.NET Framework 3.0 will be released in 2006


Why? Simple – WinFX is being renamed .NET Framework 3.0 🙂 IMVHO this is an overdue rename and very welcome.


WinFX ultimately was .NET Framework 2.0 with lots of great new stuff – just in the same way .NET Framework 2.0 was Framework 1.1 with lots of great new stuff.


I will let Somasegar explain in detail.

Comments (3)

  1. wpSlider says:

    Bzzzt, .net 2.0 was .net 1.1 with lots of great new stuff including shiny new compilers & runtime improvements.

    In the long run, it will be great to have WPF etc all in the one package since after all, you can’t have these extensions without the .NET runtime. BUT, what should happen is that all LIBS should be version changed to 3.0 and put into a single all-encompasing package.

    At it is at the moment, .NET 3.0 relies on .NET 2.0, but .NET 2.0 does not rely on .NET 1.1 or 1.0. However .NET 2.0’s libraries are pretty much compatible with 1.1 and 1.0.

    – Absolute rubbish.

  2. Kevin Daly says:

    …except that .NET Framework 2.0 actually involved new versions of assemblies for the corresponding framework elements that existed already in .NET Farmwork 1.1, whereas ".NET Framework 3.0" generally doesn’t (being a superset of 2.0)…so in that sense it’s not really the same thing at all.

    I agree that the WinFX name was always a problem (since it’s easily confused with WinFS, which may after all one day be released, and "FX" doesn’t mean much to people outside Microsoft), but using "3.0" to describe "2.0 with extra bits" just adds to the confusion. When the CLR eventually goes to version 3.0, will .NET Framework 3.0 become 4.0, or will it be .NET Framework 3.0 running against CLR 3.0 as opposed to .NET Framework 3.0 running against CLR 2.0?

  3. Philip says:

    "WinFX ultimately was .NET Framework 2.0 with lots of great new stuff – just in the same way .NET Framework 2.0 was Framework 1.1 with lots of great new stuff."

    Except that 2.0 was also the runtime (just like 1.0 and 1.1).  3.0 is libraries  (lots of great stuff) requiring (and installing) 2.0.

    I work for an ISV and we were all super confused. Now were not confused as to *what* this means, we just really can’t figure out *why*.  

    Telling customers they had to install winfx to run our software seemed easy "it’s just a framework".

    Telling them to install .net 3.0 is not going to be easy – getting them to agree to "upgrade" to 2.0 was hard because they required time to do testing when installing a new runtime on servers and developer desktops.

    This just makes our job harder, and *we* will be the ones that have to clear up the confusion that ".net 3.0 isn’t really a new version of the .net runtime, it’s just a new version of .net."