.NET Framework SDK with Win XP SP 2?

[Dekaras]

.NET Framework SDK with Win XP SP 2?

Is it possible?
For the .NET Framework SDK to work you must have Internet explorer 5.5 or better and Microsoft Data Access Components 2.7 or higher installed.

What I don't have is the MDAC 2.7.
I found a MDAC 2.8 and MDAC 2.8 SP1 on microsofts website but i couldn't install either of them since i got SP 2.

Am I correct with all this information?
Is there a solution to fix this problem?

Like could I go back to Service pack 1 again somehow? Im not very experienced at this but I tried explaining the problem as clearly I could.

 

[Phantom]

The following text speaks for itself...

Microsoft Data Access Components 2.7 or higher


Why are you trying to install the SDK .NET Framework anyways, it has very little to offer in things that are actually useful for a RunUO user.

 

[Dekaras]

Phantom i really don't understand what you mean by that text explains for itself.

I am reading from a book how to programm with C# and to follow the tutorials I need to have the SDK Framework.

I've checked out a number of the C# tutorials out there but the one which I found the best needs the SDK Framework.

 

[Nochte]

I think what the wise Phantom means is the "or higher" part; 2.8 will work just fine.

 

[Dekaras]

Ahh i see, I might have written my first post a bit messy but, I have tried version 2.8 already and it didnt work for my OS (Win XP Pro SP2).

From what I have understood is that it won't work for Service pack 2.
To me it sounds strange since most people have it(SP 2 that is), that's why I made the post to see if the more experienced programmers would know for sure.

I appreaciate both of you for helping.

 

[Nochte]

I use the .net SDK perfectly fine, and I'm using SP2. Give it another shot, and reply back here with errors or problems so we can track down what's wrong.

 

[Phantom]

I am not sure what you mean, it won't work, the .NET Framework SDK isn't something that does or doesn't work.

Its a SDK, it contains helpful tools and documentation, the most important fact about it is the fact it does NOT CONTAIN any version of the .NET Framework

I will ask you again, what possible use is the SDK, I am a novice programmer and I find no use for it. If I had a choice I would not even installed, but if I am not mistaken, its required for some of the features within Visual Studio

 

[warlocke]

Useful feature of the SDK:
corebg.exe, for debugging when you somehow manage to crash the core

 

[Phantom]

Useful feature of the SDK:
corebg.exe, for debugging when you somehow manage to crash the core

But why even use that, if you have a tool thats 10x better called Visual Studio 2005 Express.

 

[CEO]

But why even use that, if you have a tool thats 10x better called Visual Studio 2005 Express.

Because it opens up a debugger in a console window and works well for a production shard. Not even going to consider running VSE on a "live" shard. The saves times were alittle longer, but overall very little impact. Running RunUO via the SDK debugger is great for tracking down a sporatic .exe crash that doesn't give a whole lotta info on the culprit responsible. We were able to track down an issue the 1st time we ran in debug mode like this.

 

[Phantom]

Because it opens up a debugger in a console window and works well for a production shard. Not even going to consider running VSE on a "live" shard. The saves times were alittle longer, but overall very little impact. Running RunUO via the SDK debugger is great for tracking down a sporatic .exe crash that doesn't give a whole lotta info on the culprit responsible. We were able to track down an issue the 1st time we ran in debug mode like this.

I wouldn't recreate the crash on a live shard, that bug would not exist, it would be fixed on a private build. I would then use every tool I had, to find the bug.

Anyways, you gave a reason to use the SDK, enough for me. I am still think he thought the SDK contains the .NET Framework

 

[warlocke]

Sometimes you don't really have any choice but to run it on a live shard, if you have no clues to go on re: how to reproduce the crash. Attaching a debugger to the live server is mostly transparent to the users, and returns valuable information in the event of a crash or even any caught exceptions.

 

[Phantom]

Sometimes you don't really have any choice but to run it on a live shard, if you have no clues to go on re: how to reproduce the crash. Attaching a debugger to the live server is mostly transparent to the users, and returns valuable information in the event of a crash or even any caught exceptions.

The simplest solution is to test scripts before you put them for a live shard. Its not hard to create a system that doesn't have bugs

Its a mute point, really...

 

[CEO]

Hey, my experience, you can test and test all you want. Profile the app, run it through beta testers, walk through it line-by-line, but the nature of a "bug" is such that it really is impossible to always catch everything, because it always ends up to be something you didn't think could or would happen.

*shrug* Beaten this one to death.

 

[Sep102]

Hey, I get to quote Dijkstra, neat:

Program testing can be a very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence.

I just felt the need to reiterate the point that CEO was making, knowing its importance and truth in programming, you can test all you want, all that you've shown is that for that given test case, either no bugs were present or no bugs were noticed to be present, nothing else.

If we could, we'd test our code infinitely or formally validate all of our code to ensure its correctness (so long as we do not make mistakes in doing so), so, eventually, there's really nothing more one can do than to toss it into production and hope it works the way it should and fix it when it doesn't (or label the bug as a new, unexpected feature).

 

[Ravatar]

I wouldn't recreate the crash on a live shard, that bug would not exist, it would be fixed on a private build. I would then use every tool I had, to find the bug.

Anyways, you gave a reason to use the SDK, enough for me. I am still think he thought the SDK contains the .NET Framework

I think he wants the "Using the .NET Framework" quickstarts, examples, and tutorials that come with the SDK.

 

[Ravatar]

Is it possible?
For the .NET Framework SDK to work you must have Internet explorer 5.5 or better and Microsoft Data Access Components 2.7 or higher installed.

What I don't have is the MDAC 2.7.
I found a MDAC 2.8 and MDAC 2.8 SP1 on microsofts website but i couldn't install either of them since i got SP 2.

Am I correct with all this information?
Is there a solution to fix this problem?

Like could I go back to Service pack 1 again somehow? Im not very experienced at this but I tried explaining the problem as clearly I could.

Please, please don't rollback your XP install. Itll open you up to a slew of critical security vulnerabilities. Did you make sure that you installed the .NET framework before you installed the .NET SDK?

 

[Phantom]

I think he wants the "Using the .NET Framework" quickstarts, examples, and tutorials that come with the SDK.

There are alot faster ways then having to download a 200MB download.

I still have not been given a good reason ( from him ) for him to even need to install the SDK. Like I said, I would not even have it installed, if not for Visual Studio and other programs that require the "tools" that come with it.

 

[Nochte]

I still have not been given a good reason ( from him ) for him to even need to install the SDK.

I wasn't aware that people needed to justify their reasons for things to you.

 

[Phantom]

I wasn't aware that people needed to justify their reasons for things to you.

They don't, I just want to know, doesn't matter to me what he does or does not do.