Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KingSparta]

Has Anyone Looked At Or Tested Visual Basic .Net 2003

And If So Is It Any Better Than The Older Version?

[JollyJim]

Hi King

I'm sorry I can't help with your request but, since you've raised the topic of Visual Basic, I wonder if you can give me some advice.

I've been in IT for most of my working life apart from the last 10 years and am therefore, dreadfully out of date. I'd like to get back into programming and Visual Basic, I think, is prob my best step.

I've been trying to get some info that would point me as to which 'variation' of VB to get hold of, but I must admit to being totally confused.

The M$ site is just totally confusing and does'nt help at all and I've not been able to find many sites that give any pointers.

The basic situation is that I'm on Win98 although I've got access to an XP machine or could possibly upgrade mine to XP if necessary,

I want to be able to write commercial programs, starting simply of course, that are able to run on all platforms.

From what I've found so far, it looks to me that .NET2003 won't work on Win98 whereas VB6 will.

I've found various commercial sites selling .NET2003 but nowhere selling VB6 - does that mean it's unavailable.

.NET2003 seems to be about £80 or so in England and, looking through Ebay, variations of VB6 seem to be anywhere from £70 to £300. I'm totally confused by the fact that 'used' VB6 seem to be more expensive than 'new' .NET2003

As a secondary issue, should I be considering Visual C ?

If you could give any help on pointing me to the product I need, I'd be really grateful...

Thanks in advance....Jim

[KingSparta]

>> If you could give any help
somthing i need everyday.

I think VB6 will be dieing soon maybe 2 years

support updates have dried up.

there is allot of suppor for it in samples and websites.

======================================

It seems VB Net is the wave of the future.

I have last years version and was totaly put off by it (it was not ready)

I have read some of M$ web pages but like you it just makes me ask more questions, but it looks like they fixed somethings (a better upgrade path from current VB6 code)

the samples and VB net sites are growing.

======================================

It is hard to find VB6 books in the store most are VB Net (I currently have $1,000+ in VB6 Books, I need all the help i can get).

======================================

Matt, gateley and the rest will always go Visual C, faster for sure along with more power to the programer.

======================================

I think VB6 has always been the best for fast development. My thoughts are if the code is slow buy a faster computer, but i am not doing anything for money.

If i was i would go with Visual C

[JollyJim]

Hi King - thanks for replying.

I've been looking through some Visual C++ manuals and have to admit that the code looks really unfriendly. Compared to the 'natural wording' of basic, I was a bit disappointed - I've used basic a lot in the past but C is new to me.

I started with IBM mainframes in 1967 with RPG and then onto COBOL. I went into systems analysis somewhere around 1970 and upwards through project management and IT management, so basically, I left my programming skills behind. I picked up on basic in the 80's sometime and played around a lot with it just as pc's were taking over some of the roles of the mainframe. I had a 5 year break from IT in the 80's to run a music shop which was real good fun. It might have been better if I'd been anywhere near a decent salesman, but, salesman I ain't!!! I came out of IT in 1991 for personal reasons and would like to get back to it but I fear age and out-of-datedness would hold me back.

Nevertheless, I think I'll try to forge ahead with Net2003 when I can afford it. I particularly liked your comment that if it runs slow, buy a faster machine - that's the way the industry is constantly moving.

Once again, thanks for your comments - I found it interesting that no-one else commented - it seems strange that for such an important and well-used product, there seems little interest in it

Jim

[Mirko]

Just my two cents:

VS.NET 2002 was very good, in my point of view bringing complete object-oriented aspects into development which get more and more important for me.

I ordered the 2003 update a few weeks ago; it should deliver quite soon (about one or two weeks to go I think).

Besides: I have been able to create COM-AddIns (similar to the once MC uses) for Outlook XP and Word XP. So I think I will switch development over from vb6 to 2003 as soon as I get 2003.net. Only problem right now is the installation base for the .net-runtime - I don't think there are that many users who are willing to download about 20megs just for running a 200kb plugin :-)

[KingSparta]

i looked for a place to buy vb .net 2003 upgrade and as of yet i have not found one anyone got a link?

[Mirko]

www.microsoft.com

They are selling a special low-price version for current VS.2002 users.

[KingSparta]

I got mine the 21st

it looks better

[Galley]

I just sold my copy of VB 6 Pro (academic version) on eBay for $150.

The upgrade from VS.Net 2002 to 2003 is only $29.00.

[KingSparta]

I prefer VB6

Even More So Since No One Can Get The MC9 SDK To Work With VB .Net 2003

[RhinoBanga]

You should maybe reconsider re-writing you app in C++.

It was a painless experience converting AV from MSDev 6.0 to VS.Net 2003.

[KingSparta]

RhinoBanga don't forget your brain is bigger than mine.

Signed Pea Brain

[RhinoBanga]

lol ... I don't think so.

Get yourself one of those "Teach yourself C++ in 21 days" books.   You'll never look back.

[Sergio]

I also suggest forgetting all about VB... I can tell you Visual C++ is really a lot more powerful...

It's true that it is exceptionally hard to program in MFC, but if you like .NET then Visual C++ with the .Net framework (not MFC) is the way to go...

Either that or VC#, but VB is way too... simplistic (and now with a complexity layer on top to allow more powerful proframming...)