Re: Server 2003 with Visual Studio.NET
- From: bleschber <bleschber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:41:02 -0800
Thanks for commenting. I have a follow up question for you.
Would stand-alone Windows applications developed using a server OS (2003) as
the developer's OS be 100% fully compatible with a desktop/workstation OS
(XP)? My point is, will I need to now worry about developers having an
advantage in writing applications towards the server OS, but having a
disadvantage in writing applications towards the desktop/workstation OS?
XP & Server 2003 are simiar, but not the same, so I'm not sure if switching
this as part of the development environment will lead to any other problems.
"Leythos" wrote:
In article <4ABE8A29-0AF2-482A-8483-3984679E9D33@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,.
bleschber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
I have been requested to research and determine the situations (if there are
any), with details, in which a .NET developer (windows and web applications)
would be required to install Visual Studio .NET on a Server 2003 environment.
The key to this is the word "requirement", given that a small percentage of
developers throughout the years have argued that it is more "convienient" to
develop directly on the "Server 2003" platform for targeted server
applications, thus shortening the development/test process slightly.
As a secondary research request, I have tasked to determine the situations
(again, if there are any) in which a .NET developer would "benefit" from
installing Visual Studio .NET on a Server 2003 environment.
All of the above research was prompted by newly hired .NET developer
recommending that our company provide Server 2003 as the workstation OS for
our developers instead of Windows XP Pro. The basic advantage that was given
was the developers would be better prepared to develop towards server based
applications.
As a whole, our company is reluctant to belive this would create a resonable
advantage for our .NET developers with VisualStudio, without creating other
problems.
All advice given is very much appreciated in advance, as I know that the
MSDN network of individuals is not only large, but knowledgable.
They can develop and test, as long as the testing is not limited to
their own workstation. A QA test must be an install on a virgin Win
Server that has NEVER had the application installed on it before.
Many times developers will develop and test on their local systems,
having the latest controls/applets and not properly create a full
install package. If they don't test in a virgin Win Server installation
they will often push out bad applications - seen this thousands of times
over the years.
So, let them develop on their own system/computer with any OS installed
that they want, but they must install on a Virgin OS for the first layer
of testing, and they can't install VS on that server, they have to
properly create an install package, and they are not permitted to touch
the test server, have another person do the install and test.
--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx (remove 999 for proper email address)
- References:
- Server 2003 with Visual Studio.NET
- From: bleschber
- Re: Server 2003 with Visual Studio.NET
- From: Leythos
- Server 2003 with Visual Studio.NET
- Prev by Date: Re: Problems with GPO
- Next by Date: Re: Isolate home directory shares
- Previous by thread: Re: Server 2003 with Visual Studio.NET
- Next by thread: Recovery Console
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
