| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Drilling Down on the .Net 1.1 Connection | |
|
||
| Time: 10:29 EST/15:29 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
When Microsoft Corp. officially releases Windows Server 2003 Thursday, it will do so with .Net Framework 1.1 embedded in the operating system. But what does that give developers? According to some, very little. That's because .Net Framework 1.1 does nothing in relation to the operating system code, they say. "There is a difference between a product that ships with the Common Language Runtime—which is the essence of .Net—and one that actually uses it," said one developer who requested anonymity. "Windows Server 2003 ships with .Net 1.1 but doesn't actually run any of its OS code within it." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 147 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:34:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/21/2003 11:36:44 AM |
|
Jesus, this crap makes me sick.
Why do you think MS removed the ".NET" moniker from the name of the OS? .NET is less than 2 years old and you expect them to have a full operating system based on it? Java has been around much longer and I don't see Solaris on Java yet. On another note, there is a significant tie-in with the .NET Framework in Windows Server 2003. Go through your GAC and start whacking some DLLs and see how fast stuff starts breaking. I did an upgrade from RC2 to RTM and it failed, but the original RC2 was stable enough to still boot, but most of the functionality (like Event Viewer, Services control-panel-applet, etc) didn't work. When I viewed the event log from another machine, all the errrors were from mis-matched .NET assembly versions. |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/21/2003 12:24:23 PM |
|
"Windows Server 2003 ships with .Net 1.1 but doesn't actually run any of its OS code within it"
I don't really know what this means. I assume this guy is saying that Windows 2003 Server doesn't run .NET code natively, but what exactly is that distinction? Does Windows run VB code natively? VB requires vbrun*.dll. So does that mean it doesn't run the code "within it"? In Windows 9x/2000, .NET code is run via a modifacation to the PE (portable executable) file header. When you double click a .NET exe, Windows sees this additional entry in the PE header, and redirects the execution to the .NET COM server. (That's right, .NET is actually a COM server.) In Windows XP/2003+, .NET code is now a first class PE citizen, as the header has been changed to include .NET executables in the list of inherently supported types. Of course, when it's run, it still gets forwarded to a COM server. In Windows 2003, the .NET runtimes are loaded at startup by the OS. Just as the WinAPI runtimes (well, supporting DLLs) are loaded. So the only difference between .NET on Win2k3 and, say, a C++ application on Win2k3, is the fact that the .NET code is run by a COM server. I guess this guy could also be talking about the fact that the Win2k3 server isn't 100% .NET yet. Microsoft has long hinted that a future version of Windows will be 100% .NET in the sense that it will only run .NET applications, and that the only available APIs are the .NET framework libraries. This, of course, has many advantages. But it would also make people just like this guy scream bloody murder because his VB app doesn't work anymore. We're several years off before Windows "is" .NET, and to complain that it isn't .NET yet is silly, because we don't want it to be .NET yet. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 147 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:34:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
