When I went to install Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1 on Windows Server 2003 I had a lot of unexpected trouble.

Windows Update gave me this obscure error code:

Error Code: 0x64C

So, I did some googling and landed on this very helpful web page:

Installing Visual Studio 2005 SP1

The main key was to look into the Event Log (how often I forget) and see this error:

---
Product: Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Premier Partner Edition - ENU -- Error 1718.File C:\WINDOWS\Installer\66b5f.msp did not pass the digital signature check. For more information about a possible resolution for this problem, see http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=73863.
---

I'm not even sure what "Premier Partner Edition" is.  It seems like I have that edition, plus the normal professional edition of VS 2005 installed.  Anyway, that helpful URL points to KB925336.  That knowledge base article points to a hotfix for Windows Server 2003, which is apparently required before installing large updates (and VS2K5 SP1 indeed appears to be large).

I did dig up my original installation media and did have that in my CD drive when I eventually successfully got the service pack to install, but I'm pretty confident it was the hotfix that got everything to work and I probably didn't need the CD.

It did take at least 20 minutes for the update to install (not including download time), so be patient.

ASP.NET Simplicity -- When Is Too Much Simplicity a Bad Thing

This is a good post to read, plus all the comments.  Many developers have real concerns about ASP.NET 2.0 and the direction it's taken.  ASP.NET 1.X is a very good product.  I'm really not so sure about ASP.NET 2.0.

I'd like to see Microsoft step up to the plate here and instead of saying it's "working as designed" say "we are listening to your feedback and we are going to slip the release date so we can do it right".

I've thought about trying to stick with ASP.NET 1.X, but there are just so many (too many?) obstacles.  I can't throw out all of Visual Studio 2005 just because I'm not happy with the breaking changes to ASP.NET 2.0.  I really like most of the VS 2005 non-ASP.NET 2.0 related changes.  I even like some of the ASP.NET 2.0 non-breaking changes.

I'm sure there are a lot of people watching to see what Microsoft does with this one.  Backward compatibility matters.

Migrating from ASP.NET 1.1 to 2.0 can be quite a disturbing experience, at least it has been for me.  You must go through a major (mostly automated) conversion process to recompile your application for 2.0.  Most every one of your source files will be modified during conversion, so there isn't really an option of "going back" or developing a code base against both 1.1 and 2.0 in parallel (although I still hope to attempt this parallel track, it will require tremendous attention to detail and custom automation).

I wish I had read this document from Microsoft before I did the migration for the first time so I wouldn't have been so shocked and horrified at what the conversion wizard did to my code:

Common ASP.NET 2.0 Conversion Issues and Solutions

I highly recommend you at least skim it before attempting the conversion to get a vague idea of what you are in for.  Running the conversion wizard the first time for me caused major problems because of my unrealistic expectations about what I was in for.  My first 3 options for restoring a backup copy of my 1.1 project and source failed for unfortunate reasons, but luckily I had a 4th backup option that I could restore from.  Lesson learned: You can't have enough backups before running the conversion wizard (it's hard to fault Microsoft too much for my near miss, but there are a couple of things they could have done differently that would have saved me quite a bit of grief).

Microsoft has more on migrating from ASP.NET 1.1 to 2.0 here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/migration/upgrade/default.aspx

[via The Daily Grind]