should i move to .NET 2.0?

I have a working website on internet written on .NET 1.1
I am thinking about moving my development to .NET 2.0 and do not want to run
both versions on the same server (have only one server). Or using VS 2003
with 2005 simultaneously
So I am thinking about converting my first website to .NET 2.0 (which is
really easy to do)
The question: is .NET 2.0 ready for production? First website is actually
making good money for me and it will be a big deal if server would lock
itself up one in a while.
Is .NET 2.0 as stable as .NET 1.1?
Any known issues?
Thanks
George.First off - if it's running perfectly and making good money for you -
there's no real reason to switch.
That said - there's no problem with running both versions on one server, and
YES - 2.0 has been ready for production a long time - I've had all my sites
converted to 2.0 for some time and I'll NEVER look back.
My suggestion would be to create a second site, copy the same older code
there, and convert that, to see how many issues you had during
conversion...that's the only thing I could see holding things up (the
conversion)
David Wier
MVP/ASPInsider
http://aspnet101.com
http://aspexpress.com
"George Ter-Saakov" <gt-nsp@.cardone.com> wrote in message
news:%23kNXamT$GHA.1200@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I have a working website on internet written on .NET 1.1
> I am thinking about moving my development to .NET 2.0 and do not want to
run
> both versions on the same server (have only one server). Or using VS 2003
> with 2005 simultaneously
> So I am thinking about converting my first website to .NET 2.0 (which is
> really easy to do)
> The question: is .NET 2.0 ready for production? First website is actually
> making good money for me and it will be a big deal if server would lock
> itself up one in a while.
> Is .NET 2.0 as stable as .NET 1.1?
> Any known issues?
>
>
> Thanks
> George.
>
Well, I do not want to use 2 development tools as well. It's really starts
to mess up my head :). The first website still going through improvement all
the time.
So that is another reason to convert.
I actually already had converted (just did not updated server yet) and had
no issues except one
in NET 2.0
Response.Filter.Write(aTmp, 0, aTmp.Length) now throws an exception when
aTmp is 0 length array.
.NET 1.1 simply did not do anything.
thanks for the info.
George.
"David Wier" <david_wier@.noSpamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23J54eyT$GHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> First off - if it's running perfectly and making good money for you -
> there's no real reason to switch.
> That said - there's no problem with running both versions on one server,
> and
> YES - 2.0 has been ready for production a long time - I've had all my
> sites
> converted to 2.0 for some time and I'll NEVER look back.
> My suggestion would be to create a second site, copy the same older code
> there, and convert that, to see how many issues you had during
> conversion...that's the only thing I could see holding things up (the
> conversion)
> --
> David Wier
> MVP/ASPInsider
> http://aspnet101.com
> http://aspexpress.com
>
> "George Ter-Saakov" <gt-nsp@.cardone.com> wrote in message
> news:%23kNXamT$GHA.1200@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> run
>
Hard to say. .Net 2.0 is superior to .Net 1.1 in many ways. However, with
the advent of Vista and the .Net platform 3.0, it would probably be better
to save yourself the trouble of 2 upgrades, wait a bit longer (maybe a
year), and upgrade to .Net 3.0.
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Short Order Coder
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com
The devil is in the yada yada yada
"George Ter-Saakov" <gt-nsp@.cardone.com> wrote in message
news:%23kNXamT$GHA.1200@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have a working website on internet written on .NET 1.1
> I am thinking about moving my development to .NET 2.0 and do not want to
> run both versions on the same server (have only one server). Or using VS
> 2003 with 2005 simultaneously
> So I am thinking about converting my first website to .NET 2.0 (which is
> really easy to do)
> The question: is .NET 2.0 ready for production? First website is actually
> making good money for me and it will be a big deal if server would lock
> itself up one in a while.
> Is .NET 2.0 as stable as .NET 1.1?
> Any known issues?
>
>
> Thanks
> George.
>
"NET 1.1 simply did not do anything."
Correct. In .NET 2.0, any unhandled exception will cause your application to
quit and the appDomain to unload. That is good, because in 1.1 you could hav
e
an application that "seemed" to still be running, but was actually in a
completely unusable state.
Bottom line- handle the exception with better coding logic.
Peter
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
"George Ter-Saakov" wrote:

> Well, I do not want to use 2 development tools as well. It's really starts
> to mess up my head :). The first website still going through improvement a
ll
> the time.
> So that is another reason to convert.
> I actually already had converted (just did not updated server yet) and ha
d
> no issues except one
> in NET 2.0
> Response.Filter.Write(aTmp, 0, aTmp.Length) now throws an exception when
> aTmp is 0 length array.
> ..NET 1.1 simply did not do anything.
> thanks for the info.
> George.
>
>
> "David Wier" <david_wier@.noSpamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23J54eyT$GHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>
Hi,
Kevin Spencer wrote:
> Hard to say. .Net 2.0 is superior to .Net 1.1 in many ways. However, with
> the advent of Vista and the .Net platform 3.0, it would probably be better
> to save yourself the trouble of 2 upgrades, wait a bit longer (maybe a
> year), and upgrade to .Net 3.0.
No. .NET 3.0 will not replace .NET 2.0. It's a marketing name. .NET 3.0
consists of additional libraries which are installed on top of .NET 2.0.
These libraries allow programming WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation),
WCF (Windows Communication Foundation), WWF (Windows Workflow
Foundation) and Cardspace.
For more info about .NET 3.0:
http://www.netfx3.com/
You should move to .NET 2.0 unless you have good reasons to stay with
.NET 1.1.
.NET 2.0 is a huge improvement over 1.1. Additionally, if you want to
stay on top of the game, you got to move with the flow, and learn the
newer technologies as they come.
HTH,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch
You'll notice that I didn't mention .Net 3.0 alone as a reason, but Vista as
well. This was why I recommended waiting a year.
You're entitled to your opinion, Laurent, but "No" is a bit overbearing
regarding an opinion.
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Short Order Coder
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com
The devil is in the yada yada yada
"Laurent Bugnion" <galasoft-lb@.bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:e$ufkbb$GHA.4568@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Kevin Spencer wrote:
> No. .NET 3.0 will not replace .NET 2.0. It's a marketing name. .NET 3.0
> consists of additional libraries which are installed on top of .NET 2.0.
> These libraries allow programming WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation),
> WCF (Windows Communication Foundation), WWF (Windows Workflow Foundation)
> and Cardspace.
> For more info about .NET 3.0:
> http://www.netfx3.com/
> You should move to .NET 2.0 unless you have good reasons to stay with .NET
> 1.1.
> .NET 2.0 is a huge improvement over 1.1. Additionally, if you want to stay
> on top of the game, you got to move with the flow, and learn the newer
> technologies as they come.
> HTH,
> Laurent
> --
> Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft
> Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
> PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
> Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch
When I said did not do anything.
I meant that even exception was not thrown. It just did not output anything
which is correct since array has zero length.
George
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pbromberg@.yahoo.nospammin.com> wrote in message
news:FCB91064-CA22-43DF-9132-E0B1A87ED5F0@.microsoft.com...
> "NET 1.1 simply did not do anything."
> Correct. In .NET 2.0, any unhandled exception will cause your application
> to
> quit and the appDomain to unload. That is good, because in 1.1 you could
> have
> an application that "seemed" to still be running, but was actually in a
> completely unusable state.
> Bottom line- handle the exception with better coding logic.
> Peter
> --
> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> UnBlog:
> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
>
>
> "George Ter-Saakov" wrote:
>
Hi Kevin,
Kevin Spencer wrote:
> You'll notice that I didn't mention .Net 3.0 alone as a reason, but Vista
as
> well. This was why I recommended waiting a year.
> You're entitled to your opinion, Laurent, but "No" is a bit overbearing
> regarding an opinion.
Sorry for the "no". You're right.
The reason I reacted to your post is that it makes .NET 3.0 sound like
an upgrade to .NET 2.0, in the same way that .NET 2.0 is an upgrade to
.NET 1.1. However, it's not. I think that Microsoft's naming policy is
confusing enough in that matter :-)
HTH and sorry,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch
Regardless, it is still good defensive coding practice to check if aTmp is
zero length or null before attempting to use it in the next line of code, ye
s?
Peter
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
"George Ter-Saakov" wrote:

> When I said did not do anything.
> I meant that even exception was not thrown. It just did not output anythin
g
> which is correct since array has zero length.
>
> George
>
> "Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pbromberg@.yahoo.nospammin.com> wrote in message
> news:FCB91064-CA22-43DF-9132-E0B1A87ED5F0@.microsoft.com...
>
>