Date parsed: 29/03/2008 12:19:58
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:19:58 -0400

Well, this is the nature of the beast: it's a public newsgroup(s), open to
all and even if its primary goal is to talk about technical issues; don't
expect that by posting a technical question, you will only get pure 100%
technical answers.

Like for any other newsgroup - and any other way of human communication -
you must be prepared to take the heat if you want to post a question here -
whatever its topic might be - and no discussion or reply will ever change
that.

--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)


"Juan Dent" <juandent@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:553D13BC-7356-4B53-AFFC-28C4C9AB0545@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> Considering the many replies I have gotten from my "innocent" question,
> and
> the fact that some are almost contradictory to others, I am obliged to
> make a
> constructive criticism to the newsgroup, all who contribute to it and the
> Microsoft fellows who intervene to straighten up the bending branches.
>
> First, it is really too bad that legitimate questions be laid off as non
> sense. When one asks if VS2005 can coexist with VS2008 one is of course
> asking for a substantial answer. While well meaning "I've had no problems
> yet" answers are helpful, they are sure far from the question. Truly off
> and
> very "superior sounding" when someone "answers" by saying how dumb it is
> to
> ask the question, as in "Think about what you are asking for". Indeed, I
> have
> thought about it and I know there are no absolute guarantees in software -
> or
> life for that matter, that's what makes it a difficult question not an
> invalid one, especially when asked properly ("Is this the official
> position
> of Microsoft...?"). Certainly not very thankful for such a "profound"
> contribution, if contribution at all.
> Then comes the "belief in the propaganda" answer: should be easy to see
> how
> irrelevant my question was, of course the .NET framework is the solution
> to
> all problems and we should always take promises for facts.
> This contributor is also questioning my question, believing that if
> something is supposed to work one way, it surely will (wake up!).
>
> A breath of fresh air: Sylvain Lafontaine comes with the first
> approximation
> to a real answer - I guess the others just get paid by the number of
> replies
> or just like to be noticed.
> He (or she) points out things aren't as simple as the previous
> contributors
> and reveals the interactions between the installations, to the point that
> installing VS2008 implies placing the SP1 on .NET 2.0. Aha! This kind of
> subtle under the covers interactions are the ones that break the promises
> and
> bring the ugly surprises. It seems finally someone really knew what he/she
> was talking about and placed a valuable answer with some depth to it. the
> others were probably just bored.
>
> So? Is this behavior what we want in our newsgroups? Basically: post a
> question and get empty and sarcastic replies?
>
> My proposal: let he who really has something to offer make a reply, let
> the
> ones who think the question is absurd watch and learn: time will tell if
> it
> was indeed absurd.
>
> --
> Juan Dent, M.Sc.
>
>
> "Scott M." wrote:
>
>> I don't think you need 3.0 to get 3.5.
>>
>>
>> "schneider" <eschneider@ooooooooo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ePENpi7iIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >I have VS2005 Pro and VS2008 Pro on my Win XP64 machine.
>> >
>> > Over the history of the VS2003 and older I have had no problems.
>> > It's hard to migrate otherwise...
>> >
>> > Keep in mind that VS2008 can work on .NET 2.0 also.
>> >
>> > Schneider
>> >
>> >
>> > "Juan Dent" <juandent@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> > news:AB683681-C7C9-44AB-B71A-E733AE311094@microsoft.com...
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Can we be carefree in installing VS2008 in the same machine (with XP
>> >> SP2)
>> >> that has VS2005 SP1?
>> >> Will there be conflicts?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks in advance,
>> >>
>> >> Juan Dent, M.Sc.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>