locked
XP SP2 - Is it REALLY necessary RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi Guys,

    Honestly, is XP SP2 really necessary for WPF development. I'm having enough trouble getting my clients to install the .NET framework (which now requires MSI 3.0 to install) on their machines (due to setups gone wrong).
    We have a couple of machines were we lost IrDA capabilities after installing XP SP2.

    Microsoft have had a wonderful long tradition of backwards compatability. Lots and losts of cool stuff has always managed to run on previous platforms. I can understand dropping support for Win9x, but Win2k SP4, WinXP, WinXP SP1, that's a bit much isn't it.

    Also another question. I'm confused from the docs whether .NET 2.0 is actually required to develop WPF apps. Can apps actually be developed with .NET 1.1 aleviating some setup issues we've been having.

    This is great technology you guys, why all of sudden you've become so non-backwards compatible?
    Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:36 AM

Answers

  • Honestly, is XP SP2 really necessary for WPF development.

    Yes, because .NET 2.0 requires it.  Probably does not need it, but it forces people to install what is a major security update ( given that the biggest security problem is unpatched machines )

    Win2k SP4, WinXP, WinXP SP1, that's a bit much isn't it.

    SP2 for the reason I suggested (IMO) and Win2K support is ended.

    I'm confused from the docs whether .NET 2.0 is actually required to develop WPF apps.

    As far as I am aware, the answer is yes.

    I agree overall, I think the uptake on WinFX will be very slow because so many people are not using XP, let alone SP2 ( which is less of a big deal IMO ).  But, that's how it is.



    Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:00 AM