473,324 Members | 2,179 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,324 software developers and data experts.

petition to save VB!

hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..

if you've got a brain then sign this petition
http://classicvb.org/petition/

THANKS!

-Aaron

Feb 20 '07 #1
72 2273
yeah you're right

MS should have kept the worlds most popular language

as it is; VB has lost 3/4 of it's marketshare in the past 5 years.

I CALL FOR BALLMER TO RETIRE AND RALPH NADER TO TAKE OVER.
HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SAVE VB


On Feb 20, 1:29 am, "dbahoo...@hotmail.com" <dbahoo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..

if you've got a brain then sign this petitionhttp://classicvb.org/petition/

THANKS!

-Aaron

Feb 21 '07 #2
mg
Hmmm... This thread needs more cowbell.

Feb 21 '07 #3
<db*******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..

if you've got a brain then sign this petition
http://classicvb.org/petition/

THANKS!

-Aaron
So if the software copyright was valid for 10 years, the .net incarnation is
substantially a different product, and support is discontinued from the
originator...

Can VB6 Enterprise be legally downloaded from the public domain?
Can it be reverse engineered for public domain use?
Can anyone do a better job extending support for VB6 than DR/Calera did with
DOS 7?

Is it even worth the hassle and investment?

If you stare at your hand for too long, the tears may cloud your vision!
Feb 21 '07 #4

maybe one day soon, Novell will change 'Mono' to be 'Poly' and port
itself to Windows.

LIKE SERIOUSLY HERE


On Feb 21, 3:12 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<dbahoo...@hotmail.comwrote in message

news:11*********************@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..
if you've got a brain then sign this petition
http://classicvb.org/petition/
THANKS!
-Aaron

So if the software copyright was valid for 10 years, the .net incarnation is
substantially a different product, and support is discontinued from the
originator...

Can VB6 Enterprise be legally downloaded from the public domain?
Can it be reverse engineered for public domain use?
Can anyone do a better job extending support for VB6 than DR/Calera did with
DOS 7?

Is it even worth the hassle and investment?

If you stare at your hand for too long, the tears may cloud your vision!


Feb 22 '07 #5
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...ic_mono_linux/

Visual Basic is one of the World's - and certainly one of Microsoft's
-
most widely used programming languages. Sixty two per cent of
developers
use Visual Basic, while 37 per cent of big businesses specifically use
Visual Basic.NET - launched for Microsoft's .NET architecture. Visual
Basic has a solid following that, over the years, has forced Microsoft
to re-think aspects of the .NET roadmap
On Feb 22, 5:29 am, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
maybe one day soon, Novell will change 'Mono' to be 'Poly' and port
itself to Windows.

LIKE SERIOUSLY HERE

On Feb 21, 3:12 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<dbahoo...@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..
if you've got a brain then sign this petition
>http://classicvb.org/petition/
THANKS!
-Aaron
So if the software copyright was valid for 10 years, the .net incarnation is
substantially a different product, and support is discontinued from the
originator...
Can VB6 Enterprise be legally downloaded from the public domain?
Can it be reverse engineered for public domain use?
Can anyone do a better job extending support for VB6 than DR/Calera did with
DOS 7?
Is it even worth the hassle and investment?
If you stare at your hand for too long, the tears may cloud your vision!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Feb 22 '07 #6
can u stop it? visual basic studio express IDE is so good and free

On Feb 20, 5:29 pm, "dbahoo...@hotmail.com" <dbahoo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..

if you've got a brain then sign this petitionhttp://classicvb.org/petition/

THANKS!

-Aaron

Mar 8 '07 #7
On Feb 20, 5:29 pm, "dbahoo...@hotmail.com" <dbahoo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..

if you've got a brain then sign this
petitionhttp://classicvb.org/petition/

THANKS!

-Aaron

"Nick Chan" <zz*******@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
can u stop it? visual basic studio express IDE is so good and free

I'll continue to use VB6.0 Enterprise for as long as the Windows platform
still runs it.
VB6 deliverable products are more compact, stable, reliable and processor
efficient than .NOT will ever be.

VB2005 and .Net suck straight up, Microsoft is depending ever more on the
"bigger better" product scenario.
1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 are all model bloated pig engines with overly elaborate
structures of sloppily coded functionality.

Yup we have 80GB hard drives and 2GHZ processors, so sloppy is ok right?
Until you repeatedly download massive updates to replace the entirety of
products like SQL2005 (56MB) and VB2005 (82MB) as a service pack program
update or security patch.

Common foundations and reusable object cores can be a great idea, but
optimization and validation are even more important for such foundations.
Every line of code should be validated for suitability to purpose, instead
of slinging millions of lines of crap and then redoing it a few times over 3
versions before it works as you originally stated it would.
Mar 8 '07 #8
I strongly agree man

..NET is _BLOATWARE_; we don't need to be pawns in Microsoft's anti-
linux crap

basically.. MS had a bunch of security problems-- and instead of
FIXING THEM they sold us on the 'next great thing'

except that the next great thing; it doesn't run on Vista
and it doesn't run on Windows 2000...

I mean; even within .NET they don't support 2002 and 2003 on Vista?

YOU KIDS PUT UP WITH THIS CRAP?

it's time for Microsoft to start DELIVERING EXCELLENCE.
as it is; they're more interested in being 'everyones best friend' and
coming out with next great thing every 18 monts

but people with a clue just sit there and say 'wtf is wrong with this
company'

a complete rewrite to make shit 5 % faster is DOTNOT what I wanted out
of VB 7 and VB8.
pulling data out of XML is not what I want out of VB6.

I WANT BIGGER, FASTER, LIGHTER, DATABASE ACCESS IN VB.

Microsoft needs to buy Oracle just to have some employees that
appreciate 'the database is the center of corporate America'.

Not XML. XML is a sales tactic.

I WANT FUNCTIONALITY.

MS IS FIGHTING IMAGINARY WINDMILLS.
THEY WON THE WAR AND THEN THEY SURRENDERED TO JAVA.

I MEAN SERIOUSLY HERE.
VB6 WON THE WAR AND THEN THEY KILLED IT IN ORDER TO FIGHT JAVA?

I just don't get that friggin logic

WHY DOES NOT VBSCRIPT-- IN THE BROWSER-- GET PUSHED ANYMORE?
WHY DOES NOT VBSCRIPT-- IN THE BROWSER-- GET PUSHED ANYMORE?
WHY DOES NOT VBSCRIPT-- IN THE BROWSER-- GET PUSHED ANYMORE?

On Mar 8, 7:13 am, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
On Feb 20, 5:29 pm, "dbahoo...@hotmail.com" <dbahoo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..
if you've got a brain then sign this
petitionhttp://classicvb.org/petition/
THANKS!
-Aaron
"Nick Chan" <zzzxtr...@yahoo.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
can u stop it? visual basic studio express IDE is so good and free

I'll continue to use VB6.0 Enterprise for as long as the Windows platform
still runs it.
VB6 deliverable products are more compact, stable, reliable and processor
efficient than .NOT will ever be.

VB2005 and .Net suck straight up, Microsoft is depending ever more on the
"bigger better" product scenario.
1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 are all model bloated pig engines with overly elaborate
structures of sloppily coded functionality.

Yup we have 80GB hard drives and 2GHZ processors, so sloppy is ok right?
Until you repeatedly download massive updates to replace the entirety of
products like SQL2005 (56MB) and VB2005 (82MB) as a service pack program
update or security patch.

Common foundations and reusable object cores can be a great idea, but
optimization and validation are even more important for such foundations.
Every line of code should be validated for suitability to purpose, instead
of slinging millions of lines of crap and then redoing it a few times over 3
versions before it works as you originally stated it would.

Mar 9 '07 #9
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.

IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD

AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED


On Mar 7, 10:19 pm, "Nick Chan" <zzzxtr...@yahoo.comwrote:
can u stop it? visual basic studio express IDE is so good and free

On Feb 20, 5:29 pm, "dbahoo...@hotmail.com" <dbahoo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..
if you've got a brain then sign this petitionhttp://classicvb.org/petition/
THANKS!
-Aaron- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 9 '07 #10
Personally, I think MS peaked in 1997, it was all uphill after that.
Mar 10 '07 #11
<su******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.

IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD

AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED

Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!

..net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!
Mar 10 '07 #12
yeah I think that they peaked in 2000

I mean.. Windows 2000 was a great OS.. but Windows ME? I mean OMFG

they never should have came out with XP; they betrayed all their
partners by 'planning to get rid of 9x' and then keeping ME around and
making 2000 irrelevent.. and putting all their efforts into XP

I mean... killing Windows 2000 after 18 months?

WTF MICROSOFT

On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED

Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!

.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!

Mar 10 '07 #13
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS

I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?


On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED

Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!

.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!

Mar 10 '07 #14
can u stop it?

it sounds like an addiction to me

I mean; Heroin is fun.. and it's relatively affordable
does this mean we all should do it?


On Mar 7, 11:19 pm, "Nick Chan" <zzzxtr...@yahoo.comwrote:
can u stop it? visual basic studio express IDE is so good and free

On Feb 20, 5:29 pm, "dbahoo...@hotmail.com" <dbahoo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
hey guys I just wanted to send a reminder out to you all..
if you've got a brain then sign this petitionhttp://classicvb.org/petition/
THANKS!
-Aaron

Mar 14 '07 #15
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS

I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?

On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?

And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.

..NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.

As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.

Mar 14 '07 #16
I'm talking about JOBS dude

if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'
I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.

IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS

IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION
we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year

Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.

AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY


On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:


I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?

And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.

.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.

As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 14 '07 #17
Can you run .NET 3.0?

Is there _ANY_ platform that you can use to develop VB.net without
worrying about whether it's 1.1 or 2.0 or 3.0?

Is it time for MS to pull the plug on Windows 2000? Windows 2000 was
the best thign to ever come out of Redmond; XP sucks balls

it's bloatware.. XP and .NET
and I won't use it

we're not cowboy developers kid

we're the DBA of the world
we get more done before breakfast than you can possibly imagine

and we DO NOT have enough time to constantly learn a new language.

FOUR VERSIONS OF VISUAL FRED IS NOT ACCEPTABLE



On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:


I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?

And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.

.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.

As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 14 '07 #18
and for the record; hasn't J# been discontinued?

I mean seriously here-- was there even a J# 2.0? because I dont think
that 1.1 can write SQL Server sprocs lol

and seriously

you don't see how INCOMPATABILITY IS A BAD THING?

YOU DO NOT SEE HOW KILLING THE WORLDS MOST POPULAR LANGUAGE IS A BAD
THING?

..NET isn't usable

you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.

seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer

it's like.. nobody in Redmond has ever had to take a support phone
call
they outsourced it all to India; and MS has officially lost touch with
reality
-Susie

On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:


I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?

And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.

.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.

As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 14 '07 #19
yeah you're right

Vb6 is a corvette.. and Vb.net (its not even called that anymore!) is
as bloated as a BUS


On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED

Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!

.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!

Mar 14 '07 #20
Can I take a SQL Server 2000 DTS package and save it as VB.net?

Stick a friggin fork in it until I can, bud

-Susie


On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:


I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?

And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.

.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.

As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 14 '07 #21
On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'm talking about JOBS dude

if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'

I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.

IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS

IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION

we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year

Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.

AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY

On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.

Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.

Mar 14 '07 #22
I don't want to take a DLL and call it from VbScript.

I want to be able to take VB.net and cut and paste it into an ActiveX
script

it DOES NOT WORK

we're way past the point of name-calling

those mother fuckers killed my fucking language; and they've been
driving around like a bunch of drunken idiots for the PAST FIVE YEARS

vb.net doesn't have 3/4 of the functionality of VB6

Can I run VB.net _CLIENTSIDE_ in a webbrowser?

Why don't you STFU until u are on the winning side of the argument



On Mar 14, 4:10 pm, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:


I'm talking about JOBS dude
if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'
I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.
IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS
IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION
we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year
Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.
AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY
On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.

Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 15 '07 #23
oh does the widdle programmer have his feelings hurt??

oh that's soooooo cute, dude

you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.
seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer
it's like.. nobody in Redmond has ever had to take a support phone
call

they outsourced it all to India; and MS has officially lost touch with
reality

and for the record; I haven't ever had a problem with performance in
vb6.

I don't want a language that will 'make things faster' if it only runs
in 1/4 of the situations.

Can I run VB.net in an ActiveX script?
Can I run VB.net in an ActiveX script?
Can I run VB.net in an ActiveX script?
Can I run VB.net in an ActiveX script?
Can I run VB.net in an ActiveX script?

I sure say that the answer is no; i've tried that crap a couple of
times

Can I save a DTS package as VB.net?

Stick a fork in it until I can do that, ok kid

-Susie

On Mar 14, 4:10 pm, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:


I'm talking about JOBS dude
if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'
I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.
IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS
IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION
we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year
Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.
AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY
On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.

Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 15 '07 #24
reasonable debater?

THEY KILLED MY LANGUAGE; WE ARE PAST THE POINT OF DEBATE WE ARE AT WAR
me against anyone using .NET for anything

I don't need to 'just figure out' jack shit
I'm a DBA I don't need to run around learning a new flavor of java
every year.

I've used the same goddamn language since 1982. COMMODORE 64, BABY!
Is VB.net either 'VISUAL' or 'BASIC'?

I demand a language- named Visual Basic-- that works with OFFICE and
VBS FILES and SQL 2000 DTS

-Susie, DBA


On Mar 14, 4:10 pm, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:


I'm talking about JOBS dude
if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'
I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.
IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS
IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION
we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year
Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.
AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY
On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.

Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 15 '07 #25
And I'm running VB6 applications on Windows 2000, XP, Vista just fine,
with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points,
and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
>From what I've seen-- they tried to sell a freezer to an eskimo

On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:


I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
>news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6 WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run (or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?

And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.

.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.

As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 15 '07 #26
"Mike Hofer" <kc********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p15g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I'm talking about JOBS dude

if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'

I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.

IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS

IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION

we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year

Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.

AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY

On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6
WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is
like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run
(or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net
free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.

Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.
He's trolling. He does this a lot. Most of us have tried to argue with him,
only to eventually figure out he doesn't really want an answer, he wants to
turn back time. So we've stopped responding to him.

Just FYI.
Robin S.
Mar 15 '07 #27
I don't want to turn back time

I just want a replacement language with 100% of the functionality
I don't accept mediocrity

I don't accept the premise that a company with $60 BILLION CASH can't
create BUG-FREE SOFTWARE.
I don't care WHAT your CompSci professor taught you.

IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. When he told you that; it was inconcievable that
any company would ever have $60 BN in cash.
I just won't use an IDE that is a slug
I just won't use an IDE that crashes

I want to be able to cut and paste code in between Excel, Access,
Outlook, SQL DTS, SQL Server JOBS, VB, DHTML and ASP.

Can VB.net do _ANY_ of those things?

If I made a tasklist of the 12 applications I've consumed VB6 in the
past decade-- would VB.net cover ONE of them?

-Todos

On Mar 14, 8:03 pm, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
"Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@p15g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...


On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'm talking about JOBS dude
if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'
I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.
IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS
IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION
we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year
Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.
AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY
On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6
WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is
like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run
(or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net
free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.
Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.

He's trolling. He does this a lot. Most of us have tried to argue with him,
only to eventually figure out he doesn't really want an answer, he wants to
turn back time. So we've stopped responding to him.

Just FYI.
Robin S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 15 '07 #28
su******@hotmail.com wrote:
you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.
seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3187...=8291&sid=1117

Can't read?

Mar 15 '07 #29

sorry dude that article is WRONG:

a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework
nice try kid

On Mar 15, 5:11 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
susie...@hotmail.com wrote:
you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.
seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3187...=8291&sid=1117

Can't read?

Mar 15 '07 #30
so yet again-- Aaron is right and these .NET fags have no clue

On Mar 15, 5:11 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
susie...@hotmail.com wrote:
you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.
seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3187...=8291&sid=1117

Can't read?

Mar 15 '07 #31
I just thikn that it should be easier

Im on this support call with Microsoft once.. and they're like 'well
what version of the framework is on your desktop'
so then I say 'wtf how should I know'

they say 'look under add/remove programs'

and nothing was there

so then they have me download and install this 100mb install.. I'm
like 'wtf is up with 100mb rofl'

then.. get this-- the install didn't work; because i had server 2003
and uh.. my machine ran like _CRAP_ ever after that aborted install

so now. you tell me.. was I 'supposed to know that server 2003
included .NET?'

you're right.. it was my fault-- they asked me I should have known

sorry

but I don't accept your bloatware _CRAP_ kid

..NET is for fags it slows your whole machine down
I mean-- get real
On Mar 15, 5:11 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
susie...@hotmail.com wrote:
you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.
seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3187...=8291&sid=1117

Can't read?

Mar 15 '07 #32
when Microsoft
a) stops using a whole bunch of documents in order to communicate this
sort of thing
b) learns how to centralize information in a DATABASE instead of a
dozen XML files

that is when I stfu

as it is; Microsoft runs around like chickens with their heads cut off

On Mar 15, 5:11 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
susie...@hotmail.com wrote:
you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.
seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3187...=8291&sid=1117

Can't read?

Mar 15 '07 #33
from the Wiki

%SystemRoot%

The %SystemRoot% variable is a special system-wide environment
variable found on Microsoft Windows NT and its derivatives. Its value
is the location of the system folder, including the drive and path.

The drive is the same as %SystemDrive% and the default path on a clean
installation depends upon the version of the operating system. By
default on a clean installation,

* Windows NT 5.1 (Windows XP) and newer versions by default use
\WINDOWS
* Windows NT 5.0 (Windows 2000), Windows NT 4.0 and Windows NT 3.1
by default use \WINNT
* Windows NT 3.5x by default uses \WINNT35

%WinDir%

This variable points to the Windows directory. If the System is on
drive C: then the default values are:

* C:\WINDOWS on Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows XP,
and Windows Server 2003
* C:\WINNT for Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000


On Mar 15, 6:24 am, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
sorry dude that article is WRONG:

a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework

nice try kid

On Mar 15, 5:11 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
susie...@hotmail.com wrote:
you-- mr smarty pants-- you can't even describe to me how I can
determine which version of the framework is on machine X.
seriously-- try me-- you won't give a strong solid answer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3187...=8291&sid=1117
Can't read?

Mar 15 '07 #34
On Mar 14, 11:03 pm, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
"Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@p15g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...


On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'm talking about JOBS dude
if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
'go back to using Excel'
I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
robust.
IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
BASIS
IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION
we're not cowboy coders.
we get more done then you C# fags do in a year
Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
VB.net is a complete market failure.
AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
SERIOUSLY
On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6
WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is
like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run
(or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net
free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.
Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.

He's trolling. He does this a lot. Most of us have tried to argue with him,
only to eventually figure out he doesn't really want an answer, he wants to
turn back time. So we've stopped responding to him.

Just FYI.
Robin S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I'm trolling? Ma'am, I've never conversed with you before. In fact,
I've only recently begun viewing these boards again, after quite a
lengthy absense. I don't know who you're talking about, but it
certainly isn't me.

Please check your facts before you make claims like that.

Mar 15 '07 #35
On Mar 15, 11:16 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 14, 11:03 pm, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:


"Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p15g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
On Mar 14, 6:51 pm, "susie...@hotmail.com" <susie...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I'm talking about JOBS dude
>if you don't know the diff betwen a JOB and a SPROC then you need to
>'go back to using Excel'
>I don't care if you think that VB.net is more secure, type-safe and
>robust.
>IT DOES NOT WORK IN 3/4 OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE I USE VB6 ON A DAILY
>BASIS
>IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION
>we're not cowboy coders.
>we get more done then you C# fags do in a year
>Vb has gone the way of the dodo.
>VB.net is a complete market failure.
>AND I AM HERE TO BITCH UP A STORM SO THAT MS STARTS TAKING VB.NET
>SERIOUSLY
>On Mar 14, 3:33 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I can't write an ActiveX script in VB.net so that I can execute it
with SQL Server JOBS
I mean.. why is .NET still HALF-BAKED?
On Mar 9, 4:14 pm, "BogusID" <Bogu...@YesItIs.comwrote:
<susie...@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@c51g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
VB HAS BEEN GOOD AND FREE FOREVER.
IT IS CALLED MS OFFICE YOU FUCKING RETARD
AND THIS DOTNET CRAP DOESN"T WORK IN 3/4 OF THE PLACES THAT VB6
WORKED
Whoa Mr. Hyde, MS-Office is not free, and comparing VBA to VB6 is
like
comparing a Hugo to a Corvette.
I guess my comparison would make VB2005 a transit bus!
.net seems even less excepted in environments where it does run
(or crawl,
belch and barf as the case may be)
After refreshing my hard drive when 3.0 came out, my XP stays .net
free,
period!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SQL Server 2005 supports Stored Procedures written in the CLR language
of your choice: C#, VB.NET, J#, C++.NET, or any other .NET language.
So what's your point?
And I'm running .NET applications on Windows 2000 just fine, with no
performance problems whatsoever. As with any development lifecycle,
you have to profile the application, and identify the slow points, and
optimize them. It wouldn't matter what language, database, or
development platform you were working with.
.NET is far more secure, type-safe, and robust than VB6 *ever* was. It
forces me to write higher quality code by paying attention to what I'm
doing. VB6 produced an entire army of cowboy coders who are now, to
put it bluntly, pissed off that Microsoft wants to encourage folks to
write more secure, stable code using a development platform that
encourages secure, stable code.
As far as I'm concerned, it can go the way of the dodo. It's only use
now is for maintaining legacy applications. We've gradually ported
every VB6 application we had to .NET, and we've seen nothing but
improvements in performance, stability, and maintainability. I can't
possibly see how that's a bad thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>- Show quoted text -
I do know the difference between a job and a sproc, and I still
maintain that what you want to do can be accomplished. It's just a
matter of figuring it out.
Your credibility, and your usefulness as a reasonable debater on the
subject went down the tubes when you resorted to lowbrow namecalling.
You don't know anything about me. Calling me a fag was uncalled for.
Calling ANYONE a fag is uncalled for, and speaks volumes about your
character.
He's trolling. He does this a lot. Most of us have tried to argue with him,
only to eventually figure out he doesn't really want an answer, he wants to
turn back time. So we've stopped responding to him.
Just FYI.
Robin S.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I'm trolling? Ma'am, I've never conversed with you before. In fact,
I've only recently begun viewing these boards again, after quite a
lengthy absense. I don't know who you're talking about, but it
certainly isn't me.

Please check your facts before you make claims like that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
And now, I'll eat crow and take my own advice. I should have read the
quote chain.

My sincerest apologies.

Mar 15 '07 #36
RobinS wrote:
He's trolling. He does this a lot. Most of us have tried to argue with him,
only to eventually figure out he doesn't really want an answer, he wants to
turn back time. So we've stopped responding to him.

Just FYI.
Robin S.

And on 99.999% of his arguments, he's wrong and doesn't even bother to
find out first. He's stuck in the dark ages...
Mar 15 '07 #37
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
sorry dude that article is WRONG:

a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework
nice try kid
Since you can't read, I will for you... The article was written before
..Net 3 came out. And yes, it does work on 98.

When will you actually try something?
Mar 15 '07 #38
CodeMonkey wrote:
RobinS wrote:
>He's trolling. He does this a lot. Most of us have tried to argue with
him, only to eventually figure out he doesn't really want an answer,
he wants to turn back time. So we've stopped responding to him.

Just FYI.
Robin S.

And on 99.999% of his arguments, he's wrong and doesn't even bother to
find out first. He's stuck in the dark ages...
And furthermore, I think it's just time to killfile him. :)
Mar 15 '07 #39
CodeMonkey

how about you backup those claims; dipshit

please show me how I can cut VB.net and paste it into SQL Server 2005
job!
-Aaron
On Mar 15, 8:59 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
RobinS wrote:
He's trolling. He does this a lot. Most of us have tried to argue with him,
only to eventually figure out he doesn't really want an answer, he wants to
turn back time. So we've stopped responding to him.
Just FYI.
Robin S.

And on 99.999% of his arguments, he's wrong and doesn't even bother to
find out first. He's stuck in the dark ages...

Mar 15 '07 #40
wait a second kid

wikipedia says it doesn't work

the 'article was released before 3.0 came out' is _NOT_ an acceptable
answer.
how do i know which version of 3.0 I have?? it's not in the document

killFile THIS!
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X X XX
X X X X

On Mar 15, 9:05 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
aaron.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry dude that article is WRONG:
a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework
nice try kid

Since you can't read, I will for you... The article was written before
.Net 3 came out. And yes, it does work on 98.

When will you actually try something?

Mar 15 '07 #41
try this dude

The %SystemRoot% variable is a special system-wide environment
variable found on Microsoft Windows NT and its derivatives.

ok.. well what about Windows 95? I still use Windows 95; I've got this
media center box; it's called a Compaq PC Theater 9000. And it has
about TWENTY input chains

it is the center of my entertainment center.. and it runs Windows 95.
Of _COURSE_ it's not on the internet

how do I tell which version of the framework is on that machine?

do you guys remember the joke 'if Detroit was run by Microsoft'

the cars would keep getting BIGGER and BIGGER and BIGGER and SLOWER

On Mar 15, 9:05 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
aaron.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry dude that article is WRONG:
a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework
nice try kid

Since you can't read, I will for you... The article was written before
.Net 3 came out. And yes, it does work on 98.

When will you actually try something?

Mar 15 '07 #42
On Mar 15, 1:17 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
wait a second kid

wikipedia says it doesn't work

the 'article was released before 3.0 came out' is _NOT_ an acceptable
answer.
how do i know which version of 3.0 I have?? it's not in the document

killFile THIS!

X
X
X
X X X X X
X X X XX
X X X X

On Mar 15, 9:05 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
aaron.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry dude that article is WRONG:
a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework
nice try kid
Since you can't read, I will for you... The article was written before
.Net 3 came out. And yes, it does work on 98.
When will you actually try something?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
My last post to this thread and I'm done.

..NET 3.0 is a "title" only for a conglomeration of technologies. It
does not involve a new version of the framework. It's version 2.0 of
the Framework, combined with various other .NET-based technologies
(like SQL Server and a couple other hoohas); it's just branding. So
CodeMonkey's answer works just fine. If you query for the version of
the Framework on a machine with ".NET 3.0" on it, you'll get a 2.0
Framework version number (plus any additional framework version
numbers you're running, since they can all be installed in parallel,
and applications specify which version they want to target).

I'm outta here.

Mar 15 '07 #43
that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life
oh.. we're 'going to call it vb.net' but it's no longer called dotnet
oh we're going to call it '3.0' but it's not really a framework

when Microsoft stops reading strategy off of the back of a friggin
cracker jax box is when I stop this infatada
AND FOR THE RECORD, THE ANSWER FROM CODEMONKEY DOES NOT SUPPORT
WINDOWS 98. IT IS AN INCOMPLETE ANSWER.

-Aaron

On Mar 15, 10:25 am, "Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 15, 1:17 pm, "aaron.ke...@gmail.com" <aaron.ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:


wait a second kid
wikipedia says it doesn't work
the 'article was released before 3.0 came out' is _NOT_ an acceptable
answer.
how do i know which version of 3.0 I have?? it's not in the document
killFile THIS!
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X X XX
X X X X
On Mar 15, 9:05 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
aaron.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry dude that article is WRONG:
a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework
nice try kid
Since you can't read, I will for you... The article was written before
.Net 3 came out. And yes, it does work on 98.
When will you actually try something?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

My last post to this thread and I'm done.

.NET 3.0 is a "title" only for a conglomeration of technologies. It
does not involve a new version of the framework. It's version 2.0 of
the Framework, combined with various other .NET-based technologies
(like SQL Server and a couple other hoohas); it's just branding. So
CodeMonkey's answer works just fine. If you query for the version of
the Framework on a machine with ".NET 3.0" on it, you'll get a 2.0
Framework version number (plus any additional framework version
numbers you're running, since they can all be installed in parallel,
and applications specify which version they want to target).

I'm outta here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mar 15 '07 #44
no, it doesn't work on Windows 98.

Sorry.
I would reccomend that in the future-- when Microsoft decides to build
a 'framework to end all frameworks' that they consider things like THE
DESKTOP


On Mar 15, 9:05 am, CodeMonkey <spamm...@suck.comwrote:
aaron.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry dude that article is WRONG:
a) There are currently three released versions of the .NET Framework.
(what about 3.0?)
b) this doesn't work on Windows 98 %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET
\Framework
nice try kid

Since you can't read, I will for you... The article was written before
.Net 3 came out. And yes, it does work on 98.

When will you actually try something?

Mar 15 '07 #45
"Todos Menos [MSFT]" <to**************@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@e1g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
>I don't want to turn back time

I just want a replacement language with 100% of the functionality
I don't accept mediocrity

I don't accept the premise that a company with $60 BILLION CASH can't
create BUG-FREE SOFTWARE.
I don't care WHAT your CompSci professor taught you.

IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. When he told you that; it was inconcievable that
any company would ever have $60 BN in cash.
I just won't use an IDE that is a slug
I just won't use an IDE that crashes

I want to be able to cut and paste code in between Excel, Access,
Outlook, SQL DTS, SQL Server JOBS, VB, DHTML and ASP.

Can VB.net do _ANY_ of those things?

If I made a tasklist of the 12 applications I've consumed VB6 in the
past decade-- would VB.net cover ONE of them?

-Todos

I want it all
I want it now
I want it free

So why don't you go out and buy the rights for Borland's Turbo Basic, update
the engine and compete with MS yourself?

I'm staying with VB6.0E for as long as it runs, and I also hate .net for the
fat unstable pig it is.

That being said, my car is a tool, i didn't build it, i just drive it.
Sometimes you must make concessions, its called life.

Move on, go outside and play!
Mar 15 '07 #46
You're a little guy living in a big companies world.
You must play by their rules, or find another game.

They do not care what you think, since they are not making any money off of
you.

Companies that pay programmers dictate what tools are used, and usually have
rules about the style, methods and libraries used as well.

So unless you own your own company and make lots of cash already...

Get over it, go outside and play.
Mar 15 '07 #47
<belch>
Get over it, go outside and play.
Mar 15 '07 #48
<su******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
Can I take a SQL Server 2000 DTS package and save it as VB.net?

Stick a friggin fork in it until I can, bud

-Susie
You can try.
Or you can get over it, go outside and play.
Mar 15 '07 #49
Bye bye, all past present and future reincarnations of your bad from and
childish unrealistic character will be killfiled without response.
---END
Mar 15 '07 #50

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

33
by: Randy Birch | last post by:
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft. http://classicvb.org/petition/ -- Randy Birch MS MVP Visual Basic http://vbnet.mvps.org/
13
by: aatcbbtccctc | last post by:
Sorry if this has already been posted, but a quick google search did not show it in the Access newsgroups. Please read here for an important petition regarding the long-term future of "classic"...
8
by: Massimo Conti | last post by:
Please, Sign the Petition in order to Save VB6 code http://classicvb.org/petition/index.asp Thnks a lot. Best Regards.
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.