In article <#J**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Liz wrote:
"Sven Groot" <sv*******@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:#f**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Liz wrote: >> VS 2002 and VS 2003 can run on the same machine without problems.
>
> is there any compelling reason to run both ?
Only if you're not willing to convert all your projects (maybe because
other members of the development team are using 2002), or have a pressing need
to develop applications for the .Net Framework 1.0 (2003 can only develop
1.1). I myself ran 2002 and 2003 side-by-side for a while when I still had a few
web applications running at a host that at the time hadn't updated to
ASP.NET 1.1 yet. After they updated, I've used 2003 exclusively to great
satisfaction.
How much conversion is there likely to be ? I guess I was working on the
assumption that 2003 was pretty much a superset of 2002; not so ? Your
point about hosts not running 1.1 is well-taken ....
thanks ...
Code wise - probably none (there were a few breaking changes going from
1.0 to 1.1). It's just that 2003 "upgrades" the project
files which means you can't open your projects in 2002 once you've
upgraded them to 2003.
You can still target the 1.0 runtime from 2003 - it's just not using it
like you would expect :) When you tell set the project option to
support the 1.0 runtime, the project is still compiled using 1.1. All
it does is make an app.config setting that tells the compiled
application to allow it's self to run on the 1.0 runtime. What that
means is that you have to be a little bit careful about what
classes/methods you use if you decide to use 2003 to compile apps that
need to target the 1.0 runtime. Things change somewhat between
versions, new classes, etc. If you use a 1.1 specific class, then it is
going to blow up when you attempt to run it on the 1.0 runtime.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]