--
Paul Hendrickson

This is more or less true. Very early on when .NET as we see it now was in
the formative stages, there were lots of different references to blanket
names for the next rev. products. The Visual Studio products themselves were
often referred to as "Version 7.0", while some others were referred to as
"Next Generation" or "[such-and-such]+". In fact, if you open VS .NET and
hit the About screen you'll notice that the Integrated Development
Environment is version 7.0.*.

However, end-to-end platform vision and marketing strategy being what it is,
everything was eventually given the ".NET" moniker in one way or another to
convey the idea of the total .NET Platform (see 2000-series servers becoming
".NET Enterprise Servers" for the best example of this). I'm not a Microsoft
insider so I'm sure there are details I've glazed over completely, but this
is the long and the short of it.

Please let me know if I can help further.

--
Mike Diehl
http://www.i3solutions.com

The information contained in this electronic message and any attached
documents is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you
are not the intended recipient, note that any review, disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of this electronic message or any
attached documents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please destroy it and notify i3solutions immediately.

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Rick
VB Team

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

You could bury this in semantics, I suppose, and Microsoft can call it what
they will, but VB.NET is a different language, plain and simple (whatever
the superficial resemblance).  Dubbing it VB7 might save typing but only
promotes confusion.

Regards,

Randall Hale

In VB.NET I started a new web application.  Then I chose 'Add New Item'
and double
clicked the DataForm Wizard and got a Microsoft Development Environment
dialog box that said the following:

Could not run the 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual
Studio.NET\Vb7\VBProjectItems\Web Project Items\..\WebDataForm.vsz'
wizard

I did a search for WebDataForm.vsz and found it in C:\Program
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio.NET\Vb7\VBProjectItems\webdataform.vsz

Should I move the file?  If so, where should I move it to?

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

I don't think this has anything to do with Visual Studio 6 installation; I
have run them side-by-side (VS6 and VS .NET) for about 2 years through all
betas, etc. and have never had a conflict.

Have you had previous Beta versions and/or RCs on that machine that maybe
did not get completely removed before installing a newer VS .NET version? If
so, that could be the reason; a complete uninstall/reinstall was always
stated as highly recommended procedure during the VS .NET Beta & RC period
and there were sometimes install path changes (subtle and extreme) that made
this necessary.

Shrug. Try moving the file and see what happens; I'm pretty sure that at
least a simple copy/paste to try it out won't cause too much chaos.

Hope this helps. Let me know how it works out.

--
Mike Diehl
http://www.i3solutions.com

The information contained in this electronic message and any attached
documents is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you
are not the intended recipient, note that any review, disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of this electronic message or any
attached documents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please destroy it and notify i3solutions immediately.

The earlier postings from MS reps evidently arrived before I had a chance to
see them.  True to form, they illustrate the tendency (at Microsoft) to
deflect attention from the fact that the baby was thrown out with the
bathwater.  And one could generate one helluva thread, if one cared to
dispute this simple fact (as if such threads weren't already passe).

Fine, many of us saw this coming a long time ago and were prepared;
moreover, most are probably happy with the outcome, for Microsoft had good
reasons.  I am anyway.  (COM is dead.  Long live COM!)

And for others like me, who watched closely as .NET loomed on the horizon,
or are otherwise in-the-know, nomenclature is less of an issue.

HOWEVER, it becomes an issue -- and a very confusing one -- for those
approaching Visual Basic for the first time, or who are just beginning to
learn VB.NET with some slight previous exposure to VB6.  The newsgroups are
full of examples of this.  The confusion is obvious and agonizing -- and
it's all attributable to the ambiquity which obtains with the term 'Visual
Basic'.

Many recommend that  the best tactic is to start with a blank slate, pretend
you're learning a brand new, hitherto unknown language, and proceed from
there.  It worked for me and it's what I've told students.  At least it
seems to be the least painful way, certainly no more painful than bailing on
VB altogether, as many have done, and moving to C# instead.

So, come on, Microsoft, take ownership -- after all, you've achieved
something wonderful -- and contribute to clarity, if only for the sake of
all the little, lost lambs!  Don't just leave it up to private authors like
Dan Appleman, Francesco Balena, et al.

Regards,

Randall Hale

Randal,

I feel Dan Appleman's a little critical of Microsoft. Moving serveral developers from asp and vb 6 to "vb7" was fairly straight forward. Granted as Visual basic 6.0 programmers you're sheltered from the harsh realities of programming. I've done things in dotnet in 20 mins that tooke days to do in vb. We felt the the IL produced byt the compiler indeed was pretty much the same in VB as C#. Plus the synctax is more forgivening in VB with the real time compiler checking the coe  

-Calvin Luttrell
Senior Programmer
1-800-Dentist

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

No, it's an oversight (or another failed attempt on Microsoft's part to
camouflage the{*filter*} they were about to administer to VB6 developers).  Some
of the early literature on .NET spoke of  'Version 7.0', and certain Wizards
retain the usage (see the meta content tag in an VB.NET generated HTML page,
for example).

You could bury this in semantics, I suppose, and Microsoft can call it what
they will, but VB.NET is a different language, plain and simple (whatever
the superficial resemblance).  Dubbing it VB7 might save typing but only
promotes confusion.

Unfortunately your statement is inaccurate as over 95% of the core language is still present. If
anything it is the extensions to the language which have made it more complicated (which could have
said about Visual Basic 1.0 as well).

Let's not confuse "semantics" with "facts". ;-)

Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

We are talking at cross purposes here, Calvin, for I agree with you.  I just think Microsoft could have made it a little easier for some  by avoiding the association.  VB6 and VB.NET are two different animals, plain and simple.   The problem is that this fact is not all that plain to everyone, even now, partly thanks to Microsoft and their peculiar notion of versioning (at least in this circumstance).  

I can only speak from the 'harsh realities' of teaching; and it is has made my task that much more difficult.

Other than that, I have no hard feelings (as others often have when it comes to this topic).  I love the .NET Framework and VB.NET in particular!  I just wish I could assume that everyone was in-the-know and feel more comfortable referring to Visual Basic as such, without having to be 'specific' in virtually every circumstance.  Microsoft may be able to get away with it, but I've found it to be practically impossible or, at best, misleading.

Regards,

Randall Hale

P.S.  Do you really thing Dan Appleman is that critical?  I don't.  After all, where would Dan be without MS?  Like Socrates refusing to flee Athens, to which he owed everything -- even at the prospect of his own death -- I believe Dan secretly  loves and is utterly loyal to Redmond.  Problem is, again, like Socrates, Dan is something of a Torpedo Fish.  ;)

  Randal,

  I feel Dan Appleman's a little critical of Microsoft. Moving serveral developers from asp and vb 6 to "vb7" was fairly straight forward. Granted as Visual basic 6.0 programmers you're sheltered from the harsh realities of programming. I've done things in dotnet in 20 mins that tooke days to do in vb. We felt the the IL produced byt the compiler indeed was pretty much the same in VB as C#. Plus the synctax is more forgivening in VB with the real time compiler checking the coe  

  -Calvin Luttrell
  Senior Programmer
  1-800-Dentist

  > The earlier postings from MS reps evidently arrived before I had a chance to
  > see them.  True to form, they illustrate the tendency (at Microsoft) to
  > deflect attention from the fact that the baby was thrown out with the
  > bathwater.  And one could generate one helluva thread, if one cared to
  > dispute this simple fact (as if such threads weren't already passe).
  >
  > Fine, many of us saw this coming a long time ago and were prepared;
  > moreover, most are probably happy with the outcome, for Microsoft had good
  > reasons.  I am anyway.  (COM is dead.  Long live COM!)
  >
  > And for others like me, who watched closely as .NET loomed on the horizon,
  > or are otherwise in-the-know, nomenclature is less of an issue.
  >
  > HOWEVER, it becomes an issue -- and a very confusing one -- for those
  > approaching Visual Basic for the first time, or who are just beginning to
  > learn VB.NET with some slight previous exposure to VB6.  The newsgroups are
  > full of examples of this.  The confusion is obvious and agonizing -- and
  > it's all attributable to the ambiquity which obtains with the term 'Visual
  > Basic'.
  >
  > Many recommend that  the best tactic is to start with a blank slate, pretend
  > you're learning a brand new, hitherto unknown language, and proceed from
  > there.  It worked for me and it's what I've told students.  At least it
  > seems to be the least painful way, certainly no more painful than bailing on
  > VB altogether, as many have done, and moving to C# instead.
  >
  > So, come on, Microsoft, take ownership -- after all, you've achieved
  > something wonderful -- and contribute to clarity, if only for the sake of
  > all the little, lost lambs!  Don't just leave it up to private authors like
  > Dan Appleman, Francesco Balena, et al.

Let's not ignore the facts either, Paul, for it would be silly to suppose
that my view is at all original, unorthodox, or uncommon.  Nor is this about
syntax or reserved words.  Those are minor details, easily accommodated.
And native functions -- yes -- they are there, but that does not prevent
many authors from discouraging their use, in favor of  the corresponding
functionality to be had from the newer .NET objects, if only for the sake of
greater portability later and better familiarity with the .NET Framework
now.

And need I list some of the real differences, so easily glossed over,
between VB6 and VB.NET?  Do you really think a point-by-point comparison
would support your view?  (Actually, I think you're just trying to stir up
trouble! ;-)

It seems you have simultaneously missed my point while supporting it, for if
Visual Basic 1.0 qualified as a first version, by virtue of its radical
departure from previous versions of Basic, then certainly the same can be
said for VB.NET.  Thus, it might rightly be regarded as Visual Basic.NET
Version 1.0 -- if only as a more productive, pedagodic (not pedantic) point
of departure.

Regards,

Randall Hale

P.S.  Help, Cecil!  Help!

Wow!  I didn't mean to start a war!  :>)
Thanks again to all of the participants in this string of messages.  I'm truly grateful to all that took the time to reply to my naive question.
To sum up, I guess we can all agree on one thing...  Visual Basic 7.0 and Visual Basic.NET are one and the same.
--
Paul Hendrickson

  We are talking at cross purposes here, Calvin, for I agree with you.  I just think Microsoft could have made it a little easier for some  by avoiding the association.  VB6 and VB.NET are two different animals, plain and simple.   The problem is that this fact is not all that plain to everyone, even now, partly thanks to Microsoft and their peculiar notion of versioning (at least in this circumstance).  

  I can only speak from the 'harsh realities' of teaching; and it is has made my task that much more difficult.

  Other than that, I have no hard feelings (as others often have when it comes to this topic).  I love the .NET Framework and VB.NET in particular!  I just wish I could assume that everyone was in-the-know and feel more comfortable referring to Visual Basic as such, without having to be 'specific' in virtually every circumstance.  Microsoft may be able to get away with it, but I've found it to be practically impossible or, at best, misleading.

  Regards,

  Randall Hale

  P.S.  Do you really thing Dan Appleman is that critical?  I don't.  After all, where would Dan be without MS?  Like Socrates refusing to flee Athens, to which he owed everything -- even at the prospect of his own death -- I believe Dan secretly  loves and is utterly loyal to Redmond.  Problem is, again, like Socrates, Dan is something of a Torpedo Fish.  ;)

    Randal,

    I feel Dan Appleman's a little critical of Microsoft. Moving serveral developers from asp and vb 6 to "vb7" was fairly straight forward. Granted as Visual basic 6.0 programmers you're sheltered from the harsh realities of programming. I've done things in dotnet in 20 mins that tooke days to do in vb. We felt the the IL produced byt the compiler indeed was pretty much the same in VB as C#. Plus the synctax is more forgivening in VB with the real time compiler checking the coe  

    -Calvin Luttrell
    Senior Programmer
    1-800-Dentist

    > The earlier postings from MS reps evidently arrived before I had a chance to
    > see them.  True to form, they illustrate the tendency (at Microsoft) to
    > deflect attention from the fact that the baby was thrown out with the
    > bathwater.  And one could generate one helluva thread, if one cared to
    > dispute this simple fact (as if such threads weren't already passe).
    >
    > Fine, many of us saw this coming a long time ago and were prepared;
    > moreover, most are probably happy with the outcome, for Microsoft had good
    > reasons.  I am anyway.  (COM is dead.  Long live COM!)
    >
    > And for others like me, who watched closely as .NET loomed on the horizon,
    > or are otherwise in-the-know, nomenclature is less of an issue.
    >
    > HOWEVER, it becomes an issue -- and a very confusing one -- for those
    > approaching Visual Basic for the first time, or who are just beginning to
    > learn VB.NET with some slight previous exposure to VB6.  The newsgroups are
    > full of examples of this.  The confusion is obvious and agonizing -- and
    > it's all attributable to the ambiquity which obtains with the term 'Visual
    > Basic'.
    >
    > Many recommend that  the best tactic is to start with a blank slate, pretend
    > you're learning a brand new, hitherto unknown language, and proceed from
    > there.  It worked for me and it's what I've told students.  At least it
    > seems to be the least painful way, certainly no more painful than bailing on
    > VB altogether, as many have done, and moving to C# instead.
    >
    > So, come on, Microsoft, take ownership -- after all, you've achieved
    > something wonderful -- and contribute to clarity, if only for the sake of
    > all the little, lost lambs!  Don't just leave it up to private authors like
    > Dan Appleman, Francesco Balena, et al.

Let's not ignore the facts either, Paul, for it would be silly to suppose
that my view is at all original, unorthodox, or uncommon.  Nor is this about
syntax or reserved words.  Those are minor details, easily accommodated.
And native functions -- yes -- they are there, but that does not prevent
many authors from discouraging their use, in favor of  the corresponding
functionality to be had from the newer .NET objects, if only for the sake of
greater portability later and better familiarity with the .NET Framework
now.

And need I list some of the real differences, so easily glossed over,
between VB6 and VB.NET?  Do you really think a point-by-point comparison
would support your view?  (Actually, I think you're just trying to stir up
trouble! ;-)

It seems you have simultaneously missed my point while supporting it, for if
Visual Basic 1.0 qualified as a first version, by virtue of its radical
departure from previous versions of Basic, then certainly the same can be
said for VB.NET.  Thus, it might rightly be regarded as Visual Basic.NET
Version 1.0 -- if only as a more productive, pedagodic (not pedantic) point
of departure.

Unfortunately your statement was exagerrated to serve your point. It was all I was addressing.
Whether your viewpoint is shared by others is immaterial. I'm sure you can pick out the language
differences from the link http://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/vfred.htm. Not highly representative when you
consider the language overall.

We could go on an on citing the differences between the development environments, which I would
grant in a heartbeat. There is certainly a learning curve and adapting existing VB code can require
significant modifications, but the bottom line is that VB.NET is just another generation of BASIC as
"Classic" Visual Basic was.

Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)