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 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
Hmmm... This thread needs more cowbell.
<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!
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!
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 -
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
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.
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.
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 -
Personally, I think MS peaked in 1997, it was all uphill after that.
<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!
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!
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!
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
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.
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 -
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 -
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 -
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!
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 -
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.
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
"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.
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 -
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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... 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?
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. :)
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...
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?
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?
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.
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 -
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?
"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!
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.
<belch>
Get over it, go outside and play.
<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.
Bye bye, all past present and future reincarnations of your bad from and
childish unrealistic character will be killfiled without response.
---END This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
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/
|
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"...
|
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.
|
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...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
|
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...
|
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...
|
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...
|
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...
|
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....
|
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...
|
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...
| |