Even more on .NET Framework 3.0…


I wanted to respond to a few comments..


 


Keeron asked about what .NET Framework includes exactly.  JasonZ does a good job with this one..


The Linq support for C# (and VB for that mater) is scheduled for Orcas… We have not locked on a final version number, my hunch will be “.NET Framework 3.5”


We do actually have a merged Windows SDK that includes all of the content as of .NET Framework 3.0\Vista…


 


George asks about SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0… Again the details have not been 100% worked out, so don’t take this as an official statement, but I expect SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0 to be at the same time as Orcas .NET Framework ships. For servicing releases we generally do not change the assembly version number at all (this makes it an in place update) and only update the win32 version number by the number of builds it took us to get there.  So short answer is no, the core components will not have their version numbers reset.  


I certainly agree with you George on driving simplicity here… That is why I’d push  folks to simply talk about if an application requires .NET Framework 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 or 3.5 and not delve deeply into how those are actually put together.  


 


Jvierra – we are absolutely looking spending some time on getting great factoring and layering with in the .NET Framework.  Today, we don’t have a system that is as pluggable as we’d like (and you describe), but that is the direction we would eventually like to get to.. However it will likely not happen for the orcas timeframe.


 


Philip – I sure hope we don’t end up in a world like you describe.  My strong advice is for customers to simply state the minium .NET Framework version number they support.  There is never a need to talk about “.NET Framework 2.0 with .NET Framework 3.0 frameworks”… It will be more clear to customers, admins, developers, etc to simply say “this application requires .NET Framework 3.0”


 


Dennis – We needed the name change from WinFX to .NET Framework to drive some simplicity with developer customers.  I personally spent time with customers where I had to explain the difference between .NET Framework and WinFX.. This confusion was caused by our naming and I am confident it is addressed now.


 


Chris Nahr – Thanks, I fixed the type-o 😉  


You are right – the packaging issue has nothing to do with the name.  This packaging plan was exactly the plan before we did the name change.  The name change is intended to make it clear how these new technologies relate to the .NET Framework – that is that the constitute a new version of it.  


We are working on our factoring and layering to enable the system to be more pluggable such that different parts can change without breaking other parts.  In Orcas, we are making some baby steps in that direction. For example we are adding Linq support to C# and VB without a breaking change and without a requiring a full stack update.  


 


Jonathan Kaufman – I am trying with this post.. Keep the questions coming.. they really do help us hone what we are doing here.  I LOVE forwarding my reader’s comments around inside Microsoft as a catalyst for change!  


 


Muhammad Mosa – asked about VSTS and VS generally.  While there is clearly a TON of synergy between .NET Framework and VS, one release does not have to require another.  Look at .NET Framework 3.0, it does not require a new VS release.  And on the other side, look at VSTS new Data SKU we just announced, it does not require a new framework.  


 


 


Hope this helps – keep the comments coming!


 

Comments (52)

  1. Vaibhav Kamath says:

    Brad, thanks for taking the time to clear up some of the confusion out there, but I am still confused :).

    Let’s say I have installed 1.1 and 2.0 currently on my system and am running my ASP.NET website off of 2.0. After I install .NET Framework 3.0, will I see a new option 3.0 in IIS. Based on what I read from your original entry I won’t see a new option. WPF and WCF use .NET 2.0 underneath and only they will have version no. 3.0. Is that going to continue in future versions also or are you guys trying to make it such that the entire stack will have one version moving forward starting orcas.

    I really hope you guys keep it to one version e.g. 3.5 or 4.0 where ASP.NET / WPF / WCF and everything in the framework share the same version number even though there are no updates for may be one of them. That way it will keep the versioning simple for us developers who work on ASP.NET + WCF + WPF.

    Thanks,

    Vaibhav

  2. To second Vaibhav’s question – what is the smallest versioning unit you will use?

    The 3.0 release of the framework, if I understood it correctly, contains the 2.0 release of the compilers, 2.0 release of the CLR, and a mix of 2.0 and 3.0 libraries in the BCL.

    Will this mixed version stay in the final release of v3.0? Will the current libraries be patched to v3.0 as well (incorporating the v2.0 SP1 in the process) or will we still have some namespaces versioned differently than others?

  3. Kevin Dente says:

    I too am still confused on a few of the nitty-gritty details on how this will work. For example, if we ask runtime for it’s version (System.Environment.Version), does it return 2 or 3? If 2, how do we actually tell if v3 is installed? Will the version # in the registry (often used by installers to detect the framework version) stay v2?

    Also, does the framework get installed into the same v2.0.50727 directory as the v2 framework? Or in a new v3.0.xxxxx directory? Or both (WinFX assembly in v3, CLR assemblies in v2)?

    Overall, decoupling the CLR version from the Framework version does seem to create some potential for new kinds of confusion (though I can see where in other ways it makes thing less confusing).

  4. davidacoder says:

    I believe this name will slow down adoption of the technologies formerly know asn WinFX. Why? Because by choosing a new major version number you are hiding one of the MAJOR good points of the WinFX stuff: It is purely additive to what is on the machine already. It will not break ANYTHING that runs on .Net 2.0, by definition. But now that it is called .Net 3, people will expect the same thing that happened with the transiation from .Net 1.0 to 2.0: app compatability problems. I am convinced adminst would be more willing to install something called winfx (clearly expecting that this will not mess with their .Net 2.0 installs) than installing something called .Net 3.0, because then they will expect it to break their 2.0 stuff, especially once they learn that .Net 3.0 contains 2.0. They will simply think that your assurance that the jump from 2.0 to 3.0 will be as problematic as the jump from 1.1 to 2.0 was. A major version number jump in something like .Net simply implies major changes to the foundation of that product, i.e. changes to the CLR. Additionally this is also the precedent set by the previous major version jump.

    So, while you guys did the right thing technically, i.e. avoid any changes to the CLR, just the perfect decision in the terms of the platform, you completly shield this fact with the name change. Crazy, crazy, crazy! You should get SOME logic into this. For example: Major version number change -> change to the CLR, minor version number change -> extra libraries added, new compiler. By that logic, WinFX should be called .Net 2.1, and then the Orcas stuff .Net 2.2. When you do the next major change to the CLR, THEN go to .Net 3.0. But having major version jumps for additional libraries (like adding WinFX) just seems crazy. What is left then for major changes to the CLR? Major changes to the CLR are really important to recognise for admins, devs etc. Will you jump version numbers by orders of magnitudes for those 😉

    This versioning decision looks a lot like one that would make sense for a consumer product. Sure, there it is important to create buzz, the people don’t really understand what is going on etc. But the only individuals that will ever have to deal with .Net are devs and admins. For those two groups it seems so much more important that the version numbers gives info about things like: Will the foundation change? Will I expect compat problems? Etc. And the name decision does NOT help with any of that.

    To make a long story short: I like it that you reduce the number of names, i.e. drop WinFX. But it should be called .Net 2.1.

  5. Chris Nahr says:

    Thanks for your reply, Brad. I’m happy to hear that LINQ & Co. won’t require a new installation of .NET plus WinFX. I’m still doubtful that rebranding WinFX was a good idea but I guess we’ll see the reaction when the final version is rolled out…

  6. Go off the grid to enjoy a weekend of blue skys and 30c and this little number roles in (oh and the scoble…

  7. davidacoder says:

    Another question: Doesn’t this imply that you won’t be able to develop what was formerly know as .Net and WinFX on different schedules? Essentially you now have to align releases of the two, or create an even bigger name/version mess. Is that really a good idea?!? I thought you guys want to get more agile, but packaging more and more stuff into less release packages doesn’t seem a good idea to achieve that. Lets say the next major release of what was known as WinFX needs six more months than the next major release of what was known as .Net. That would imply that you have to hold back the .Net stuff, right?

    Gee, the more I think about this, the more I get the impression that this is NOT only a branding thing, but has much wider implications.

  8. Kirk Allen Evans has the best explanation so far of what comprises the .NET Framework 3.0. It can be…

  9. Jonathan Kaufman says:

    I wanted to first thank you for having this open conversation, it means a lot.

    Now on to where my mind is at. People can say a name is just a name but the confusion comes as follows. WinFX to me was the new API. Sure it was an evolution of .NET framework but I saw it as being a super set. So we all move to this new API and throughout time you upgrade the language (CLR), change existing libraries (framework), and add new libraries/technologies (WPF, WCF, etc). With Win32 the API came with the OS and OS upgrades, the languages incremented on their own. I saw with WinFX this methodology again and hoped we wouldn’t have to buy a new Visual Studio to use new technologies. I hoped we could upgrade the libraries and the languages independently. Maybe we can still do this but coming out with .NET 3.0 and then 3.5 etc it just seems all encompassing. I head up software development and these changes are important to me since I need to know how quickly we can adopt and change to new technologies. WinFX was easy, developer says he/she has new app idea to use the new WinFX technologies I can say sure, it adds on to the framework won’t have to worry about existing apps. But if something is released and called .NET Framework X.X I take pause make sure we aren’t updating any existing libraries that may be used by other apps. And yes I know research is part of the game but my fear is that it won’t be clear cut. Though I love the name WinFX I really don’t care too much what you call it as long as my concerns are met. What I just said were concerns my immediate question is: In respect to business models and the future handling of releases, what is the difference between the core .NET framework and technologies like WPF and WCF?

  10. El vicepresidente Somasegar, ha anunciado recientemente algunas de las guías a seguir en lo que se…

  11. Marc Brooks says:

    I think delaying the first service pack for the 2.0 framework is a HORRIBLE decision. The 2.0 release was just like any X.0 release, it had significant issues that simply didn’t appear, or the fix didn’t make the deadline for release but these fixes should be released ASAP. Tying them to the Orcas release is wrong… it sends the message "your pains aren’t important until they impeed OUR releases".  How many hotfixes have been made for internal MS customers (like for TFS or Altas or ACT?).

    In short, release the "1st quarter, for sure" service pack!

  12. Keith Hill says:

    Brad, at both PDC 2003 and PDC 2005 WinFX was described as the heir apparent to Win32 – hence the name WinFX.  Can you clarify what the situation is WRT .NET becoming the successor to Win32?  Is that still the plan or with the whole Vista mulligan fiasco, has Microsoft backed off that plan such that .NET remains just a "development platform" ala VB6/MFC/ATL/etc for the forseeable future?  Based on what we were told at both of those PDCs, I think Microsoft owes it to us to clearly state what the plans are for the successor to Win32.  And if it is that managed code won’t take over as the preferred OS API anytime soon then fine.  But let’s not sweep this under the rug and hope developers forget what they were told.

  13. BradA says:

    Good feedback — keep it comming!

    Vaibhav  –  First off, this name change is purely a marketing level thing… nothing technical changes because of it.  So the answer for .NET Framework 3.0 is the same as it is under the WinFX plan.   No, you will not see a new 3.0 option under IIS for ASP.NET, because ASP.NET did not rev with this release.    While the future plans have not been locked down yet, I’d suspect that we will eventually have a “full stack” release again, but in the short-mid term leveraging the deployment level investments our customers have made in 2.0 will remain an important goal.  I understand the desire around cleanliness to have only one version number, but are there deeper concerns?  Look at your windows install.. different DLLs have different version numbers there.

    Avener – Technically the smallest unit of versioning is the assembly.  I suspect we will not get that fine grained…  What is the problem you feel like you will run into with mis-matched version numbers?  Just like you think of all of windows as one release or another, think of all of the .NET Framework as one release or another… Don’t worry about how it happens to be implemented.  If there are places this breaks down, I’d love to hear it!

    Kevin – You have a good question about how to determine what version of the framework is installed.  We are actively working on guidance around that – stay tuned!

    Davidacoder – I generally agree with the way you break the problem down… My worry with the “2.x” version number scheme is that it does not allow enough room for innovation in the frameworks moving forward..  As far as agility goes, nothing about this name change affects that.. these products were always tied.  I do think you are right that we need to make room for regular cadence of releases… that will mean some parts of the platform change while others don’t.  

    Jonathan – You have a good point about the need to educate people on the benefits of the .NET Framework 3.0 release.. that is it is purely additive to those that have .NET Framework 2.0…  I hope that educating the key influencers like yourselves is the first step there…

    Marc – I’d love to hear your specific concerns with .NET Framework 2.0… As you may know, we do regularly release QFEs (or targeted fixes of the .NET Framework to customers  that have specific issues). Will that meet your needs?

  14. davidacoder says:

    Brad, thanks for answering. But I am afraid I don’t understand or agree with it 😉

    What do you mean by "2.x […] does not allow […] room for innovation"? I just don’t understand what you mean by that. Just incrase the x by one whenever you need to add something 😉 but you must mean something else :)

    And with the products always being tied. Well… Only in one way, right? WinFX depended on .Net, but not the other way round. WinFX was delayed hugely in the end (remember your original release plans for Vista :), but that did not affect the release date of .Net 2.0, thanks god! But if you package WinFX into .Net, this is not the case anymore. What if the Orcas release is on time, but WinFx 2.0 (lets just call it that for a moment) is 3 months late? Have you thought about that scenario? Because the only reasonable thing at that point would be to delay the whole .Net 4.0 (or 3.5 or whatever the name is going to be) package at that point. And that is a decrease in agility, to me.

  15. BradA says:

    Keith — Good point on the successor to Win32… While we have certainly learned A LOT about correct factoring, layering and dependency management with the Longhorn project.  One thing remains unchanged… for mainstream applications managed code continues to be the best environment.    Just like we advise our customers in dealing with their own current investments, Microsoft is not going rip-and-replace the Win32 APIs or our massive investments Win32 based code (in Office & the windows shell for example).  However it is safe to say the bulk of the innovation going forward is in managed code and that the .NET Framework is the future of the platform.  

  16. Vaibhav Kamath says:

    Yup, I totally agree with you Brad, that it does not make sense to recompile the entire stack for V.3.0 and I think people can live with it for the coming version. My comment on having a unified version number is to keep things simple, nothing more, for releases following V.3.0. The very statement that V.3.0 is going to use the CLR V.2.0 is confusing to some people including me. Although I understand what it means, something still does not sound right, but then it could be just me.

  17. Hmm, I would have thought a new name something like .NET 2.0+ or something would have been a good indicator that winfx is a set of libraries that run on top of 2.0.  But ultimately I’m a pretty passive developer so I’ll just take it as it comes I suppose. 😉

  18. As most of you know already, Soma Somasegar, announced last week that the WinFx has been rechristned…

  19. Rajesh Jain says:

    Here we go again Java 2.0 is not really Java 2.0. When will you learn from history!!!!!

  20. KeithH says:

    "However it is safe to say the bulk of the innovation going forward is in managed code and that the .NET Framework is the future of the platform. "

    Brad, thanks for clarifying that!

  21. Phil Wheat says:

    I’ve been trying to stay out of this, but from just what’s been said, I think it’s prett apparent that this is going to cause a lot more confusion than clarity.  Especially when 2.0 adoption is moving so slowly, now there’s a 3.0 (with 2.0 CLR and 1.0 WinFX) and a 3.5 (2.0 SP1 CLR and 1.0 WinFX) on the horizion – this is going to slow down a LOT of places just trying to figure out what level of the Framework they need.  .Net 2.0 with WinFX separated those versioning problems a lot better – without the promise of confusion with the coming rapid fire stream of framework versions.  

    I understand that the naming is just marketing, but the message you’re sending is "get ready for continual upgrade and testing cycles, because we’re about to start throwing out framework changes every 6 months."  Somehow this is not what I think you meant to convey, but that’s how most enterprise environments are going to take it.  And I can see this not just slowing adoption of the WinFX components but also slow down the actual CLR 2.0 adoption – because "if 3.0 is coming out – why are we sending our developers to 2.0 training – let’s just wait until the fall for 3.0 to come out and skip a version."  Of course that’s for the ones that want to adopt and don’t just hold of and say "let’s just let this framework thing settle down before we look at it again – it’s obviously got a lot of churn because of all the versions coming out.  When they figure out which version they’re going to settle down with and support, then we’ll look at it again."

  22. Mehran Nikoo says:

    It is a fantastic idea to re-brand WinFX as a new version of .NET Framework but I still believe that it should be called .NET Framework 2.x (say 2.5) to highlight its reliance on CLR 2.0 and the existing BCL and CLS.

    This way you could use 3.0 for C# 3.0, LINQ and other new features that may require a new CLR and more changes to the existing base classes in ADO.NET for instance.

  23. Brad, I have also posted this on Some’s blog:

    How about dropping the complete name ".NET Framework"? I don’t remember having the same problems with "The Windows DNA Framework" as there was not really a product named "The Windows DNA framework", it was a conceptual name for a set of technologies (ASP, COM+, MSMQ, MTS …).

    I vote therefore for dropping the marketing product ".NET Framework" as we all know it and instead split everyting up into seperate products. That way there will be no confusion.

    What happens now if there is only a new version of WPF and the other technologies did not change? Will it then be labelled .NET Framework n + 1?

    Imho the core is the most important (CLR and BCL) and the rest are façades built using the core which in theory we could built ourselves and therefore they should not be so tightly coupled together under the name .NET Framework.

  24. Srikar says:

    It would have been great if Microsoft released .Net 3.0 with Linq, and other features basically with C# 3.0 and put everything WCF,WF,WPF with it. That would not only eliminate  the confusion but also would achieve what microsoft wants by putting together wcf, and all.

  25. The announcement of .NET Framework 3.0 previously dubber WinFX is definitely confusing. Microsoft is…

  26. The announcement of .NET Framework 3.0 previously dubbed WinFX is definitely confusing. Microsoft is…

  27. MarkDev says:

    Like to see the progress of .NET and Vista but I think that you need the marketing team thinking in a new name or in an add for the .NET 2.0 like .NET 2.0++ or something like that. BUT DON´T CALL IT .NET 3.0 !!!

    There is no major upgrade in the framework right ? near none ? so simply don´t call it 3.0.

    BTW I think that for the .NET developers is really important the SP1 for VS2005 and SP1 for .NET 2.0. In big applications or simply using the edit and continue in VB.NET VS2005 hands up 2 of 5 times !

    Anyway keep the good work, I LOVE .NET but I preffer stability than inovation (at last my customers like the first one)

    I know how hard must be creating Vista and all the new development plataforms but don’t forget the big number of developers that are trying to explain to their boss why them are restarting VS2005 or redoing the work because VS hand ups… is not a happy scenario !!

    Best Regards

  28. Straight from the other side of the globe, Roy Osherove brings us information from Joe Binder of the…

  29. Frans Bouma says:

    "George asks about SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0… Again the details have not been 100% worked out, so don’t take this as an official statement, but I expect SP1 of the .NET Framework 2.0 to be at the same time as Orcas .NET Framework ships."

    Unacceptable. Orcas is slated for 2007, and .NET 2.0 needs a service pack in 2006. This is also promissed by Mr. Somasegar, and I fail to see how we all will write better software if microsoft just keeps sitting on their patches for years.

  30. help.net says:

    It seems that the naming department in Microsoft has gone crazy in a matter of months. Or maybe nobody…

  31. anonymous says:

    WILL VISTA INCLUDE .NET 1.1 AS WELL??

  32. jvierra says:

    Brad –

    My great excitement is that you ARE attempting to make it that pluggable.  Timeframes are not important for anything that overarching.  Just keep on doing what you are doing.  It is making life more predictable with each release and will ultimately, if it’s really possible, be the cat’s meow of an API. (Can use a legacy term here?)

    At or UG meeting (N3UG) this has come up more than once.  The excitement is certainly spreading.

    How about sending someone to work on straightening out the docs.  Some areas are really very good.  SOme only show modified versions of NET 1.0 examples which won’t work best in 2.0 and CLR 2.0.  (Another UG bugaboo.)

  33. BradA says:

    Vista ships with .NET Framework 3.0 installed by default.  3.0 will run all .NET Framework 2.0 with ZERO back compat issues (as it is the same code) and we are making every effort to ensure it will run .NET Framework 1.1 apps as well, although there maybe some issolated issues.  

    If there are any issues, you can installed .NET Framework 1.1 on Vista and that will take care of 99% of the issues

  34. BradA says:

    Thanks for your feedback Jvierra.. Please let us know about the lame examples you see in the docs.. a great way to do that is to just fix them on http://msdnwiki.microsoft.com/

  35. BradA says:

    Frans – On the SP1 issue, I hear where you are comming from and thanks for pushing on this.  We are in fact doing an SP1 of Visual Studio 2005 this year.. I beleive this will address most of the customer issues I have seen so far.  

    In addition for the .NET Framework, we are doing GDRs and QFEs to fix specific customers issues as they come up… So if you are blocked by something, please check out your support channels and we can get a fix to you without having to way for the roll up.

  36. Customer says:

    Brad, these are your customers, listen to what they are saying. I’ve read your post as well as Soma’s on this issue, and about 90 % do not like the idea of a major version change. Minor release seems to be the consensus. If you want to underscore the importance of the WinFX components then use .NET Framework 2.0 + WinFX or whatever other name that clearly identifies .NET Framwork 2.0 is being used.

    Phil Wheat said it best:

    "I understand that the naming is just marketing, but the message you’re sending is "get ready for continual upgrade and testing cycles, because we’re about to start throwing out framework changes every 6 months."  Somehow this is not what I think you meant to convey, but that’s how most enterprise environments are going to take it.  And I can see this not just slowing adoption of the WinFX components but also slow down the actual CLR 2.0 adoption – because "if 3.0 is coming out – why are we sending our developers to 2.0 training – let’s just wait until the fall for 3.0 to come out and skip a version."

    That sounds ignorant, but I can tell you from experience, this thinking is what get at most enterprises.

  37. Frans Bouma says:

    great that the SP for vs.net 2005 is still slated for 2006, that can’t come soon enough! :)

    "In addition for the .NET Framework, we are doing GDRs and QFEs to fix specific customers issues as they come up… So if you are blocked by something, please check out your support channels and we can get a fix to you without having to way for the roll up."

    I’ve explained before that this won’t work for me. I sell software to other developers. So if I run into a .NET bug, I could get it fixed by MS but it’s of no use until all of my customers can download the fix.

    For example take the silly bug where you have a datetime column in a datatable and you serialize it using remoting format binary. When the column contains a DBNull.value, it becomes datetime.minvalue on the other end. This breaks code. I can only tell my own customers: it’s not our code, it’s MS code which is broken. But I can’t make my customers run fixed code, as MS controls the patch distribution.

    So what do I do? Tell everyone they should call PSS to get a patch? That’s not acceptable: I want to point to my customers a URL where the patch can be downloaded. Now I know I have to wait till H2 2007. That’s a long period of time before this silly fix (and other fixes for other bugs) is available. Especially since this some patches are 6 months old or so.

    that’s the main problem, however Microsoft doesn’t care. I can’t even say: "seems it doesn’t care", because it simply doesn’t care, the past 3 years have proved that. I’m sorry to be so negative, but I can’t draw any other conclusion.

    MS therefore should FIX the .NET fixing schedule. AT LEAST every 3-6 months all patches have to be rolled up into a rollup pack. I fail to see why that can’t be done.

  38. davidacoder says:

    "…we are making every effort to ensure it will run .NET Framework 1.1 apps as well…"

    How are you going to pull that off?!? .Net 2.0 shipped already and has many app compat problems with .Net 1.1 apps. If .Net 3.0 is simply .Net 2.0 plus stuff, how on earth are you going to improve app compat situation with .Net 1.1 applications without touching .Net 2.0 binaries?!?

  39. BradA says:

    David — You are right, the base level of compat is the same as 2.0.  But we continue to work with ISVs to ensure their apps work well on 2.0 and in some cases we do QFEs to help workaround app compat issues.  

  40. Skip says:

    I believe that the general consensus is a minor version (i.e. 2.x) change, and I’m gonna go with the crowd on this one.

    The corporation that I work for is a moderately sized retail chain (3,000 stores, 17,000 employees), whose area of concern is selling to and servicing the retail customer (as opposed to saying that we’re utilizing the coolest and latest innovations from Microsoft).

    My area of concern is in getting those 3,000+ stores off of DOS 6.0 (note: 6.0, not 6.22) and onto a new store system utilizing the .Net platform. Considering that my group’s development machines are some of the very few (currently) within our enterprise that run XP, I am going to have a very hard time selling .Net 3.0 as a stable upgrade to the .Net 2.0 (especially considering that it’s only officially 7 months old now). As a previous reply points out, ".Net 3.0" will undoubtedly give my senior management a perception of innovation-over-stability and will probably create a hurdle that is too high for me to jump to take advantage of some of these cool new features. But in reasoning an upgrade from 2.0 to 2.1; I would expect that to be much more palatable. I could pitch the ZERO compat issues between 2.0 and the proposed 3.0 for the existing codebase, but it’s just not natural to not have some issues that will need to dealt with (I remember some similar claims with Whidbey, and it was true for the majority of my code – but I lost the usefulness of my enterprise templates and the .vshost.exe caused different behavior between my release and debug bits – each of which required numerous days to find and resolve (granted those were Visual Studio related) – the point is, with a major version upgrade, issues like those are almost expected. If there truely are ZERO compat issues with existing 2.0 codebases – then just release it as a minor version uprgrade).

    That’s my 2 cents

  41. Aleksey says:

    Brad,

    Do you know anyone really involved in enterprise development or system administration who likes the idea of 3.0? I personally think it is a stupid idea, and I wasn’t able to find anyone who accepts the reasons behind the change. I’d like to hear something from independent supporters.

  42. BradA says:

    Hey Frans — thanks for reporting the issue on the datetime column in a datatable… I checked into it and there is a QFE for it already.. let me know (or call Microsoft support) if you’d like to check that out..

  43. JamesW says:

    I agree with Frans. Waiting until 2007 is unnacceptable. There’s this perception that Microsoft simply does not care about supporting their installed base while working on the new, breaking, technology.

    Nothing I’ve seen from the various Microsoft mouthpieces has convinced me that this is not the case.

    Fix your existing stuff, please. Stop pushing service packs, push release dates of the new stuff, ffs.

  44. cole bretts says:

    Hi there,

    If your looking for an automated, hands free way to begin earning bundles of cash 10 minutes from now then head on over to http://www.typeathome.biz

  45. Steve Whitley says:

    please for the love of god follow normal versioning conventions, and name it .net 2.5.  Release .net 3.0 with C# 3.0…

    I’d love know who thought WinFX was more confusing than .net 3.0 which was actually .net 2.0 with some other stuff that took too long to do w/ a 2.0 release.

    I must be an idiot because that doesnt make any sense.

  46. Peter says:

    Hello…I think this is very bad decission. Microsoft has released 2.0 version 9 months ago and now clients should think that they should migrate to 3.0 version? Or we should explain to clients, don’t migrate!!! The .NET3.0 version is in fact .NET2.0! And they will think that Microsoft is crazy. Then promotion to migrate to .net2.0 will be much more harder and clients will be resistant to this and it will be hard to explain them this.

    Also I would have a question. Why not to separate .NETFW as core platform and other products as WinFx? Or will Microsoft ship every 2-3 months a new .NET 3.x version as there is a new WPF version or any change to any WinFx component? It will be a big mess!

  47. Jan Pokorny says:

    I would have one question. Can you tell us that it will be possible to download .netfw3.0 without winfx? even now we use just a very small part of .netfw for our application and we would be happy to reduce the download size. but when .netfw would be distributed only in version where winfx would be included then it’s going to be unusable!

    why should i push our clients to download winfx if they are using only some smaller subset of .netfw functions and winfx is not important for them? so can you tell us how .netfw will be distributed for download?

  48. When I earlier said that ADO.NET vNext will not be included in .NET Framework 3.0 and questioned the