• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Visualstudio .NET install questions

SocrPlyr

Golden Member
for my programming class we were all given a copy of Visualstudio .NET so i pop in CD1 of 5 and the install screen comes up and it will only let me start out by installing IIS on my computer... I am going to be using this program for C++, so why in the heck can't i install it w/o/ IIS being installed... I can't figure out a way to get past this part... a link to all the crap i am supposed to do before install is right here... (straight from the CD):
http://gabmasterjcc.student.cwru.edu/Setup/webserver.htm
any ideas guys?
thanks,
Josh
 
Considering that a big part of the .NET initiative involves web services, I'm not surprised it requires IIS to be installed.

When you say "Visualbasic.NET" you really mean "Visual Studio.NET", right?
 
That's strange. I've actually installed VS.NET w/o having IIS installed. It just says that some stuff might not work w/o IIS. Perhaps you chose some components that require IIS?
 
i'm not even getting to the point where i get to pick components i open up the install and that is the first thing it says...
Josh
 
I just did this over the weekend, and now I can't recall the steps exactly, but.....

I put in CD 1 of 4 (VS.NET Academic), it told me I didn't have the right components installed to continue, so I put in the components CD (not one of the 4 CDs for the installation). It asked if I would be using this computer as a web server for my development, I said no. This means IIS isn't installed, and only the .NET framekwork, and a couple other things were upgraded. I then went back to the first CD, and the installation went fine after that.

You don't need to install IIS for it to work, it should ask you. If you said YES to wanting the web stuff, then you will need IIS and the frontpage extensions.
 
Gaunt is correct. What you need to do is MANUALLY run the setup on the components CD. It will give warning messages and stuff but it will let you continue. Once that finishes insert the first cd and install.

Unless you are super concerned about security you might as well install IIS because ASP.NET is fun to play with.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
The best part of the install is where you realize it takes >1G just for the documentation...

Hey, there's where MS beats a lot of vendors 🙂
 
The best part of the install is where you realize it takes >1G just for the documentation...

I consider that a good thing. Do you prefer terse man pages to the loquacious documentation provided for .NET? I'd rather have *too* much information than not enough.

You also have to consider all the things that are included in the documentation: sample programs, tutorials, full references, remark sections, documentation for everything from VBScript to DirectPlay, specifications for the CLI/CLS/CTS/CIL/C# ad nauseum, ad infinitum. One could learn everything they needed to know about .NET from the documentation alone.

As a Windows developer, I'm rarely using one language and one technology, so I *need* the documentation for everything.

My $.02.
 
I consider that a good thing. Do you prefer terse man pages to the loquacious documentation provided for .NET?

I do find man pages and the docs in /usr/share/doc usually answer my questions. I have had to hunt for answers that I felt could have been better documented, but usually I just want to know what parameter types a function takes or returns or something else simple like that.

You don't think, even for a second, that 1G of text/html might be too much? Somtimes it seemed like nearly all of the MSKB was included too, I would stumble upon docs totally unrelated to what I was looking for and sometimes onto docs that didn't even seem related to development at all. And I found their help search to be less than good at it's job, but that's another topic.

Providing explanations of the functions and all the data types that go in and out of them is good.
Providing examples to better show what the function can and and can't do is good.
Providing explanations of caveats and the 'correct' way to do things is good.
Providing docs on things unrelated, like Exchange migration, seems pointless. It's been a while but I swear I ran into this paper on the .Net docs quite often and it was never even related to what I wanted.

I won't arge that more is worse than less in the doc dept, and I'm not a paid win32 programmer, but I think the .Net docs could have been smaller.
 
They definately include an awful pile of information in there.

What they really need to do is fix up their search tool a little. I haven't tried the .NET version, but the previous MSDN versions weren't terribly useful. As Nothinman mentioned, searching for something usually got you results on things you hadn't even heard of, let alone things you were actually searching for. I'm fairly sure there is a way to limit what documentation you search, or there used to be, but it wasn't detailed enough to let you ignore the things you really didn't need.

I deal with Visual C++ and Platform SDK daily. These are the only things I'd like searched when I actually use search. Unfortunately, I get everything imaginable instead. Usually what I try to do is just guess at things in the index that would be helpful, since 90% of the time, the stuff I find in the index is what I need.
 
Back
Top