Re: Best OS for .NET developement
From: RichG (RichG_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 09/28/04
- Next message: SS: "Re: cabinet file corrupt"
- Previous message: Suresh Gladstone: ".NET dll config file"
- In reply to: Nick Malik: "Re: Best OS for .NET developement"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:29:03 -0700
Thanks Nick
Sounds like we'll be getting another box for Win2003. We have an immediate
need to do an in house database app for a client that will run on their
network and not access the web at all. They are running XP Home on all
systems except the server which is 2003. We chose XP Home because of it's
simplicity. So I'll do this with VB.NET on an XP Pro system.
Rich
"Nick Malik" wrote:
> Yes, I mean XP Pro. You don't get the web server with XP Home, and you
> can't develop web services or ASP.NET apps very well on a machine with no
> web server.
>
> You say you own every OS... they you probably have MSDN Universal. Good
> choice.
>
> 2003 is better because:
> a) you get IIS 6, which gives you application pooling, which is easier to
> secure and allows more isolation between apps. That way, one apps bugs are
> less likely to affect another app... you could, technically, use the same
> web server to test three or four apps at the same time.
>
> b) you get Sharepoint for free (Windows Sharepoint Services is a free
> download for Windows Server 2003. This is the foundational technology for
> Sharepoint Portal Server, which builds on WSS, but you don't need SPS to get
> many of the best features, especially if you want to develop a new ASP.NET
> app, and don't want to write as much code).
>
> c) you get better support for multiprocessing servers
>
> d) you get better support for Virtual Server (which I heartily recommend, by
> the way, as a way of creating multiple test environments without needing to
> create a half-dozen computers with different versions of an OS and/or
> browser).
>
> I'm sure there are white papers that do a better job... but that's my two
> bits.
> --- Nick
>
> "RichG" <RichG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:175CFB1D-A7BF-4A13-8B56-613F30739EDB@microsoft.com...
> > Nick
> > I am assuming when you say XP thet you mean XP Pro and not the home
> edition.
> > If this is true, what is the advantage of developing on Pro rather than
> the
> > home edition.
> > Also why would 2003 be better than XP for developing web apps.
> > We own every operating system Micorsoft has, so i can install any of them,
> > but Id rather not dual boot. Id rather buy another system for another OS.
> > Thanks
> >
> > "Nick Malik" wrote:
> >
> > > My personal opinion: XP SP2 if you are developing a windows client
> > > (because it is the most current, secure, and useful windows client) and
> > > Windows Server 2003 if you are developing a web app.
> > >
> > > Also, at this point, if I were developing more than a few pages for an
> > > ASP.NET application,
> > > I would also be investigating whether I could use Sharepoint and simply
> add
> > > my functionality as web-parts.
> > >
> > > Anyway, good luck,
> > > --- Nick
> > >
> > > "RichG" <RichG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:626D1398-924A-4472-8B2B-C2671BC225E0@microsoft.com...
> > > > We are building a new developement system specifically for .NET
> > > developement.
> > > > We will bw using VB. and C#.
> > > > What will be the best OS to install on the new system.
> > > > What will be the best concidering the developed apps will be ran on
> > > > everything from Win98 to XP Pro.
> > > > What will be the best considering building interactive web apps using
> > > ASP.NET
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
- Next message: SS: "Re: cabinet file corrupt"
- Previous message: Suresh Gladstone: ".NET dll config file"
- In reply to: Nick Malik: "Re: Best OS for .NET developement"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
