard way after buying a new laptop, and then having
to
>take it back the next day. I tried to install NT2000, but my new laptops
>didn't have NT2000 drivers. This is true for most new laptops.
>
>I have seen some of the 3rd party development platforms for C#, but you
must
>have a machine with IIS to test "Web Services" and ASPX pages. You can
only
>develop WinApps and Console Apps.
>
>The only advantage that Java has over .NET, is that you can download and
>install Java on every popular OS, and then install a JSP/J2EE platform in
>a matter of minutes. Plus it is free, and so are many J2EE platforms.
I
>am hoping that this new ECMA and ISO in the future standards, triggers the
>development of the same for .NET
>

[max caber]

"Michael Q. Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote:

"You can install VS.NET and develop ASP.NET and WebServices, just can't test
on the local system if it is XP Home or NT 4."

"Like .NET you can download the Java JDK in a matter of minutes, but unlike
.NET you still need a separate web execution environment/enterprise"

Do I detect a contradiction here?
My point is: Java and J2EE can run on the same box on just about any OS.
However, .NET requires the more expensive, less common "Professional" edition
to do this. I will bet that 3rd party .NET versions of the future will support
full .NET on any OS like Java and J2EE. This was the point of my original
post, and why I am happy about EMCA.
Max

[Jay Glynn]

> Do I detect a contradiction here?
> My point is: Java and J2EE can run on the same box on just about any OS.
> However, .NET requires the more expensive, less common "Professional"
edition
> to do this. I will bet that 3rd party .NET versions of the future will
support
> full .NET on any OS like Java and J2EE. This was the point of my original
> post, and why I am happy about EMCA.

ECMA won't help the fact that IIS doesn't work on Home edition.
Unfortunately neither will any third party support. Not sure why MSFT would
make this limitation. Doesn't make much sense.

[max caber]

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <former_mvp@nospam.trigeminal.spamless.com> wrote:
"If you bought the HOME version for web server development, and you
do not think you made a mistake, then you are probably a huge dork!"

Michka,
Since I have been able to do ASP web server development on 95, 98 for over
5 years now, I assumed that the latest, and hopefully greatest OS Home would
include this feature as well. Instead all I got was a bunch of "Madona"
like tunes and wizards that got in the way. Now I did not plan on deploying
a Web Application on a Home System, but I should be able to work (develop)
at home.

Are you such a narrow minded Microbot, that you can not admit that leaving
a big feature out of the latest version of an OS, especially when this feature
was part of past versions of this OS, is not a good thing? Or do you just
think that anything that MS does is great, and anyone who disagrees must
be a "huge dork".

Well, while you have been thinking this, Linux, Java, Apache, IBM and Oracle
have made huge gains in market share of internet development. This is because
anyone can develop J2EE on any popular OS, and deploy on any other. Can
you imagine that concept, or is your head as cloudy as the Redmond sky?
I can not see how limiting development at home, can help MS get this market
share back.

However, I like C# and the CLI, and that is why I started this post regarding
the good news about C# and ECMA. I predict that .NET will kick butt on J2EE
only if it runs on other platforms. Until then, there is a strong argument
for companies to go with J2EE to prevent being locked in to one vendor.

Sorry to sound nasty, but some times your opinion of a "huge dork" has to
respond,
Max

[Jay Glynn]

Well you could at least run PWS on 9x. Regardless of your dorkiness it still
doesn't make sense. I agree that you should know better about which version
you should buy. As has been shown in this group, PC's come bundled with one
version or the other. Some won't let you switch to from Home version to Pro.
I'm fortunate in that I have access to Pro version whenever I need it, some
aren't so lucky and still have to actually buy their software ;-).


> Well, if you look at who HOME is intended for, I can't see how running IIS
> on it makes very much sense?
>
> Sorry, I have trouble understanding why this would be a blocking issue for
> anyone. If you bought the HOME version for web server development, and
you
> do not think you made a mistake, then you are probably a huge dork!
>

[Phil Weber]

> Or do you just think that anything that MS does is great,
> and anyone who disagrees must be a "huge dork?"

Max: You've obviously never met MichKa before, have you? ;-)
---
Phil Weber