Home > Archive > Visual Basic > January 2006 > VB 2005 Express..NOT OT...really!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
VB 2005 Express..NOT OT...really!
|
|
|
| So I made a comment a few days ago about it being time to try .Net, the
Express Edition.
Apparently not yet. Of course I didn't read the 'requirements' on the d/l
page, but VB2005EE REQUIRES SP2 to be installed on an XP computer.
So they want me to stop using VB6, but they don't want me to try VB2005EE,
because I haven't done SP2 yet (and probably never will unless it's a fresh
install on a clean box).
I may NEVER be able to go to .Net. Oh well.
| |
| Randy Birch 2006-01-28, 9:55 pm |
| There is no reason not to install SP2.
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
Please reply to the newsgroups so all can participate.
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns9759AB6DFD510idispcom@216.196.97.142...
: So I made a comment a few days ago about it being time to try .Net, the
: Express Edition.
:
: Apparently not yet. Of course I didn't read the 'requirements' on the d/l
: page, but VB2005EE REQUIRES SP2 to be installed on an XP computer.
:
: So they want me to stop using VB6, but they don't want me to try VB2005EE,
: because I haven't done SP2 yet (and probably never will unless it's a
fresh
: install on a clean box).
:
: I may NEVER be able to go to .Net. Oh well.
| |
|
| "Randy Birch" <rgb_removethis@mvps.org> wrote in news:#sGqlcIJGHA.500
@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
> There is no reason not to install SP2.
>
But there is no reason to install it either, for me anyway.
| |
| Lenny Abbey 2006-01-29, 7:55 am |
| Will VB6 NOT work on XP SP2?
Lenny
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns9759AB6DFD510idispcom@216.196.97.142...
> So I made a comment a few days ago about it being time to try .Net, the
> Express Edition.
>
> Apparently not yet. Of course I didn't read the 'requirements' on the d/l
> page, but VB2005EE REQUIRES SP2 to be installed on an XP computer.
>
> So they want me to stop using VB6, but they don't want me to try VB2005EE,
> because I haven't done SP2 yet (and probably never will unless it's a
fresh
> install on a clean box).
>
> I may NEVER be able to go to .Net. Oh well.
| |
|
|
"Lenny Abbey" <labbey@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ZG0Df.8224$vU2.4067@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Will VB6 NOT work on XP SP2?
>
> Lenny
>
<snipped>
VB6 Works on XP SP1/2.
| |
| Michael D. Ober 2006-01-29, 6:55 pm |
| SP2 fixed a whole class of problems that malware terrorists can use. That
additional security should be enough to get you to install it, unless, of
course, you like having known (and fixed) bugs in your system.
Mike Ober.
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns975A51FEFAB5idispcom@216.196.97.142...
> "Randy Birch" <rgb_removethis@mvps.org> wrote in news:#sGqlcIJGHA.500
> @TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
>
>
> But there is no reason to install it either, for me anyway.
>
| |
| jameshamilton777@hotmail.com 2006-01-29, 6:55 pm |
| More importantly, your application will only run on Windows XP SP2.
That's what the .NET 2005 runtime requires. Windows XP SP0 and SP1
won't work.
There are many shareware authors losing their business because they
moved to .NET without doing proper research beforehand.
| |
|
| "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in
news:rq4Df.5593$1n4.5279@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> SP2 fixed a whole class of problems that malware terrorists can use.
> That additional security should be enough to get you to install it,
> unless, of course, you like having known (and fixed) bugs in your
> system.
>
> Mike Ober.
>
See, that's what I don't understand. These 'bugs' are fixed, but there's
STILL a malware/spyware problem for the 'typical' user. Why ? Wasn't SP2
supposd to stop that ?
I'm not saying I've never done any updates, I've done one here and there,
but when I say I never did SP2, I should also say I never did SP1 either.
I've got a broadband connection, NAT router, incoming/outgoing firewall,
AV, and I don't use IE or Outlook/OE, and I'm the only user of this PC, and
I don't surf for porn. IMO, I'm pretty safe. Of course, I'm not one of
those 'typical' users either. Come on, I even wrote my own shell.
DanS
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2006-01-29, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:59:48 -0600, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t> wrote:
in <Xns975A7A177E0AFidispcom@216.196.97.142>
>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in
>news:rq4Df.5593$1n4.5279@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>See, that's what I don't understand. These 'bugs' are fixed, but there's
>STILL a malware/spyware problem for the 'typical' user. Why ? Wasn't SP2
>supposd to stop that ?
>
>I'm not saying I've never done any updates, I've done one here and there,
>but when I say I never did SP2, I should also say I never did SP1 either.
>
>I've got a broadband connection, NAT router, incoming/outgoing firewall,
>AV, and I don't use IE or Outlook/OE, and I'm the only user of this PC, and
>I don't surf for porn. IMO, I'm pretty safe. Of course, I'm not one of
>those 'typical' users either. Come on, I even wrote my own shell.
>
>DanS
With today's worms, you don't even need to surf to a malicious site - they'll
find your unpatched machine in a little less than your first three seconds
online.
---
Stefan Berglund
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2006-01-29, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:21:45 GMT, "Lenny Abbey" <labbey@mindspring.com> wrote:
in <ZG0Df.8224$vU2.4067@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>Will VB6 NOT work on XP SP2?
>
>Lenny
Eventually they'll get to that but for the time being it seems to work.
---
Stefan Berglund
| |
| mayayana 2006-01-29, 6:55 pm |
|
> So I made a comment a few days ago about it being time to try .Net, the
> Express Edition.
>
> Apparently not yet. Of course I didn't read the 'requirements' on the d/l
> page, but VB2005EE REQUIRES SP2 to be installed on an XP computer.
>
> So they want me to stop using VB6, but they don't want me to try VB2005EE,
> because I haven't done SP2 yet (and probably never will unless it's a
fresh
> install on a clean box).
>
I think the MS "head of security marketing" expressed
pretty clearly what MS wants, last w in a Slashdot interview:
"While we want customers to be evaluating Windows Vista, it's super
important that business customers in particular, who have NOT yet deployed
Windows XP SP2, think seriously about deploying it. While a large number of
enterprise customers have deployed Windows XP SP2, many still haven't. While
I get that not every desktop will get upgraded to Windows XP SP2 between now
and Windows Vista, I think it's critical that laptops and Internet facing
desktops move to SP2."
Microsoft would like you to buy all of their products....
for your own safety.
On the other hand, you were trying to comply with
their wishes. If you're going to be a sheep, and hold
out your wool for shearing, then you have little grounds
to complain when Microsoft snips it off.
| |
|
| Stefan Berglund <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in
news:li2qt1d6bv9nosfvts5e8bo4nmdcdapeie@
4ax.com:
>
> With today's worms, you don't even need to surf to a malicious site -
> they'll find your unpatched machine in a little less than your first
> three seconds online.
>
Can you elaborate on which those would be ? Other than the one I know
about, which I THINK was the Sasser worm, or AOL IM based worms, since I
don't use that either.
Hell, I didn't even know about that one until someone called me up for
support.
> ---
> Stefan Berglund
| |
|
|
I got zapped by the Blaster, just by going online for the first time
to download and install updates, just likee Stefan said.
Good luck!
Saga
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns975B5148636F4idispcom@216.196.97.142...
> Stefan Berglund <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in
> news:li2qt1d6bv9nosfvts5e8bo4nmdcdapeie@
4ax.com:
>
>
>
> Can you elaborate on which those would be ? Other than the one I know
> about, which I THINK was the Sasser worm, or AOL IM based worms, since
> I
> don't use that either.
>
> Hell, I didn't even know about that one until someone called me up for
> support.
>
>
>
| |
| Dick Grier 2006-01-30, 6:55 pm |
| You really SHOULD install SP2 (IMO). The rest it up to you.
Dick
--
Richard Grier, MVP
Hard & Software
Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, Fourth
Edition, ISBN 1-890422-28-2, Mabry Publishing (391 pages, includes CD-ROM).
July 2004.
See www.hardandsoftware.net for details and contact information.
| |
|
| "Saga" <antiSpam@somewhere.com> wrote in news:#gZhuCcJGHA.1728
@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
>
> I got zapped by the Blaster, just by going online for the first time
> to download and install updates, just likee Stefan said.
>
> Good luck!
> Saga
>
>
That's the one, not Sasser. The first and only one THAT I KNOW OF, that did
not require a web page or executing something. When was that 2003 ? 2004 ?
That is incidentally one of the updates I did do. I was online for a couple
of ws though before I actually did the update.
Just one of the plusses of being behind a NAT router.
| |
|
| "Dick Grier" <dick_grierNOSPAM@.msn.com> wrote in news:#KX1N2cJGHA.3176
@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
> You really SHOULD install SP2 (IMO). The rest it up to you.
>
> Dick
>
I didn't say I'd never do it, I'm just waiting for the right time to do a
fresh, totally clean install of XP, on an empty hard drive. I WANT to do
that, (not necessarily) need to do it. And then, I'm not going for the
regular XP install either. I've been reading some articles on super small
installs, like a few hundred meg total, not 1.5 gig.
The last clean install I've done was of Windows98 in 1999. This PC was an
upgrade to XP from there.
(It really kills me when I read in the WindowsXP newsgroups...'WTF! I've
done 4 restore's (or clean installs) in the last 6 months'. One just the
other day was....'I had to write all 0's to the drive to clean it just so
Windows would install'.)
| |
| Michael D. Ober 2006-01-30, 9:55 pm |
| Dan,
Given the history of your system, I'd do a clean install as well. Win98 was
absolutely horrible when it came to keeping a clean registry. I'm actually
surprised you haven't had problems with the system.
Mike Ober.
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns975BC3C80D252idispcom@216.196.97.142...
> "Dick Grier" <dick_grierNOSPAM@.msn.com> wrote in news:#KX1N2cJGHA.3176
> @TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>
>
> I didn't say I'd never do it, I'm just waiting for the right time to do a
> fresh, totally clean install of XP, on an empty hard drive. I WANT to do
> that, (not necessarily) need to do it. And then, I'm not going for the
> regular XP install either. I've been reading some articles on super small
> installs, like a few hundred meg total, not 1.5 gig.
>
> The last clean install I've done was of Windows98 in 1999. This PC was an
> upgrade to XP from there.
>
> (It really kills me when I read in the WindowsXP newsgroups...'WTF! I've
> done 4 restore's (or clean installs) in the last 6 months'. One just the
> other day was....'I had to write all 0's to the drive to clean it just so
> Windows would install'.)
>
>
| |
|
| "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in
news:gczDf.8644$1n4.3578@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Dan,
>
> Given the history of your system, I'd do a clean install as well.
> Win98 was absolutely horrible when it came to keeping a clean
> registry. I'm actually surprised you haven't had problems with the
> system.
>
> Mike Ober.
>
And that's the whole irony of it, and why I'm hesitant. And I just thought
about something else. I think every component in this PC has changed since
the original 98 install. Motherboard included, as that was a K6II CPU, with
a PCI video card and an ISA network card with a BNC, and built-in sound.
I haven't found myself saying....'I REALLY REALLY need to start fresh.'
......yet.
I guess it's just a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Completely
opposite of my motor-head days.
Maybe this wend..... (the 50th or so 'maybe this wend')
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|