Skip 2
-
Skip 2
You're a SQL Server DBA, working in your daily job, excited about the prospect of upgrading to SQL Server 2005. Since it seems most of you haven't upgraded, you're trying to learn the .NET framework, maybe something about the CLR integration, not to mention the overhaul of many SQL Server paradigms with this version.
It's been just about a year since the .NET 2.0 framework came out, with substantial improvements. And now there's NET 3.0, the next version of the .NET framework, already in CTP form. That's got to be a lot to ask of anyone to make some investment in 2.0 if 3.0 is likely to come quickly. Supposedly 3.0 is just a rename of WinFX, but still, maybe we should be moving forward and learning 3.0 and delaying our SQL Server upgrade until SQL Server 2008 is released.
I know SQL Server 2005 took way to long to develop and they want to move forward, but I think they need to get the .NET stuff in synch with the major products and slow down a bit. This isn't the same as the OS or database. This affects applications and where they'll run. .Net seems like a good idea, but if I need 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, probably a 2.x and a couple 3.xs, that's a lot of stuff to load on my machine, have load into memory, and sort out the differences between.
Do yourselves a favor. Move WinFX back to what it is, slow down on the framework and keep it as a fundamental set of objects people need, not the flavor of the month for every new, cool, software project.
Steve Jones
-
You don't have to wait for .Net 3.0 as it is a superset of .Net 2.0 with WPF, WWF etc. tacked on.
i.e. as far as SQL 2005 is concerned you can go ahead and invest time in learning 2.0 right now safe in the knowledge that nothing will change with the advent of 3.0.
.Net 3.0 is just a convenient way of packaging/marketing the various technologies that Microsoft have been working on.
Malcolm
DB Ghost - Build, compare and synchronize from source control = Database Change Management for SQL Server
www.dbghost.com -
The biggest benefit of .Net 2.0 is that is gives all the performance of Java with none of the headaches of cross-platform poirtability.
Adding the WPF, etc stuff introduced by Vista to .Net 2.0 is really just a point release, and should have been numbered 2.x. So, even though .Net 3.0 is (probably) just a superset of 2.0, I am sure a lot of people (especially the suits) will consider 3.0 as a typical major release and plan the appropriate upgrade strategy. For many sites, this could mean moving from SQL2000 to SQL2008 to avoid the percieved 'hassle' of migrating to the very short-lived .Net 2.0 framework.
It seems to me the Microsoft marketing people are far too taken with the gee-wizz of the consumer market where new is best, and are ignoring the corporate market where compatibility and release cycles have priority.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
-
I agree that Microsoft should take a little break and let some people get caught up. If you're in a dual role or multiple role of developer/DBA (not all of us work for huge multi-national corporations) that's a huge amount of change in a very little amount of time.
-
While at a presentation on WF, presented by a guy that has been working WinFX (.net 3.0) for many months, also said that MS marketing made a huge mistake by renaming WinFX to .net 3.0. So like the others said WinFX is really just an add on to 2.0.
I must admit though that the .net 3.0 (WinFX) is some cool stuff. From what I've seen and what I've heard I'm looking forward to Vista which should be a huge step forward from XP (Think 2003 Server with eye candy/multimedia).
-
What bothers me about .Net.... I remember at one point when microsoft was going on about how .Net would be cross platform, and that they were going to work hard to make it work anywhere... Microsoft's answer to Java. Well, not quite. Even running Apache on Windows, it's an experience getting .Net 1.2 to run, let along 2.0 (it works, but...) Take it a step further, and try running .Net on Linux... or worse, asp.net on linux.
Honestly, I like developing in .Net. I like SQL server, I live visual studio... but I don't like being tied down to IIS when Apache is available.
I run a personal site out of my network, Microsoft with VS Express, and SQL Express made it easy for me to use their products (which translates into my prefered product to use at work as well) They've accomplished what they want there, But, it is a personal site, it's not making me a ton of money. I simply can't afford a server level version of windows so that I can run an unlimited connection version of IIS, so, I'm stuck with either 10 connections, or, apache... The point of Express was to get more people learning .Net, and more people comfortable with it, and by proxy to gain market share from businesses. Luckily, I know 2.0 works with windows/apache. But, if I hadn't been able to find all the right pieces, I wouldn't be able to do that, and I'd be forced to look to JSP, PHP, or Perl for programming, and at the same time, probably to consider MySQL... I guess the diversification would help my next job search, but... I just don't like PHP or Perl, and I'm not a huge MySQL fan...
aaah well
-
Amen to slowing down! The shop I work in is just now migrating us to 2.0, and now 3.0 is out. I know everyone says that 3.0 is like an "add-on" to 2.0, but if that's the case, why in the world did they give it a full version number increase?
It would also be nice to know that the applications I'm writing today will still be able to work five years from now without jumping through hoops like a circus acrobat.
-
While .NET 3 is a superset of 2.x, it is being positioned the way it is because of marketing, not technology. Microsoft is trying to move copies of Vista. I am sure from Microsoft's perspective, it is entirely unfortunate Vista was so delayed - if it had been ready to go a year ago, I am pretty sure framework 3 would be on the radar for the next Visual Studio release. As it is, they have to patch most of their development tools to get them to work nicely with the new OS (or in some cases, at all), so it makes sense from a marketing perspective to position the "fix" as a major release whether it is or not.
Having said that, they could hardly position a Visual Studio 2007 or SQL Server 2007 product so quickly on the heels of the last release, so these tools will get service packs to handle the "new" version of the framework. If these were new products, the development villagers would be at Microsoft's gates with torches and pitchforks. Most managers out there would put the brakes on adopting anything new to make sure the new release was stable, since the perception of instability is an inevitability when there are major releases within a year's time.
In the end, nothing depends on what we plan. Adopt Vista, embrace .NET 3. Post-Vista release, patch either Visual Studio or SQL Server and embrace .NET 3. And how long after the release of Vista will it be before Microsoft releases the 3.x framework as a Window's update? Sure, you can target your work to use the 2.x framework, but that won't prevent it from being installed on your computer.
I am not advocating anything, and I am not Microsoft bashing. I won't be moving to Vista anytime soon, but I most likely will move to the 3.x framework because I have to. I just hope this is not the beginning of a trend to repackage fixes and enhancements as new products. It was a tough sell for me to get management to buy into .NET 2. If I have to start doing this annually just to incorporate fixes etc., it may become a full time job.
-
I have been using the 3,0 features for a while now in testing and designing new extensions of our major product. David's analysis is 100% correct: MS made a marketing decision.
WinFX and its counterparts are really aspects of the Vista O/S ported sideways, and the only real relationship they have to the .NET 2.0 frameworks is that they ride atop it to some extent conceptually. It was a sad thing for MS to give it the 3.0 mark, because it is misleading at best, and at worst leads to undue confusion.
Having said that, the real core benefit of the new elements of the framework are, at least initially, workflow functionality. So, at least the technology is validated by that.
Advice to anyone thinking too much about .NET: ignore the 3.0 extensions unless they benefit your system. There's no need to use a thing for its own sake.
-
I guess I can expect the head of procurement to send me and email saying we will wait for .Net 3.0 before we get new development studios now. He already refuses to move the SQL 2000 database up to SQL 2005. He claims that when our new Order Fulfillment system has been implemented we will be retiring the applications that use it. I really wish Microsoft would slow down with the introduction of new products. I’m having difficulty keeping up.
-
Does anyone know of a good training program for .Net and SQL 2005? Books, CBTS, etc....
Thanks in advance.
-
Well, the nice thing about the .Net Framework releases is that it doesn't really matter which versions people use. If they need the features from 3.0, then they can use that, but if they don't need that, they can stick with 2.0...
The article makes it sound like it's a pain to have all these versions of the .Net Framework on your machine, but that's the beauty of the whole deal... There's no such thing as an 'upgrade'... every version is a seperate thing, and you can run multiple versions on the same machine with no conflicts. In previous technologies, these version conflicts lead to huge problems, but those problems have largely been eliminated with the .Net Framework, making most of the concerns from the article into non-issues. Investments made into 2.0 are not diminished by the existence of 3.0... because 3.0 is not a 'better version', it's simply a *different* version. The 2.0 library is not made obsolete by the 3.0 one. MS isn't hurting anyone by releasing the new version, they are simply making tools available as soon as possible.
I have software I've written against 2.0. When I released it to the customer, he was like "Now everybody has to go download this .Net Framework thingy? I don't want to upgrade all the machines in the office, what if it causes problems with my other stuff?" - That is Old Skool thinking... it's not an issue. My software will run on any machine with .Net 2.0, and it doesn't matter what other versions are there, my software will always use 2.0, even if 3.0 is available. With the versions locked like that, adding the future versions of .Net to the computer has no effect on my program, which will always use .Net 2.0.
So the solution for admins is this... if you need to run software that requires a certain version of .Net... install it. It doesn't take any system resources and won't cause any conflicts to simply install the versions, and then you will be ready to use software that may depend on a particular version. There is no harm in having 50 different version of the .Net Framework installed on the same machine... really, trust me, there isn't.
-
Moving to SQL 2005 for me has been pretty painless. from a programmer's perspective, not enough has changed to make it a painful switch that you need a book for. ASP/VB to VB.NET however was. I picked up .NET by doing a quick read of : Beginning ASP.NET 2.0 in VB 2005: From Novice to Professional (Paperback). After that, I picked a big project I'd been planning on doing for a while, and then dug into it, and learnt more as I went.
on a side note... who says SQL isn't a valid programming language... that big project I'm working on as an RPG, and I'm doing almost all of the programming (outside of the UI) in SQL... It's been an adventure so far, but... it's an interesting experiment...
-
ignore the funky formatting... copy/paste <> my friend today.
-
Dude, seriously?
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply