| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
 Posted - 12/28/2008 : 18:09:10
|
benj, I am very reluctant to switch from Classic ASP to NET. If I had to spend time and effort learning a new language and converting my sites to it, I would choose PHP.
Do you think Windows Servers will continue to be able to support Classic ASP?
I understand the need for fulltime professional web developers to know NET. But for small freelancers like myself, ASP is so light, easy, and portable!
It seems to me that NET's true value lies in that it can be used to produce desktop apps as well as web apps.
My daughter is a fulltime professional website administrator for a large organization, and she codes in NET. She likes it a lot and says I would find it easy to learn.
I am just a part time freelancer, however, and my clients are usually horse farms. I do websites only to help support my own farm.
I wish that MS would make Classic ASP open source. That would virtually assure its survival.
I've been lately learning how to use AJAX. I don't yet understand it very well, but I am excited about the possibilities. |
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 12/28/2008 : 20:53:33
|
| I have been having the same thoughts about PSP Wii DS. |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/29/2008 : 03:05:42
|
WTF? GTG, BRB.
 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/29/2008 : 23:36:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
Do you think Windows Servers will continue to be able to support Classic ASP?
Definitely- there's far too many websites still running on classic ASP for MS to be able to discontinue support for it just yet. Even if they did, the web server plug-in that runs classic ASP is just that: a plug-in, so should MS for some odd reason not include it in a future version of Windows, chances are it'll be possible to add the plug-in and run it in some capacity. Anyway, all this is irrelevant right now as even in the very latest 64-bit incarnation of Windows running on web servers classic ASP is still very much supported.
quote:
I understand the need for fulltime professional web developers to know NET. But for small freelancers like myself, ASP is so light, easy, and portable!
Well, I wouldn't say portable since it won't run well or, in some cases, at all on non-Windows OSes but it is definitely easy.
quote:
It seems to me that NET's true value lies in that it can be used to produce desktop apps as well as web apps.
My daughter is a fulltime professional website administrator for a large organization, and she codes in NET. She likes it a lot and says I would find it easy to learn.
It's powerful, fast and fun (albeit not so much whilst you're trying to learn the darned thing and repeatedly hitting a wall, shouting "I could have written this in 5 minutes in classic ASP") but it IS more of a serious programming language, featuring a lot of concepts that classic ASP nicely skipped troubling developers with. It doesn't strike me as anything near as simple to muck around with and get into as classic ASP.
quote:
I am just a part time freelancer, however, and my clients are usually horse farms. I do websites only to help support my own farm.
I wish that MS would make Classic ASP open source. That would virtually assure its survival.
Sadly, it's never going to happen- some of us are still waiting for MS to make VB6 open source (one of MS's most beloved programming languages and essentially what classic ASP is based on). That's maybe 5 years now since they officially stopped supporting it and still no sign of the source code 
quote:
I've been lately learning how to use AJAX. I don't yet understand it very well, but I am excited about the possibilities.
The beauty of AJAX is that you may have already been using it via IFRAMES, you just didn't know that was what it was called. If you're serious about it, you might want to check out how simple it is to do using scripting libraries such as JQuery. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/29/2008 : 23:46:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
I have been having the same thoughts about PSP Wii DS.
Simple...
PSP if you want serious, decent-looking graphical gamer games on the go.
DS if you want brain enhancing, puppy-stroking games that look a bit sucky.
Wii if you've never played on a console before in your life (i.e. if you're geriatric, female or a child) and don't realise that the world has advanced to such a technological level that consoles should respond to a game controller's movement immediately, not 1 or 2 seconds later. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 08:52:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
I have been having the same thoughts about PSP Wii DS.
Simple...
PSP if you want serious, decent-looking graphical gamer games on the go.
DS if you want brain enhancing, puppy-stroking games that look a bit sucky.
Wii if you've never played on a console before in your life (i.e. if you're geriatric, female or a child) and don't realise that the world has advanced to such a technological level that consoles should respond to a game controller's movement immediately, not 1 or 2 seconds later.
Excellent, thanks.  |
|
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 10:22:23
|
PSP vs DS vs Wii doesnt makes much sense foxy; PSP vs DS for portable and Wii vs xbox vs PS3 for console
I don't disagree with too much of benj's summary, but i would say that I don't find the Wii at all unresponsive, if you'll forgive the double negative. The problem isn't its controls or its response, it is the lack of depth and serious gameplay to any game i've played on it. It's great for mucking around on with my 8 year old, but for a serious 'man's game', the 360 comes out.
Although given the xbox's region-coding, I'm beginning to wish I'd gone for the PS3 instead, it would make moving around the world much easier! |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 11:53:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
PSP vs DS vs Wii doesnt makes much sense foxy; PSP vs DS for portable and Wii vs xbox vs PS3 for console
Yeah I know.
I have a PS2, N64, Wii, GBA, DS lite and some very old Game and Watch.
The first 2 were prizes won in competitons, thefoxgirl got the Wii and the GBA & DS were xmas pressies. |
Edited by - thefoxboy on 12/30/2008 11:54:18 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 13:10:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
PSP vs DS vs Wii doesnt makes much sense foxy; PSP vs DS for portable and Wii vs xbox vs PS3 for console
I don't disagree with too much of benj's summary, but i would say that I don't find the Wii at all unresponsive, if you'll forgive the double negative.
Really? I'm surprised- maybe all the Wiis I've played on have just been a bit buggered  Seriously, as an example, in the golf game, you can swing the 'club' and it'll be up by my ear (i.e at the tail end of the swing) before I hear the 'Thwack' and the Wii actually responds. Also, it's notable that nobody can beat a 3 year old at Wii boxing- not because they have some innate skill at gaming, but just because they can randomly whirl their arms for longer without getting knackered. There's no strategy or skill (except stamina) involved because swinging a punch takes at least a second to respond (in my experience). The best evidence that the controller ain't all that though, is that within a year of the Wii's release, Nintendo have already brought out a 'more accurate' controller- for an additional cost, natch.
The way I see it, Nintendo are very smart- they've spotted a market potentially bigger than the hard-core gamers market that isn't fussed about fancy graphics and are less aware of the standard of responsiveness hard-core gamers depend on for the competitive edge. I highly doubt we'll ever see anything the likes of Halo or Gears of War on a Wii simply because it'd be very quickly frustrating. Nintendo have cleverly kept well away from making any games that would require high accuracy or a mistimed movement would seriously jeapardize further progress in the game by sticking to what they do best- making simple, fun games. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 14:46:46
|
Just a passing observation ... only slightly off-topic
I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether anyone born during/after WWII is ever going to grow up. I do, of course, include myself here, considering my own leisure addictions.
Aha - maybe this is how we finally get rid of systems/bureaucracies. It's Planet PeterPan!
Sec'y to POTUS: Joe - hurry up, the meeting's started.
POTUS: Yeah, justa sec, I'm 2 thwarx away from Level 8.
Hubby - Aw, babe, you promised ...
Babe - Say what? I'll do it tomorrow. Promise.
Bank man - Loan? Ah the hell with it - take the bread and be happy, man. Just don't bogart the joint.
Driver - what do you mean - license?
etc 
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 22:39:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether anyone born during/after WWII is ever going to grow up.
I don't intend to ever grow up. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 23:15:53
|
Boy, has this wandered off-topic...
Well, firstly, I don't see it as a problem in not growing up, certainly in your personal life anyway. Secondly, it's a major misconception that computer games are for kids. The majority of the (non-Wii) target audience are people aged something like 20-35 last I heard (and the upper limit of that has been increasing year on year), as evidenced by the number of 15 or 18 rated games on the shelves these days. Most kids or parents don't have the income to go out and spend �40+ on entertainment without much consideration but there's a wealth of pre-1985 born folks who do and grew up when computer games were purely for kids. We haven't grown down, computer games have grown up. |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 12/31/2008 : 01:52:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Well, firstly, I don't see it as a problem in not growing up, certainly in your personal life anyway.
:::::whining:::::: but I dont WANNA grow up! |
|
|
|
Chris C 
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 12/31/2008 : 10:05:14
|
We have a Wii (shared), a PS2 (mine) and a pair of DS lites (wife and daughters) in the house.
Mrs C and BabyBear like their DSlites - small, portable, nice "happy" games, reasonably interactive. BabayBear can also take hers out and about in the car, to rehearsals for during the quiet bits etc.
I like the PS2 for the simple reason that there are a lot of half decent games out there that I like, cheap enough if you look on ebay, and I can quite happily sit and kill monsters/aliens/enemies of the free world for hours. There are a couple of games that we can play together, but it's not half as interactive as the Wii.
For family (dis)harmony there is absolutely NOTHING like MarioKart on the Wii. We have spent many happy hours driving little cars round a small track knocking the virtual crap out of each other and having a load of fun. Wiisports is OK, but I loathe the boxing (Mrs C calls it Virtual Domestic Violence). The WiiFit is also a fine opportunity for taking the mickey out of your better half. I agree that the graphics are not as good as the PS2, PS3 or XBox, and that the range of games is restrictive, but it's the one to choose for a bit of family fun.
As to your original question, Duh, I can't help you. Sorry. 
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Question for benj about ASP vs NET vs PHP
