> I downloaded the 101 VB.Net samples and it has something about XP Themes
and
> stuff and obivously I think I have something messed up. It didnt work.

> I have all my controls (buttons, text boxes, etc) set to "System" and they
> still look like regular buttons and such.

> Had any success?

> Travis Conway
> Namespace Software
> http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> I will see if it works.

> Travis Conway
> Namespace Software
> http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are normal and
> stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly. You shouldnt
> "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to create one
for
> the app.

> What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all of this
> manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here are the
steps
> you will have to perform:
> Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample manifest
file
> below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to comctl6. Just
> copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> name>.exe.manifest.

> You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This is
> accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> 4. Select your manifest file
> 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to "1".
> 7. Save the exe.
> 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level as the
> executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory of the
> solution)

> A sample manifest is also included and is named Sample_Manifest.xml.

> Sean Campbell
> 3 Leaf
> Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > Thanks,

> > I will see if it works.

> > Travis Conway
> > Namespace Software
> > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are normal and
> > stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly. You shouldnt
> > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> Randy

> > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to create one
> for
> > the app.

> > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all of this
> > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here are the
> steps
> > you will have to perform:
> > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample manifest
> file
> > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to comctl6.
Just
> > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > name>.exe.manifest.

> > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This is
> > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > 4. Select your manifest file
> > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to "1".
> > 7. Save the exe.
> > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level as the
> > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory of the
> > solution)

> > A sample manifest is also included and is named Sample_Manifest.xml.

> > Sean Campbell
> > 3 Leaf
> > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > Thanks,

> > > I will see if it works.

> > > Travis Conway
> > > Namespace Software
> > > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are normal and
> > > stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly. You
shouldnt
> > > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and VS.NET 2002.

>     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same machine.
>     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET 2002 and
> VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework assemblies
> and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications that compile
> against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> Your questions about being able to access the new objects that are found
in
> the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

>     In brief applications will attempt to run first against the framework
> they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.  If it is not
> present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that only     has
> 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by default.  In the
case
> of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the 1.0
Framework
> an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined configuration file
> is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework assemblies.

>     Configuration files can be used to target given versions of the
> framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components which only run
> against the version of the framework that the parent application     wants
> to run against.

>     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding Side By Side
> and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that you should
> research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large         scale
> development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different scenarios
you
> have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side framework
> issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog for more
> details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> Sean Campbell
> 3 Leaf
> Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can it be used
with
> > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over to VB .NET in
> > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the framework is
> > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has been on my
> mind
> > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but haven't had
a
> > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline and
reinstall
> > everything just right now.

> > Randy

> > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to create
one
> > for
> > > the app.

> > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all of this
> > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here are the
> > steps
> > > you will have to perform:
> > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample
manifest
> > file
> > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to comctl6.
> Just
> > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This is
> > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to "1".
> > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level as the
> > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory of the
> > > solution)

> > > A sample manifest is also included and is named Sample_Manifest.xml.

> > > Sean Campbell
> > > 3 Leaf
> > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > Thanks,

> > > > I will see if it works.

> > > > Travis Conway
> > > > Namespace Software
> > > > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > > > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are normal and
> > > > stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly. You
> shouldnt
> > > > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> > > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> I downloaded the 101 VB.Net samples and it has something about XP Themes and
> stuff and obivously I think I have something messed up. It didnt work.

> I have all my controls (buttons, text boxes, etc) set to "System" and they
> still look like regular buttons and such.

> Had any success?

> Travis Conway
> Namespace Software
> http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> This is what I was guessing, how messy! :)

> I have your site in my favorites.  Since I can't play with 2003 beta it's
> not going to be a concern until it's released.

> Considering how long I rejected the framework concept and have finally
> decided it's not so bad, it's going to take awhile before the idea of
having
> framework installed side by side in the end users box becomes palatable.
> Just convincing them to install 1.0 is going to be a chore, then I have to
> explain that it was last year's tech now they need 1.1 for their next
> application, I can see bad words being said behind my back already :P.

> Cheers

> Randy

> P.S. At this point I am unwilling to go back to VB6 to start any new
project
> and am in the process of creating replacement apps under dot net for
> preexisting apps.  My goal is to have VB6 Uninstalled within 6 months and
> have no further use for it!

> > I've been using 1.1 and 2003 for sometime now.

> > Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> > The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and VS.NET
2002.

> >     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same machine.
> >     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET 2002 and
> > VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> > However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework
assemblies
> > and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications that compile
> > against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> > Your questions about being able to access the new objects that are found
> in
> > the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

> >     In brief applications will attempt to run first against the
framework
> > they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.  If it is
not
> > present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that only
has
> > 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by default.  In the
> case
> > of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the 1.0
> Framework
> > an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined configuration
file
> > is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework assemblies.

> >     Configuration files can be used to target given versions of the
> > framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components which only
run
> > against the version of the framework that the parent application
wants
> > to run against.

> >     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding Side By
Side
> > and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that you should
> > research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large         scale
> > development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> > The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different scenarios
> you
> > have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side framework
> > issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog for more
> > details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> > Sean Campbell
> > 3 Leaf
> > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can it be used
> with
> > > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over to VB .NET
in
> > > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the framework
is
> > > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has been on my
> > mind
> > > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but haven't
had
> a
> > > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline and
> reinstall
> > > everything just right now.

> > > Randy

> > > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to create
> one
> > > for
> > > > the app.

> > > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all of this
> > > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here are
the
> > > steps
> > > > you will have to perform:
> > > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> > > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample
> manifest
> > > file
> > > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to comctl6.
> > Just
> > > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This is
> > > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to "1".
> > > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level as the
> > > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory of
the
> > > > solution)

> > > > A sample manifest is also included and is named Sample_Manifest.xml.

> > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > I will see if it works.

> > > > > Travis Conway
> > > > > Namespace Software
> > > > > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > > > > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are normal
and
> > > > > stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly. You
> > shouldnt
> > > > > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > > > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> > > > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> Nick.

> > Thank you,

> > This is what I was guessing, how messy! :)

> > I have your site in my favorites.  Since I can't play with 2003 beta
it's
> > not going to be a concern until it's released.

> > Considering how long I rejected the framework concept and have finally
> > decided it's not so bad, it's going to take awhile before the idea of
> having
> > framework installed side by side in the end users box becomes palatable.
> > Just convincing them to install 1.0 is going to be a chore, then I have
to
> > explain that it was last year's tech now they need 1.1 for their next
> > application, I can see bad words being said behind my back already :P.

> > Cheers

> > Randy

> > P.S. At this point I am unwilling to go back to VB6 to start any new
> project
> > and am in the process of creating replacement apps under dot net for
> > preexisting apps.  My goal is to have VB6 Uninstalled within 6 months
and
> > have no further use for it!

> > > I've been using 1.1 and 2003 for sometime now.

> > > Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> > > The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and VS.NET
> 2002.

> > >     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same machine.
> > >     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET 2002
and
> > > VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> > > However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework
> assemblies
> > > and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications that
compile
> > > against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> > > Your questions about being able to access the new objects that are
found
> > in
> > > the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

> > >     In brief applications will attempt to run first against the
> framework
> > > they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.  If it is
> not
> > > present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that only
> has
> > > 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by default.  In
the
> > case
> > > of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the 1.0
> > Framework
> > > an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined configuration
> file
> > > is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework assemblies.

> > >     Configuration files can be used to target given versions of the
> > > framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components which only
> run
> > > against the version of the framework that the parent application
> wants
> > > to run against.

> > >     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding Side By
> Side
> > > and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that you
should
> > > research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large
scale
> > > development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> > > The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different
scenarios
> > you
> > > have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side framework
> > > issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog for
more
> > > details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> > > Sean Campbell
> > > 3 Leaf
> > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can it be
used
> > with
> > > > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over to VB
.NET
> in
> > > > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the framework
> is
> > > > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has been on
my
> > > mind
> > > > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but haven't
> had
> > a
> > > > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline and
> > reinstall
> > > > everything just right now.

> > > > Randy

> > > > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to
create
> > one
> > > > for
> > > > > the app.

> > > > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all of
this
> > > > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here are
> the
> > > > steps
> > > > > you will have to perform:
> > > > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> > > > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample
> > manifest
> > > > file
> > > > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to
comctl6.
> > > Just
> > > > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This is
> > > > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to "1".
> > > > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level as
the
> > > > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory of
> the
> > > > > solution)

> > > > > A sample manifest is also included and is named

> > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > I will see if it works.

> > > > > > Travis Conway
> > > > > > Namespace Software
> > > > > > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > > > > > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are normal
> and
> > > > > > stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly. You
> > > shouldnt
> > > > > > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > > > > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> > > > > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> not sure exactly when it's coming.

> Randy

> > Sorry to jump into a thread like this but am I right in understanding
that
> > Visual Basic .NET doesnt built applications with the Windows XP visual
> > styles by default?  And to be able to use this new 1.1 framework, will I
> not
> > be able to use Visual Basic .NET 2002?  As I have just decided to walk
> away
> > from VB6 to Visual Basic .NET so that I can make more modern
applications,
> > it would be sods law as usual if the version of Visual Basic .NET I am
> > purchasing is going to be old hold very soon, sheesh!

> > Nick.

> > > Thank you,

> > > This is what I was guessing, how messy! :)

> > > I have your site in my favorites.  Since I can't play with 2003 beta
> it's
> > > not going to be a concern until it's released.

> > > Considering how long I rejected the framework concept and have finally
> > > decided it's not so bad, it's going to take awhile before the idea of
> > having
> > > framework installed side by side in the end users box becomes
palatable.
> > > Just convincing them to install 1.0 is going to be a chore, then I
have
> to
> > > explain that it was last year's tech now they need 1.1 for their next
> > > application, I can see bad words being said behind my back already :P.

> > > Cheers

> > > Randy

> > > P.S. At this point I am unwilling to go back to VB6 to start any new
> > project
> > > and am in the process of creating replacement apps under dot net for
> > > preexisting apps.  My goal is to have VB6 Uninstalled within 6 months
> and
> > > have no further use for it!

> > > > I've been using 1.1 and 2003 for sometime now.

> > > > Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> > > > The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and VS.NET
> > 2002.

> > > >     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same machine.
> > > >     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET 2002
> and
> > > > VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> > > > However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework
> > assemblies
> > > > and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications that
> compile
> > > > against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> > > > Your questions about being able to access the new objects that are
> found
> > > in
> > > > the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

> > > >     In brief applications will attempt to run first against the
> > framework
> > > > they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.  If it
is
> > not
> > > > present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that only
> > has
> > > > 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by default.  In
> the
> > > case
> > > > of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the 1.0
> > > Framework
> > > > an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined
configuration
> > file
> > > > is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework assemblies.

> > > >     Configuration files can be used to target given versions of the
> > > > framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components which
only
> > run
> > > > against the version of the framework that the parent application
> > wants
> > > > to run against.

> > > >     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding Side
By
> > Side
> > > > and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that you
> should
> > > > research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large
> scale
> > > > development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> > > > The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different
> scenarios
> > > you
> > > > have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side
framework
> > > > issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog for
> more
> > > > details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can it be
> used
> > > with
> > > > > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over to VB
> .NET
> > in
> > > > > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the
framework
> > is
> > > > > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has been
on
> my
> > > > mind
> > > > > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but
haven't
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline and
> > > reinstall
> > > > > everything just right now.

> > > > > Randy

> > > > > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > > > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to
> create
> > > one
> > > > > for
> > > > > > the app.

> > > > > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all of
> this
> > > > > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > > > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > > > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > > > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here
are
> > the
> > > > > steps
> > > > > > you will have to perform:
> > > > > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> > > > > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample
> > > manifest
> > > > > file
> > > > > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to
> comctl6.
> > > > Just
> > > > > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > > > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > > > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This is
> > > > > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > > > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > > > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > > > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > > > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > > > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > > > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to
"1".
> > > > > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > > > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level as
> the
> > > > > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory
of
> > the
> > > > > > solution)

> > > > > > A sample manifest is also included and is named
> Sample_Manifest.xml.

> > > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > I will see if it works.

> > > > > > > Travis Conway
> > > > > > > Namespace Software
> > > > > > > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > > > > > > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are
normal
> > and
> > > > > > > stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly.
You
> > > > shouldnt
> > > > > > > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > > > > > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> > > > > > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> Nick.

> > In that case you might just want to wait for 2003.

> > not sure exactly when it's coming.

> > Randy

> > > Sorry to jump into a thread like this but am I right in understanding
> that
> > > Visual Basic .NET doesnt built applications with the Windows XP visual
> > > styles by default?  And to be able to use this new 1.1 framework, will
I
> > not
> > > be able to use Visual Basic .NET 2002?  As I have just decided to walk
> > away
> > > from VB6 to Visual Basic .NET so that I can make more modern
> applications,
> > > it would be sods law as usual if the version of Visual Basic .NET I am
> > > purchasing is going to be old hold very soon, sheesh!

> > > Nick.

> > > > Thank you,

> > > > This is what I was guessing, how messy! :)

> > > > I have your site in my favorites.  Since I can't play with 2003 beta
> > it's
> > > > not going to be a concern until it's released.

> > > > Considering how long I rejected the framework concept and have
finally
> > > > decided it's not so bad, it's going to take awhile before the idea
of
> > > having
> > > > framework installed side by side in the end users box becomes
> palatable.
> > > > Just convincing them to install 1.0 is going to be a chore, then I
> have
> > to
> > > > explain that it was last year's tech now they need 1.1 for their
next
> > > > application, I can see bad words being said behind my back already
:P.

> > > > Cheers

> > > > Randy

> > > > P.S. At this point I am unwilling to go back to VB6 to start any new
> > > project
> > > > and am in the process of creating replacement apps under dot net for
> > > > preexisting apps.  My goal is to have VB6 Uninstalled within 6
months
> > and
> > > > have no further use for it!

> > > > > I've been using 1.1 and 2003 for sometime now.

> > > > > Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> > > > > The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and
VS.NET
> > > 2002.

> > > > >     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same
machine.
> > > > >     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET
2002
> > and
> > > > > VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> > > > > However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework
> > > assemblies
> > > > > and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications that
> > compile
> > > > > against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> > > > > Your questions about being able to access the new objects that are
> > found
> > > > in
> > > > > the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

> > > > >     In brief applications will attempt to run first against the
> > > framework
> > > > > they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.  If it
> is
> > > not
> > > > > present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that only
> > > has
> > > > > 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by default.
In
> > the
> > > > case
> > > > > of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the 1.0
> > > > Framework
> > > > > an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined
> configuration
> > > file
> > > > > is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework
assemblies.

> > > > >     Configuration files can be used to target given versions of
the
> > > > > framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components which
> only
> > > run
> > > > > against the version of the framework that the parent application
> > > wants
> > > > > to run against.

> > > > >     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding Side
> By
> > > Side
> > > > > and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that you
> > should
> > > > > research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large
> > scale
> > > > > development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> > > > > The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different
> > scenarios
> > > > you
> > > > > have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side
> framework
> > > > > issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog for
> > more
> > > > > details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can it be
> > used
> > > > with
> > > > > > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over to VB
> > .NET
> > > in
> > > > > > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the
> framework
> > > is
> > > > > > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has been
> on
> > my
> > > > > mind
> > > > > > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but
> haven't
> > > had
> > > > a
> > > > > > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline and
> > > > reinstall
> > > > > > everything just right now.

> > > > > > Randy

> > > > > > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > > > > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to
> > create
> > > > one
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the app.

> > > > > > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all
of
> > this
> > > > > > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > > > > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > > > > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > > > > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here
> are
> > > the
> > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > you will have to perform:
> > > > > > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> > > > > > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample
> > > > manifest
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to
> > comctl6.
> > > > > Just
> > > > > > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > > > > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > > > > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This
is
> > > > > > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > > > > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > > > > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > > > > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > > > > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > > > > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > > > > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to
> "1".
> > > > > > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > > > > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level
as
> > the
> > > > > > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > solution)

> > > > > > > A sample manifest is also included and is named
> > Sample_Manifest.xml.

> > > > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > I will see if it works.

> > > > > > > > Travis Conway
> > > > > > > > Namespace Software
> > > > > > > > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > > > > > > > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are
> normal
> > > and
> > > > > > > > stick to a standard, then you could view my site correctly.
> You
> > > > > shouldnt
> > > > > > > > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > > > > > > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> > > > > > > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

> > Hmmmmmmff, but Ive ordered it already, knowing my luck I'll wait another
> > year or so and come across similar problems, bring back the Amiga thats
> what
> > I say :-\  I'm having no luck with PC's lately in the slightest.

> > Nick.

> > > In that case you might just want to wait for 2003.

> > > not sure exactly when it's coming.

> > > Randy

> > > > Sorry to jump into a thread like this but am I right in
understanding
> > that
> > > > Visual Basic .NET doesnt built applications with the Windows XP
visual
> > > > styles by default?  And to be able to use this new 1.1 framework,
will
> I
> > > not
> > > > be able to use Visual Basic .NET 2002?  As I have just decided to
walk
> > > away
> > > > from VB6 to Visual Basic .NET so that I can make more modern
> > applications,
> > > > it would be sods law as usual if the version of Visual Basic .NET I
am
> > > > purchasing is going to be old hold very soon, sheesh!

> > > > Nick.

> > > > > Thank you,

> > > > > This is what I was guessing, how messy! :)

> > > > > I have your site in my favorites.  Since I can't play with 2003
beta
> > > it's
> > > > > not going to be a concern until it's released.

> > > > > Considering how long I rejected the framework concept and have
> finally
> > > > > decided it's not so bad, it's going to take awhile before the idea
> of
> > > > having
> > > > > framework installed side by side in the end users box becomes
> > palatable.
> > > > > Just convincing them to install 1.0 is going to be a chore, then I
> > have
> > > to
> > > > > explain that it was last year's tech now they need 1.1 for their
> next
> > > > > application, I can see bad words being said behind my back already
> :P.

> > > > > Cheers

> > > > > Randy

> > > > > P.S. At this point I am unwilling to go back to VB6 to start any
new
> > > > project
> > > > > and am in the process of creating replacement apps under dot net
for
> > > > > preexisting apps.  My goal is to have VB6 Uninstalled within 6
> months
> > > and
> > > > > have no further use for it!

> > > > > > I've been using 1.1 and 2003 for sometime now.

> > > > > > Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> > > > > > The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and
> VS.NET
> > > > 2002.

> > > > > >     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same
> machine.
> > > > > >     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET
> 2002
> > > and
> > > > > > VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> > > > > > However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework
> > > > assemblies
> > > > > > and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications that
> > > compile
> > > > > > against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> > > > > > Your questions about being able to access the new objects that
are
> > > found
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

> > > > > >     In brief applications will attempt to run first against the
> > > > framework
> > > > > > they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.  If
it
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that
only
> > > > has
> > > > > > 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by default.
> In
> > > the
> > > > > case
> > > > > > of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the
1.0
> > > > > Framework
> > > > > > an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined
> > configuration
> > > > file
> > > > > > is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework
> assemblies.

> > > > > >     Configuration files can be used to target given versions of
> the
> > > > > > framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components which
> > only
> > > > run
> > > > > > against the version of the framework that the parent application
> > > > wants
> > > > > > to run against.

> > > > > >     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding
Side
> > By
> > > > Side
> > > > > > and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that
you
> > > should
> > > > > > research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large
> > > scale
> > > > > > development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> > > > > > The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different
> > > scenarios
> > > > > you
> > > > > > have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side
> > framework
> > > > > > issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog
for
> > > more
> > > > > > details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> > > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can it
be
> > > used
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over to
VB
> > > .NET
> > > > in
> > > > > > > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the
> > framework
> > > > is
> > > > > > > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has
been
> > on
> > > my
> > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but
> > haven't
> > > > had
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline
and
> > > > > reinstall
> > > > > > > everything just right now.

> > > > > > > Randy

> > > > > > > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > > > > > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample
to
> > > create
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the app.

> > > > > > > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all
> of
> > > this
> > > > > > > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > > > > > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > > > > > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > > > > > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application
here
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > you will have to perform:
> > > > > > > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to
FlatStyle.System

> > > > > > > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The
sample
> > > > > manifest
> > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to
> > > comctl6.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > > > > > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > > > > > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.
This
> is
> > > > > > > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > > > > > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > > > > > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > > > > > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > > > > > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > > > > > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > > > > > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101"
to
> > "1".
> > > > > > > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > > > > > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory
level
> as
> > > the
> > > > > > > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin
directory
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > solution)

> > > > > > > > A sample manifest is also included and is named
> > > Sample_Manifest.xml.

> > > > > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > I will see if it works.

> > > > > > > > > Travis Conway
> > > > > > > > > Namespace Software
> > > > > > > > > http://www.namespacesoftware.com

> > > > > > > > > PS Its your fault you changed your background. If you are
> > normal
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > stick to a standard, then you could view my site
correctly.
> > You
> > > > > > shouldnt
> > > > > > > > > "assume" everyone will change their stuff to suit you.

> > > > > > > > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com
***
> > > > > > > > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded

> Nick.

> > In that case you might just want to wait for 2003.

> > not sure exactly when it's coming.

> > Randy

> > > Sorry to jump into a thread like this but am I right in understanding
> that
> > > Visual Basic .NET doesnt built applications with the Windows XP visual
> > > styles by default?  And to be able to use this new 1.1 framework, will
I
> > not
> > > be able to use Visual Basic .NET 2002?  As I have just decided to walk
> > away
> > > from VB6 to Visual Basic .NET so that I can make more modern
> applications,
> > > it would be sods law as usual if the version of Visual Basic .NET I am
> > > purchasing is going to be old hold very soon, sheesh!

> > > Nick.

> > > > Thank you,

> > > > This is what I was guessing, how messy! :)

> > > > I have your site in my favorites.  Since I can't play with 2003 beta
> > it's
> > > > not going to be a concern until it's released.

> > > > Considering how long I rejected the framework concept and have
finally
> > > > decided it's not so bad, it's going to take awhile before the idea
of
> > > having
> > > > framework installed side by side in the end users box becomes
> palatable.
> > > > Just convincing them to install 1.0 is going to be a chore, then I
> have
> > to
> > > > explain that it was last year's tech now they need 1.1 for their
next
> > > > application, I can see bad words being said behind my back already
:P.

> > > > Cheers

> > > > Randy

> > > > P.S. At this point I am unwilling to go back to VB6 to start any new
> > > project
> > > > and am in the process of creating replacement apps under dot net for
> > > > preexisting apps.  My goal is to have VB6 Uninstalled within 6
months
> > and
> > > > have no further use for it!

> > > > > I've been using 1.1 and 2003 for sometime now.

> > > > > Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> > > > > The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and
VS.NET
> > > 2002.

> > > > >     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same
machine.
> > > > >     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET
2002
> > and
> > > > > VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> > > > > However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework
> > > assemblies
> > > > > and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications that
> > compile
> > > > > against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> > > > > Your questions about being able to access the new objects that are
> > found
> > > > in
> > > > > the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

> > > > >     In brief applications will attempt to run first against the
> > > framework
> > > > > they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.  If it
> is
> > > not
> > > > > present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that only
> > > has
> > > > > 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by default.
In
> > the
> > > > case
> > > > > of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the 1.0
> > > > Framework
> > > > > an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined
> configuration
> > > file
> > > > > is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework
assemblies.

> > > > >     Configuration files can be used to target given versions of
the
> > > > > framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components which
> only
> > > run
> > > > > against the version of the framework that the parent application
> > > wants
> > > > > to run against.

> > > > >     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding Side
> By
> > > Side
> > > > > and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that you
> > should
> > > > > research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large
> > scale
> > > > > development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> > > > > The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different
> > scenarios
> > > > you
> > > > > have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side
> framework
> > > > > issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog for
> > more
> > > > > details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can it be
> > used
> > > > with
> > > > > > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over to VB
> > .NET
> > > in
> > > > > > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the
> framework
> > > is
> > > > > > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has been
> on
> > my
> > > > > mind
> > > > > > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but
> haven't
> > > had
> > > > a
> > > > > > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline and
> > > > reinstall
> > > > > > everything just right now.

> > > > > > Randy

> > > > > > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > > > > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample to
> > create
> > > > one
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the app.

> > > > > > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that all
of
> > this
> > > > > > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > > > > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > > > > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > > > > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application here
> are
> > > the
> > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > you will have to perform:
> > > > > > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to FlatStyle.System

> > > > > > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The sample
> > > > manifest
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged) to
> > comctl6.
> > > > > Just
> > > > > > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > > > > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > > > > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.  This
is
> > > > > > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > > > > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > > > > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > > > > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > > > > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > > > > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > > > > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101" to
> "1".
> > > > > > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > > > > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory level
as
> > the
> > > > > > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin directory
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > solution)

> > > > > > > A sample manifest is also included and is named
> > Sample_Manifest.xml.

> > > > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > > "Travis Conway"

> Randy

> > Visual Studio.NET 2003 is supposed to be available retail in April 2003.
> > And is supposed to be available as an upgrade for VS.NET 2002 users for
an
> > upgrade price of $29.00 !
> > That sounds like a bargain to me.  I am using VS.NET 2003 Final Beta
right
> > now  and I really do like it and plan to get the upgrade when it comes
> out.
> > james

> > > Hmmmmmmff, but Ive ordered it already, knowing my luck I'll wait
another
> > > year or so and come across similar problems, bring back the Amiga
thats
> > what
> > > I say :-\  I'm having no luck with PC's lately in the slightest.

> > > Nick.

> > > > In that case you might just want to wait for 2003.

> > > > not sure exactly when it's coming.

> > > > Randy

> > > > > Sorry to jump into a thread like this but am I right in
> understanding
> > > that
> > > > > Visual Basic .NET doesnt built applications with the Windows XP
> visual
> > > > > styles by default?  And to be able to use this new 1.1 framework,
> will
> > I
> > > > not
> > > > > be able to use Visual Basic .NET 2002?  As I have just decided to
> walk
> > > > away
> > > > > from VB6 to Visual Basic .NET so that I can make more modern
> > > applications,
> > > > > it would be sods law as usual if the version of Visual Basic .NET
I
> am
> > > > > purchasing is going to be old hold very soon, sheesh!

> > > > > Nick.

> > > > > > Thank you,

> > > > > > This is what I was guessing, how messy! :)

> > > > > > I have your site in my favorites.  Since I can't play with 2003
> beta
> > > > it's
> > > > > > not going to be a concern until it's released.

> > > > > > Considering how long I rejected the framework concept and have
> > finally
> > > > > > decided it's not so bad, it's going to take awhile before the
idea
> > of
> > > > > having
> > > > > > framework installed side by side in the end users box becomes
> > > palatable.
> > > > > > Just convincing them to install 1.0 is going to be a chore, then
I
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > explain that it was last year's tech now they need 1.1 for their
> > next
> > > > > > application, I can see bad words being said behind my back
already
> > :P.

> > > > > > Cheers

> > > > > > Randy

> > > > > > P.S. At this point I am unwilling to go back to VB6 to start any
> new
> > > > > project
> > > > > > and am in the process of creating replacement apps under dot net
> for
> > > > > > preexisting apps.  My goal is to have VB6 Uninstalled within 6
> > months
> > > > and
> > > > > > have no further use for it!

> > > > > > > I've been using 1.1 and 2003 for sometime now.

> > > > > > > Can it be used with VB.NET 2002?

> > > > > > > The better question is can it be used with 1.0 Framework and
> > VS.NET
> > > > > 2002.

> > > > > > >     The answer is that it can run side by side on the same
> > machine.
> > > > > > >     That is the 1.0 Framework and the 1.1 Framework and VS.NET
> > 2002
> > > > and
> > > > > > > VS.NET 2003 can co-exist on the same machine peacefully.

> > > > > > > However VS.NET 2002 can only compile against the 1.0 Framework
> > > > > assemblies
> > > > > > > and therefore you'll need VS.NET 2003 to build applications
that
> > > > compile
> > > > > > > against the 1.1 Framework assemblies.

> > > > > > > Your questions about being able to access the new objects that
> are
> > > > found
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the new framework has a bit lengthier answer.

> > > > > > >     In brief applications will attempt to run first against
the
> > > > > framework
> > > > > > > they were compiled against if it is present on the machine.
If
> it
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > present in the case of a 1.0 Framework app run on a box that
> only
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > 1.1 Framework it will run against the 1.1 framework by
default.
> > In
> > > > the
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > of a 1.1 Framework app that is run on a box that only has the
> 1.0
> > > > > > Framework
> > > > > > > an exception occurs unless an appropriately     defined
> > > configuration
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > is present to force the app to target the 1.0 Framework
> > assemblies.

> > > > > > >     Configuration files can be used to target given versions
of
> > the
> > > > > > > framework for most scenarios.  One exception is components
which
> > > only
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > against the version of the framework that the parent
application
> > > > > wants
> > > > > > > to run against.

> > > > > > >     There are a great number of additional issues surrounding
> Side
> > > By
> > > > > Side
> > > > > > > and application compatibility, application float-up, etc that
> you
> > > > should
> > > > > > > research and get comfortable with prior to doing any large
> > > > scale
> > > > > > > development with the 1.1 Framework and Visual Studio.NET 2003.

> > > > > > > The comments above are by no means exhaustive of the different
> > > > scenarios
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > have to be comfortable dealing with in terms of side by side
> > > framework
> > > > > > > issues. You can check out some of the recent posts on our blog
> for
> > > > more
> > > > > > > details on side by side and issues surrounding it.

> > > > > > > Sean Campbell
> > > > > > > 3 Leaf
> > > > > > > Early Adopter Weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0117167/

> > > > > > > > Does this mean your already using .NET Framework 1.1?  Can
it
> be
> > > > used
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > VB .NET 2002?  If so does it give all the new objects over
to
> VB
> > > > .NET
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > that the way it gets objects from the framwork anytime the
> > > framework
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > updated so is what's avaible to VB .NET?  This question has
> been
> > > on
> > > > my
> > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > since I saw 1.1 beta.  I want to download and find out, but
> > > haven't
> > > > > had
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > chance and don't want to Break VB .NET and have to flatline
> and
> > > > > > reinstall
> > > > > > > > everything just right now.

> > > > > > > > Randy

> > > > > > > > > What's missing is the manifest file for the app.

> > > > > > > > > Included are the directions from the readme for the sample
> to
> > > > create
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the app.

> > > > > > > > > What's really nice with the 1.1 Framework though is that
all
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > manifest mojo is unecessary as you can simply call
> > > > > > > > > Application.EnableVisualStyles() in your application.

> > > > > > > > > But with 1.0 Framework the manifest file is the way to go.

> > > > > > > > > If you want to create your own Windows Forms application
> here
> > > are
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > you will have to perform:
> > > > > > > > > Set each control with a FlatStyle property to
> FlatStyle.System

> > > > > > > > > Create a manifest file to bind your app to comctl6. The
> sample
> > > > > > manifest
> > > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > below can be used to bind any app (managed or unmanaged)
to
> > > > comctl6.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > copy it to the location of the .exe and rename it to <app
> > > > > > > > > name>.exe.manifest.

> > > > > > > > > You must then add a Win32 resource to your application.
> This
> > is
> > > > > > > > > accomplished by first opening up the *.exe.

> > > > > > > > > 1. Open your exe in VS (file -> open file)
> > > > > > > > > 2. Right click on it and select add resource
> > > > > > > > > 3. Click "Import..." from the dialog
> > > > > > > > > 4. Select your manifest file
> > > > > > > > > 5. In the "Resource Type" field, enter "RT_MANIFEST"
> > > > > > > > > 6. In the property grid, change the resource ID from "101"
> to
> > > "1".
> > > > > > > > > 7. Save the exe.
> > > > > > > > > 8. Make sure the manifest is keep at the same directory
> level
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > executable.  (In this How-To it is placed in the bin
> directory
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > solution)