What are the basic system requirement for installing asp.net mvc 2 application.
Edited:-
If I want to host the asp.net mvc 2 application on the windows XP then is there any special requirement like IIS version, Framework, service packs or else ?
AS per the MVC download page, any of the following operating systems:
Windows Server 2003,
Windows Server 2008,
Windows Vista,
Windows XP
Required framework:
.NET 3.5 SP1 Framework
As per the framework download page, it has the requirements:
Processor:
400 MHz Pentium processor or equivalent (Minimum)
1GHz Pentium processor or equivalent (Recommended)
RAM:96 MB (Minimum); 256 MB (Recommended)
Hard Disk: Up to 500 MB of available space may be required
Related
How much volume can the EVO HTML to PDF Converter for .net handle?
What specs do you recommend for the server?
I am unable to find information regarding this matter on evopdf.com.
The answer lies in chapter 3 of the the EVO HTML to PDF user guide, see the excerpt below.
3. Requirements and Recommendations
The recommended hardware and software resources for successfully running the EVO HTML to PDF converter for .NET are listed below. Basically this is the environment we used for testing the product.
Operating System: Windows XP, Windows 2003 Server, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows 8, Windows Server 2012
Hardware Architecture: 32-bit, 64-bit (recommended to run the converter in a 64-bit process)
Free RAM: 2GB
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 or 4.0
Full trust level when used in ASP.NET applications
I have handful of applications that use .net 1.1 framework. We are upgrading our server's to 2008r2 64 bit or maybe even 2012 64 bit. Our client side apps will run on citrix that will also be on a 2008r2 64 bit or 2012 64bit box.
Now, I'm I correct in thinking that if.net 1.1 isn't installed then applications will automatically use a higher version of the framework? So what problems are there with this strategy:- Try the 1.1 apps on the new servers. If there work then I can delay upgrading them.
No they won't run unless .NET 1.1 is installed. Applications can only use the framework they are compiled for. (They maybe able to be upgraded if source code is available)
.NET 1.1 is available for 2008 server not R2 or 2012 server so you will have to upgrade them.
See here though http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2489698 (indicates it may be possible)
See this for Server 2012 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh925570%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
I've installed Google Web Designer on Windows XP, and saw this error:
The procedure entry point GetSystemDefaultLocaleName could not be located in the dynamic library KERNEL32.dll
What can I do?
I think that it won't support XP.
Here are the minimum system requirements, according to their documentation:
Operating system
Windows requirements
Windows 7
Windows 8
I think it does not support Windows XP. I installed in Windows 7. No issues. The error you have got is mainly caused by misinterpreted operating system -- that's described as a possible cause in Microsoft's support knowledge base:
The application is misinterpreting the operating system version and is trying to call a procedure in the Windows 95 or Windows 98 version of the Dynamic Link Library (DLL) that is unavailable in Windows NT version 4.0 or Windows 2000.
Windows XP is not supported. See the system requirements.
We are uprading our servers and we're going to have 3 servers - 1 db server and 2 frontend web servers.
For the web servers we'll use 2008 Web edition but we can't decide which edition to use for the db.
At first we were thinking of using Standard edition but with our host it works out 10 times more expensive per month than the Web edition.
Our third option is to use Data center edition which is only cost 5 times more than the Web edition.
Can we and should we run a SQL 2008 on Windows Server Web edition? If not which edition should we choose?
Thanks.
Minimum requirements for all versions of SQL 2008 are here.
Server 2008 Web is listed as a supported OS, so you should be fine.
EDIT: I should clarify that it's possible to run SQL 2008 on Web Edition of windows server, but I'm not sure of what the limitations of doing so are. Server Web has more limitations than Server Standard, but I'm not sure what they are - be it hardware related or whatnot.
I have basically succumbed to the fact that if you are a hardcore computer user, you will have to reimage your computer every few months because something bad happened. Because of this, I bought imaging software and then really got into imaging. I am now ready to move my development environment completely into a virtual machine so that I can test sites on IIS as though I am on a dev network (and backup these images easily).
The question is, what is the best virtual development platform for a 4 gb laptop? A virtual Vista Business with 3 gb of ram, windows XP sp3 with 3 gb of ram, or Windows Server 2003 with 3 gb of usable ram.
Tools I will need to install:
*sql server 2005 dev edition
*vs 2008 sp1
*tools for silverlight
*and multiple other smaller testing tools
I have tried the following combinations:
Windows XP SP3 on Virtual Server
2005 R2
Windows Vista Business
x64 on Virtual Server 2005 R2
Windows XP on Virtual PC 2007
Windows 2003 on Virtual Server 2005
R2
Windows XP on VMWare Fusion
and the Virtual Server installations where either local or hosted on a server and they all ran fine and about the same speed.
The VMWare Fusion Virtual Machine running under OS X is (seat of the pants) significantly faster than the others. I haven't tested VMWare on Windows to see if it is VMWare or the Hardware making the difference, but it's something worth looking into.
Server 2008, converted to a workstation.
Nothing compares IMO, I've loaded 3 Different OS's in the last 3 months, and I'm set on Server 2008.
I think the biggest question (from my standpoint) is whether or not you'll be doing development (like SharePoint) that requires a server platform. If you anticipate a lot of SharePoint development (or perhaps Exchange, or BizTalk, or another product that requires development be done on a server platform), then go with Windows Server 2003. If not, then I'd probably choose XP, though Vista isn't a bad development platform.
I personally prefer developing on a server platform - however, that opinion might shift if I was developing any sort of WinForms applications, since it would more correctly represent the OS family for the target audience.
I did notice a slight performance decrease going from Server 2003 to Server 2008 that I was not expecting, but that might be more from doing an in-place upgrade instead of starting clean.
From the options you gave, I would personally go with W2k3. You can really trim a server OS down to run lightning-fast, especially when you don't have or get rid of the MS "eye candy".