| Author | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| Grok | Three-hour Terminal Services session to try VS.NET 2003 Enterprise. http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/tryit/ | March 3, 2004, 2:20 PM |
| Myndfyr | I wish it were for Whidbey. Via MSDN I already have VS .NET 2k3 Enterprise Architect. :-\ | March 3, 2004, 2:48 PM |
| GoSuGaMING | what are you doing to do in 3 hours? | March 23, 2004, 12:23 PM |
| Myndfyr | [quote author=GoSuGaMING link=board=37;threadid=5559;start=0#msg51115 date=1080044638] what are you doing to do in 3 hours? [/quote] The nicest thing about VS .NET 2003 that you can see over Terminal Server will be C#'s new auto-complete feature. Along with a feature that automatically adds the necessary overrides to a class that implements an interface, the auto-complete has been upgraded well. I don't believe it's meant for you to make a program. I presume it's meant to be a selling point. | March 23, 2004, 1:39 PM |
| peofeoknight | I prefer dreamweaver to vs.net myself for day to day use... though it is kind of a bane not being able to compile my code into a dll with dreamweaver. | March 23, 2004, 11:52 PM |
| GoSuGaMING | [quote author=peofeoknight link=board=37;threadid=5559;start=0#msg51244 date=1080085969] I prefer dreamweaver to vs.net myself for day to day use... though it is kind of a bane not being able to compile my code into a dll with dreamweaver. [/quote] VS.Net seems like it just does alot of the work for you... uh... dreamweaver is for websites.... | March 24, 2004, 12:22 PM |
| Myndfyr | [quote author=GoSuGaMING link=board=37;threadid=5559;start=0#msg51364 date=1080130942] [quote author=peofeoknight link=board=37;threadid=5559;start=0#msg51244 date=1080085969] I prefer dreamweaver to vs.net myself for day to day use... though it is kind of a bane not being able to compile my code into a dll with dreamweaver. [/quote] VS.Net seems like it just does alot of the work for you... uh... dreamweaver is for websites.... [/quote] Uh, dreamweaver MX and MX 2004 both allow you to utilize the .NET platform for ASP.NET-driven websites. What peofeoknight is trying to say is that while Visual Studio .NET allows you to compile all of your server-side code into .NET assemblies before deploying them to the server, Dreamweaver requires you to compile the code the first time the page is hit from a client. | March 24, 2004, 9:06 PM |
| peofeoknight | dreamweaver seems to be friendlier on the design end but is no slouch when you start the scripting, though vs.net seems to be way more geared to the scripting. | March 26, 2004, 4:17 AM |