.NET Framework 3.0


When speaking to developers about WinFX one question that repeatedly comes up is, “WinFX sounds great, but what happens to .NET?” .NET Framework has becomes the most successful developer platform in the world.  Developers know and love .NET.


The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX brand didn’t convey this.  The WinFX brand helped us introduce the incredible innovations in terms of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) and the newly christened Windows CardSpace (WCS) formerly known under the codename “InfoCard.”  The brand also created an unnatural discontinuity between previous versions of our framework and the current version.


With this in mind we have decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0.  .NET Framework 3.0 aptly identifies the technology for exactly what it is – the next version of our developer framework.


The change is in name only and will not affect the technologies being delivered as part of the product. The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components, including ASP.NET, WinForms, ADO.NET, additional base class libraries and the CLR, as well as new developer-focused innovative technologies in WPF, WCF, WF and WCS:



The .NET Framework 3.0 will still ship with Windows Vista, and will be available down-level for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 as planned.  This change doesn’t affect in any way the ship schedules of either Windows Vista or the .NET Framework 3.0 itself.


We are confident that this change will go a long way towards reducing confusion people may have about our developer platform and the technologies in which they should invest. 


Namaste!

Comments (500)

  1. Anonymous says:

    But the CLR is still v2.0, right? Right? 🙂

  2. lexp says:

    I hope FX3.0 will be installed by single installer and resist in the same directory (WindowsMicrosoft.NETFrameworkv3.0…

  3. Soma Somasegar vient d’annoncer sur son blog la nouvelle: Microsoft vient de décider de renommer WinFX…

  4. S.Somasegar says:

    Yes – The CLR is still v2.0.  

    – somasegar

  5. The cat’s out of the bag on the WinFX name change.  That’s right, it’s now the .NET Framework 3.0. …

  6. Also, "InfoCard" becomes "Windows CardSpaces (WCS)"

    A couple days ahead of TechEd 2006, Microsoft’s…

  7. Endnu engang har vi fået en omdøbning af de kommende teknologier – det er næsten ikke til at følge…

  8. Mmm, now that everybody is used to the (pretty cool) WinFX name, we have to learn to say the .NET Framework…

  9. Also, "InfoCard" becomes "Windows CardSpaces (WCS)"

    A couple days ahead of TechEd 2006, Microsoft’s…

  10. Vibro.NET says:

    I was sentimentally attached to the name "Infocard", as I was to "Indigo" and "Avalon"… but I’ve to…

  11. Keeron says:

    So, WinFX, err .NET 3.0 will also include C# 3.0 (Linq, etc), any CLR changes planned?

    Will the next VS be built for/on .NET 3.0? (like now VS 2005 is built for .net 2.0)

    Windows Presentation Foundation was so much fun to use 🙂

  12. Dave McMahon says:

    Hi Soma,

    I interviewed you at San Francisco for our User Group in the UK (The Next Generation User Group), can I ask if  DLINQ/XLINQ etc is going to feature in the .NET Framework 3.0?  

    I think its a sensible move, and also may go a way to calm a few peoples nerves that Microsoft are shipping ‘yet more stuff’

    Regards

    Dave McMahon

  13. Hatim says:

    My Question is the same as above! is XLINQ going to be part of the .Net Framework 3.0?

  14. Cyril says:

    What about Visual Studio "Orcas" ?

    Will it be available with the .net framework 3.0, so in the end of 2006 ?

  15. JD on EP says:

    WinFX -> .NET 3.0: Microsoft name change, in advance of any shipment: "With this in mind we have decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0." "InfoCard" branding also becomes "Windows CardSpace (WCS)". Doug Mahugh

  16. Microsoft has decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0.  See Soma’s blog for details.

  17. koistya says:

    I am also very interested whether C# 3.0 will replace C# 2.0 in .NET Framewotk 3.0?

  18. Microsoft has renamed WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0

    .NET Framework 3.0 aptly identifies the technology…

  19. It’s official:

    "InfoCard" has a REAL name – Windows CardSpace™.

    WinFX is being renamed to .NET Framework…

  20. Sam Gentile says:

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

    The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX…

  21. Oran says:

    Who keeps tacking "Windows" onto these new products?  It’s not called "the Windows .NET Framework".  Based on the core tenets of InfoCard it must NOT be tied solely to Windows if it is to succeed.  Have we learned nothing from Hailstorm/Passport?  Every renaming I’ve seen lately reeks of a high-level exec lifting his leg on the product.

    This rename also makes me nervous that this is a setup for another schedule slip… ("Now that this is a full 3.0 version of the .NET Framework, well, we need to polish VS more thoroughly, slipstream the service pack in, slip a few more 3.0-worthy features in, and now Vista can point fingers at DevDiv for yet another schedule slip since they’re synchronized!")

    I sure hope you are able and willing to deliver .NET 3.0 this year, preferably before Vista ships by a month or two.

  22. Waseem Sadiq says:

    Microsoft has always had quite a bad rep with screwing up utterly cool product names (think Avalon and…

  23. Somasegar, Corporate Vice President of Microsof’s Developer Division, has announced that the WinFX brand…

  24. Soma announced that the WinFX Runtime Components will be renamed to .NET Framework 3.0. I am sad to see…

  25. Is this the final nail in the coffin of having WinFX, er .NET 3.0, become the "preferred" API for future versions of Windows (or at least Vista)?  It seems so to me.  🙁  So the .NET Framework remains a "developer platform" that is distinctly separate from the OS API.  What’s the deal here?  When we switched from Win16 to Win32 everybody knew that the new API was coming.  With .NET it is ambiguous.  Is .NET quitely becoming the successor to Win32 over time?  Or is .NET just another development platform like Java or MFC which just "sits" on the OS API?  I think this is a question that Microsoft needs to answer because the story put forth at PDC 2003 seems to have changed quite a bit.

  26. Today, as Ecuador was beating Poland in the World Cup (way to go Ecuador!), Somasegar was announcing…

  27. JasonP says:

    I think this is going to cause more confusion, because now the 3.0 framework is really using the 2.0 compiler. It is also adding un-needed bloat to the framework. I think you guys need to sit down and think this out better instead of getting it out the door. It was almost 5 years between 1.0  and 2.0, and I think that 2.0 was a great release. Just get Vista out there and worry about this after the fact. Since it isn’t integrated with the OS, just an add-on, release it when it is ready, not under pressure for Vista. Don’t screw this up.

  28. The word is out, Soma has announced on his blog that WinFX will officially be badged as .NET 3.0. …

  29. Hoy, mientras Ecuador le ganaba a Polonia en el Mundial de Fútbol (¡sí se puede!), Somasegar anunció…

  30. Ben Hollis says:

    This seems quite silly – so the .NET Framework 3.0 will contain the .NET Framework 2.0?

  31. Paul Krill at InfoWorld:
    Microsoft has re-branded its WinFX technologies as .Net Framework 3.0 to clarify the naming convention for its developer framework, company representatives said on Friday.
    .Net Framework 3.0 is planned for inclusion in Windo..

  32. Acorde con el articulo Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0 y con el post de Somasegar’s Blog WinFX ahora se llamara…

  33. Soma announced today that WinFX is being renamed to .NET Framework 3.0 to help out with developer confusion. …

  34. Whatever it is I want some. Fast. Before you change another name.

    Okay, awhile ago MS introduced…

  35. jasonz says:

    I posted some more detailed answers to common questions here: http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2006/06/09/624629.aspx

    Quick answers:

    1.  .NET FX 3.0 is based on .NET FX 2.0 and will therefore use the 2.0 compilers.

    2.  LINQ is an Orcas feature which means it is after .NET FX 3.0.

    3.  After we finish updating the build to match the naming changes, .NET FX 3.0 will be installed into the %windir%Microsoft.NETFrameworkV3.0.

    Jason

  36. John says:

    This is just patently stupid.

    They’re NOT the same thing, any more than MFC is C++.

    And this is to say nothing of the versioning hell you’re now bringing upon us…

  37. Ante la pregunta y confusión sobre si WinFX remplazará al .NET Framework, cuando de hecho WinFX es "WinAPI…

  38. Shaurya Anand says:

    C Omega (next after C#) what’s gonna happen to it? CLR 3.0 -> .NET Framework 4.0?

    I do not think they idea for this change in name signifies logic.

  39. Soma (S. Somasegar: Corporate Vice President, Developer Division) announced today that WinFx will…

  40. Volkan says:

    PingBack from http://spaces.msn.com/velveren/blog/cns!2BF8A5A3C5EDBBBA!663.entry

  41. Robert Naum says:

    Honestly, this is really dumb, and judging from some of the initial comments, is actually contributing to the confusion about .NET 3.0.  

    I liked WinFX.  It had a nice futuristic feel to it, especially if you were coming from the world of Win32, Win16, etc…

    What was wrong with .NET 2.0 FX? You could of kept .NET 2.0, and used the "FX" marketing to include all of these technologies being bundled together.  Going from 2.0 to 3.0 implies a rather LARGE feature set increase and that’s really not true.  But hey, whatever, you guys do whatever you want to do.   You’re Microsoft after all.  Just expect more confusion than not.

  42. D N Joshi says:

    This is not helping us guys..

    You have had several slips on the software release, now atleast be stable on the names.  

    How will you manage the change only to the core framework which is still 2.0.  How will you manage patches to current WinFX and manage future releases.

    So when you release .NET Framework 3.0 SP1, how would I know what has changed ?

    I would have still liked Avalon, Indigo etc.  There was a clear distinction.  If some partner extends workflow and claims it is an extension to .NET Framework 3.0, how would one know which component  has the partner extended.  

    In one simple sentence, guys this is not a good move.  This will further confuse the world.

  43. Joku says:

    I have to agree that while those who haven’t ever coded in .NET would be confused over the WinFX, this name change also implies a whole lot of subtle strategy changes whether you wanted it to or not. That’s what will make it really confusing for the rest of us.

  44. Today we announced the rebranding of WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0

    See Soma’s blog for the full story…but…

  45. WinFx has been renamed to .NET 3.0. I think this is one of the smartest moves from the branding team…

  46. Tja, kein Scherz so schnell kann es gehen. Jedoch ist es nur WinFX und das .NET 2.0 Framework welches zusammengeführt und umbenannt wird, es nennt sich nun .NET 3.0 [1].

    Obwohl es .NET 3.0 heisst basiert WinFX weiterhin auf dem .NET Framework

  47. When I first read “.NET 3.0”  I thought “April Fools? Did I miss the planning?” –…

  48. Chris says:

    Disgusting! Why didn’t you rename it WinFX for .NET?

  49. Arash Ghandhi says:

    Saw a demo of codename "InfoCard" aka  WCS in Vancouver at realDev 06. I can hack that code in less then a minute. —  object tag with a post.

    One thing you have to understand about the world wide web is that fundamentally everything is a post/get. Does not matter what you are trying to do, you should never trust the the host.

  50. DotNetDeveloper says:

    The naming doesn’t make any difference as long as there is one name for the whole framework. Calling it .NET 3.0 makes sense, if only…

    The one thing to be worried about is that this was yet another management decision and there are no people with brains actually thinking about the details of this.

    Agree with lexp above:

    – Put that stuff in the .NET folder instead of 3 different places where no one can find it.

    – Get the names consistent. Kick the guy that came up with WindowsBase.dll when every other file is called System.Something. What is WindowsBase anyways?

    – Get one installer that works.

    – Spend a long time cutting out all the crap you are planing on changing one month after shipping.

    .NET is great, please do not mess it up

  51. DotNetDeveloper says:

    Reading through the comments I have to agree. Tacking "Windows"’ onto the names like "Windows CardSpaces" is a perfect setup for failure.

  52. Ho da poco acceso il PC, aperto il mio Outlook 2007 e cosa ti vedo? Questo post scritto niente popo di…

  53. Yonatan Betzer says:

    when Will .Net Framework 3.0 have a ClickOnce installer available ? will there be an IE6 plugin for WPF before WPF/E ?

  54. Ever wanted to contribute to MSDN documentation? Visit MSDN Wiki and submit your content. RSS feeds are…

  55. Rebranding it to .NET Framework v3.0 will make things a lot more confusing.:

    .NET 2.0 = ADO.NET 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0, CLR 2.0, C# 2.0

    .NET 3.0 = ADO.NET 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0, CLR 2.0, C# 2.0, WPF, WCF … (?)

    .NET 4.0=  ADO.NET 3.0, ASP.NET 3.0, CLR 2.0, C# 2.0, WPF, WCF … (?)

    Better would be:

    .NET 2.5: ADO.NET 2.0, CLR 2.0, C# 2.0, WPF, WCF …

  56. Garry Trinder says:

    I assume this also means schema uri changes?

  57. Tom says:

    I think this change just adds confusion, it doesn’t remove confusion, especially since it seems that .NET Fx 3.0 contains a component called .NET Fx 2.0. I don’t like this change at all.

  58. Trackback from dotnetkicks.com

  59. Dennis says:

    "We are confident that this change will go a long way towards *reducing* confusion people may have about our developer platform"

    Reducing!?

    Marketing ruins the day again!

  60. Kimo says:

    Come on what are you guys thinking?! You are starting a versioning hell now. Give the devlopers some credit, we are not stupid, it was better with the previous naming and branding scheme. At least if you want to name it .NET Framework so bad name it 2.5 not 3.0

    I am sorry but this is a very bad move.

  61. Somasegar’s WebLog : .NET Framework 3.0.

    This will stir up lots of conversations about how marketing…

  62. Kea says:

    Hey, I don’t appreciate nor like renames very much – but indeed, it should have been named the .NET Framework 3.0 from the very beginning!!! Okay, purhaps not the third version if the run-time is going to be the same, just an extension to the set of framwork classes. But anyway, maybe this should just be looked upon as Microsoft taking self-criticism seriously. If similar technologies could be fewer and rather combined into a single non-profiled product it got to make things easier for everybody.

  63. Philip Rieck says:

    Let’s get to the practical questions of this change:

    Will the 2.0 assemblies (like System.dll) included in 3.0 have a version change, or will it be the same version?

    Either way, how does this affect side-by-side installations of .net?  That is, can I have 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 installed?  Or does 3.0 actually update 2.0?  Will we need to change runtime bindings in our manifests?

    Will .net 2.0 continue to be supported via service packs, or is 3.0 going to effectively end-of-life 2.0?

    will we get a .net 3.0 sdk that includes "the sdk formerly known as winFx" ,  instead of having to install the mammoth vista win sdk to develop apps?

    Thanks!

  64. Bashmohandes says:

    Winfx renamed to DotNet Framework 3.0

  65. Todd Powers says:

    I’m concerned about the same things as Phillip.  Versioning is going to be a nightmare!

    If Microsoft really wants to lump this all into .NET Framework 3.0, then they need to do a full version upgrade of EVERYTHING.  All of the languages should be versioned 3.0.  The compiler and the framework itself should be 3.0.  The WinFx functionality should be an integral part of the Framework (i.e. proper namespacing in respect to other Framework objects).  Etc…  Etc…  Tacking extra functionality onto 2.0 and calling it 3.0 leaves developers floundering when it comes to version detection.

    We’ve only started converting old 1.1 applications to 2.0 in the past couple of months.  We will be supporting 1.1 applications for years to come.  Now we’re going to have yet another version change?  Side-by-side installation had BETTER be supported with 2.0 and 3.0 or we simply won’t bother.

  66. jmarlowe says:

    I thought Java 2 SDK 1.5 was confusing – .NET 3.0 framework 2.0 is just as ridiculous!

  67. Required says:

    What a terrible idea, for all the reasons mentioned above.  Unclear versioning hell abounds.  It seems to be you’re taking something with a small little bit of short-term confusion potential and replacing it something that will just mess up the versioning schemes for everyone in the long term.

    Oh wait, that’s why Microsoft Marketing is good at.

    You’ll notice the only positive comments about this are coming from MICROSOFT BLOGS.   Don’t let the GroupThink blind you to the fact most ACTUAL NON-MICROSOFT EMPLOYEES think this is a terrible idea.

  68. Required says:

    Well, the damage is already done since it’s not just a blog entry but on the MSDN website and all.

    Try not to screw things up too much, I guess.  

    I suppose it would be hard to be worse than Java 2 Platform SE SDK 5.0 (version 1.5).  

    I don’t know who all these version games for SDKs are aimed – pointy-harded bosses or something I guess.  PROGRAMMERS like SIMPLE version systems that MAKE SINCE, not stupid games.  That still applies when you’re MARKETING TO PROGRAMMERS.  (At least, I hope so.  Maybe all these game actually work…)

  69. Mighell l’ha già annunciato qui. A quanto pare WinFX diventerà .NET Framework 3.0. E’ sicuramente una…

  70. BC says:

    If your day job exists around using these frameworks, could explain your day job to your mother?

    "So what are you working on?"

    "Computers…"

  71. Timothy Fries says:

    This is a terrible idea, just for the incongruity between the CLR version and the product version.  Was -nothing- learned from the whole "just name everything .NET" debacle several years back?

  72. T. Wang says:

    Hi, Somasegar,

    I don’t think .Net 3.0 is a clear/good solution. Since the base (CLR) didn’t change, it just extends the components, So .Net 2.1 or .Net 2.5 should be better than .Net 3.0.

    Otherwise, it will involve new problem, When we talking about 3.0, is it mean .Net 3.0 or CLR 3.0? especially after CLR 3.0 released. It will confused people, which is worse than confuse on WinFX and .Net.

  73. Po pierwsze właśnie ściągam film z prezentacją LinQ, z której mam nadzieje się dowiedzieć więcej o Entities….

  74. G.T. says:

    It is a great idea!

    Today we have tons of code running either under 1.1 or 2.0, and upgrading some of the code from 1.1 to 2.0 was painful, this is why the code runs side by side.

    Having 3.0 as a separate .NET platform is the right thing to do, we can then easily have parts of the application running in 3.0 (for the new features) without braking the entire application that runs under 2.0 and 1.1

  75. Makes a lot of sense to me and the reasoning behind this is a theme we’ve been trying to stress at the…

  76. It makes perfect sense… The CLR is solid and does not require much in terms of core development anymore, so lets start calling the extended libraries the .NET Framework as well.

    That was a very wise move!!!

    Namaste

  77. Eu passei os últimos meses estudando e falando de WinFX pelo Brasil afora (São Paulo, Belém do Pará,…

  78. Colin says:

    >>We are confident that this change will go a long way towards reducing confusion people may have about our developer platform and the technologies in which they should invest. <<

    Really? I don’t think so. What is clear to me is that you guys are freaking morons and MSFT clearly lost all its good people years ago.

  79. Marek says:

    "The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components…"

    Oh my, come on guys! Confusing, illogical… We love .NET, and you do this to us?!

  80. Take a look at this very recent excerpt and follow the link to Soma Somasegar’s blog to learn more about…

  81. Arron says:

    Man, I hope this is a late April Fool’s joke.

  82. John Lewin says:

    This is a terrible idea… One of the most confusing aspects of the original .NET branding was Microsoft tried to put too many elements into the box of .NET. It seems to me there was Exchange Server.NET, Windows Server.NET etc. There was a breakdown in what new thing .NET was and what old things were just rebranded. Fortunately, after enough time passed, it became obvious that .NET was really the framework and even though Windows might ship with it, Windows wasn’t .NET. I’m now able to explain to customers the value of the runtime and framework and use a single brand name. It’s understandable to think that WinFX equals .NET 3.0 on some levels, but I feel it convolutes what the brand represents and in no way clarifies what WinFX is. It’s combining too much while totally confusing what the 3.0 in .NET refers to. This is the original problem with Exchanger Server.NET all over again. If you want to combine them under a brand, rename the next version of .NET to the WinFX Runtime and get rid of the brand with the dot in it. Please don’t ship .NET 2+ with WinFX as .NET 3.0 without LINQ!

  83. I just noticed a blog post made yesterday by S. Somasegar (the vice president in charge of developer…

  84. Jonathan says:

    This is just a bad idea. WinFX is a solid name. It sounds polished. .NET was a stepping stone to get us to what WinFX is. Sure its the next version but its so complete. Should have stuck with WinFX.

  85. Douwe says:

    I went to the PDC03, the Longhorn PDC. In retrospect that was time and money very(!) poorly spend.

    I bought into the idea that managed code would be the way to develop apps for Longhorn. Now Vista arrives we see that Microsoft has decided otherwise… Managed Code is hard to find. (Same goes for the new Office.)

    The leftovers of the failed Longhorn project are now merged into the .NET Framework. This new "3.0" release will introduce just another version to keep in mind and probably cause problems, without any clear benefit.

    Why not just let this be seperate components until the real 3.0 ships?

  86. WinFX has been renamed to .NET Framework 3.0!

    .NET Framework 3.0 includes

    Windows Presentation Foundation…

  87. While many of you haven’t yet migrated to .NET Framework 2.0 due to the corporate policy or other reasons…

  88. Sad_Developer.NET says:

    Here you go! Why does this happen always? Only when we got used to .NET, you stopped dropping .NET moniker like a hot cake! No .NET in VS 2005, no .NET in VB 2005 and same is the case with bunch of other products like Passport and SQL 2005. While the whole world is just getting in terms with WinFX, you say .NET is back with a bang! Kudos to Soma and his team who are out there just to confuse the gullible and confused Microsoft developer. I guess you have still not figured the huge mistake of VB to VB .NET switch. You are just shooting yourself on your foot. SUN is out there to build a VB6 and a VB.NET compiler for JVM and is becoming a pied-piper for VB developers. Go Soma go and drive all those great MS and .NET developers away…

    I just hate being asked to call the same stuff with a bunch of different names just because a marketing moron feels so! I HATE THIS!!!

  89. Fduch says:

    Did you ever thight of having a poll when making such deceisions?

    Do you mind developers’ opinions?

  90. Fduch says:

    "we have decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0"

    Please tell us who "we" are. So that we know who to blame for that.

    P.S. Also useful in Voodoo…

  91. keylime says:

    I just posted the text below at Slashdot (http://tinyurl.com/p7kaw) and it was suggested to me that I should let you know what I wrote.  I am actually trying to be helpful (in case it sounds a little rantish).

    ###

    If you get a chance to pass along my comment (below) to someone in Microsoft’s marketing department I would appreciate it.

    I have largely avoided Microsoft products over the past 20 years because I couldn’t easily figure out what is what. It seems like every six months or so Microsoft renames their technologies in an effort to make them sound new. The actual result (in my case anyway) has been to think "Crap! I just got through learning FOO and now they’re dropping it for BAR! I’m going to forget about Microsoft as it is clearly a technological treadmill and the people involved have no long term vision of where they are going!".

    The fact that BAR is just FOO with a new name and a few tweaks doesn’t change things. Now I can’t tell when I am reading a three month old article about FOO if *any* of it still applies. It is all incredibly *DAMN* frustrating!

    What I want are products with major, minor, and patch version numbers. The product name should never EVER change. Patch number changes should be fixes and only break existing code that depended in some way on the bug. Minor number changes should be enhancements with zero breakage of existing code. Major number changes can break existing code but should try not to.

    Thank you for reading and I hope someone in marketing will get the message. I like what I have seen of the latest crop of Microsoft development tools but I am too spooked by Microsoft marketing to believe investing my time in learning the ins and outs won’t ultimately be wasted.

    ###

  92. nas says:

    it is abundantly clear that there is a wide variety of morons who post comments on here.

    the transition makes absolute sense because .NET 3.0 is a new package of toys.  some toys are .NET 2.0 with updates or not (simply recompiling/version change), but others are *BRAND NEW* (WPF, WCF, etc).  So, ".NET 3.0" is the correct FAMILY OF TOYS for developers to use.  Any code running against a .NET 2.0 (branded as .NET 3.0) CLR will run w/o many problems.

    i feel ashamed to be identified as a .NET developer when 95% of other .NET developers are a bunch of whiny crybabies who just don’t get their head out of their arses!

  93. After a twelve hour journey – from Brussels over London – I arrived in Boston where I will be attending…

  94. Marco Russo says:

    Se serviva la parola &quot;fine&quot; all’ambizione di avere con Longhon un sistema operativo basato su una nuova…

  95. Chris Lang says:

    Thank you nas! It makes perfect sense for 3.0 to be a new release. A whole bunch of new code to play with in the framework? 3.0! Who ever said that the CLR, C#, etc, etc had to follow the framework version?

    I too, am ashamed to be lumped in with the rest of the commentors crying over a version change. This shouldn’t break your 2.0 apps – life will go on. Is it really THAT hard to remember the difference between 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 etc?

  96. In a fairly quiet announcement, made on a blog (noteworthy all by itself!), Microsoft has decided to…

  97. DISAPPOINTED says:

    Sadly, I just bought Developer 2005 and Microsoft is spinning the hell out of what should be called .Net 2.1

       * 2.0 With some new libraries and frameworks

          (VISTA ONLY).

    Sorry dude, I’m not walking in cash these days and I’m perfectly happy with my XP, so no Vista a couple of years for me.

    Your organization is undermining MY MARKETING of developing my 2.0 .Net skills.   Lest we forget how shortly Developer 2005 has been in non-beta status and what percentage of folks have upgraded so far.

    The 3.0 naming scheme is disingenuous marketing tripe to make it appear bigger for VISTA.  Generally within the industry a version jump of this magnitude means so much more.  If you could automatically update my 2.0 for no charge and automatically GIVE PRODUCTION LEVEL-SUPPORT for something innovative and different as LINQ, then you would be deserving of a 3.0 title.  LINQ isn’t just another typical library either, since it extends static type checking into facets newer language constructs that don’t exist today.

    Maneuvers like these breed distrust.  This extra little claim of fame from marketing for VISTA is pissing me off.  Second most people will not see it on the list below the top 15  

    Market VISTA on its on Merits and how well it plays with the 2.0/2.1 .Net framework and you’ll be doing Microsoft a favor and other valuable customers/developers like me too.

    Don’t bother giving me a wink and nudge about how it’s technically really the same for now.  The IT market is too tight for pulling that crap with a straight face, unless you’re willing to lie.  I’m still an ethical individual and won’t engage in such practices.   That is the reality a lot of architects and developers have to live with.

    Even if I did learn the newer libraries and Vista better than my counterparts, having them lie about 3.0 when just knowing 2.0 only sufficiently, could dilute the differentiating factors I sought to build.

    A lot of applications and jobs are not low resource gigs and require larger teams.  I generally don’t have time to perform in depth technical interviews to separate the wheat from the chaff when determining whether all CV/Resume claims are substantially vetted.   Microsoft doesn’t need to make the potential situation any murkier.  Handling different cultures and non-directly candidates makes it difficult enough.

    Thanks,

    Deeply Concerned

  98. Diego Vega says:

    Those are welcome news. I don’t want to say I told you, but I remember I suggested John Montgomery to stick to the .NET branding in a comment to his blog, back in November 2003. That was just after the PDC in which all these new technologies were announced.

    The general consensus by then was that the.NET branding had been completely eroded by the various marketing mistakes Microsoft made (like adding the .NET moniker to products that did not carry the CLR).

    But I told him that we developers were not that much confused and that we always got the story right.

    It is nice to see that once more Microsoft does as I want 😉

  99. It makes complete sense. Read more.

  100. OPC Diary says:

    Somasegar’s WebLog : .NET Framework 3.0 …

  101. Mehran Nikoo says:

    Wouldn’t it be better if it was called .NET Framework 2.x (say 2.5) to highlight its reliance on CLR 2.0? This way you could use 3.0 for C# 3.0, LINQ and other new features…

    Also do you have any plans about baking Atlas into this new version of the framework?

  102. Fduch says:

    Lets stick together .Net Framework 2.0, Team Foundation Server, Excel and OneCare and call this set of "innovative" technologies .Net Framework 4.0.

    I’s simple, because it’ll have single installer.

    People are confused, because they don’t know what OneCare means, but now they have famimiliar .Net Framework 4.0 to deal with. Green light to safe developement.

  103. James says:

    It looks like WinForms are just there for compatibility in .NET 3.0.

    Hope you didn’t spend too long learning them

  104. のぶろぐ says:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx

    どうやらWinFX(←コードネーム)の正式な名前は「.NET Framework…

  105. ZioTom says:

    What about community sites that already are using WinFX? Sites such as http://www.roadtowinfx.com, http://www.winfxguide.com, http://www.winfx247.com, http://www.winfxitalia.com, just to name a few? Can you imagine a name such as http://www.dotnetframeworkthree247.com? And WinFx was a cute name 🙂

  106. ххуйъ says:

    зосунь сибе фдупло нах амереганский иплан .NET 3.0 бля WinFX атсаси .NET Framework ебучее зомбе.

  107. Dmitry Vorobyev says:

    Whatever we post here, the thing is done, and even Wikipedia has already reacted to the changes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFX. But why don’t you guys conduct some poll to research if consumers of your great products DO want these changes? Why simply "we have decided" – should we just silently accept all of your decisions?

  108. First thought is: &quot;Wow, I haven’t yet get really started with v2.0, and now they bring 3.0.&quot; 🙂 Well,…

  109. A picture is worth a 1,000 words.  Thanks!

  110. Et-soft says:

    Okay, .Net 1.0 – .Net 1.1 – .NET 2.0 -.Net 3.0

    When will .Net 4.x released?

    will .Net3 realy be more understandable this time ?

    And what about C++ .Net, what are the changes now?

    __gc, ^ or will it be * ?

    Why another framework?

  111. regix says:

    I think the main goal of M$ is to keep the devs busy with trying to understand their stuff so that there’s absolutely no time for them to try out other and better frameworks like Qt or Java (to some degree)

  112. http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx

    WinFX라는 이름이 .NET이 없어지는 것처럼 보였던 이미지 때문에…

  113. Vineri am anunţat că vom utiliza numele de .Net Framework 3.0 pentru tot ce-a &#238;nsemnat p&#226;nă acum .Net…

  114. Enjoy.NET says:

    Aufgrund der allgemeinen Frage &quot;Was wird aus .NET, alle reden von WinFX&quot; ist mit fast 100%iger Sicherheit…

  115. Express says:

    Good.

    With Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), formerly code-named Indigo having its own implementation to provide the latest and greatest in Web Services standard. It was darn confusing whether we need to use the web services framework in .net 2.0 or use WCF for future compatibility with the next gen framework.

    Now we are guaranteed that WCF will keep up with compiler changes in the .net framework.

    There is a similar issue with SQLXML classes hope that get integrated with the .net framework too.

  116. DkAmirit says:

    This gonna make new developers of .NET to missunderstand what is going on. A realy good idea is to name WinFX .NET 2.5… Make poll on that on the http://www.microsoft.com is good idea.

    Regards

  117. There is some confusion about the recent announcement on .NET Framework 3.0.&amp;nbsp; Let’s try to clear…

  118. Fduch says:

    "Let’s try to clear… "

    He he…  This is the source of the confusion.

  119. El vicepresidente Somasegar, ha anunciado recientemente algunas de las gu&#237;as a seguir en lo que se refiere…

  120. Andre says:

    ".NET Framework has becomes the most successful developer platform in the world."

    How do you define ‘successful’ and on which numbers is this assumption based?

    Isn’t the low adaption of .NET the true reason for the renaming?

    I think it is pretty clear to everyone that you just had to put the .NET label on an other product.

  121. cowgaR says:

    I agree with comments above that it isn’t disaster calling new package of new toys .NET framework x.x instead of WinFX, but the versioning should be 2.5!

    It would indicate CRL 2.0 / compilers from 2.0 or C# 2.0. It is only logicall that features (like WPF) from 2.5 wouldn’t be avaiable in 2.0. We had this scenario with 1.1, which already had features that 1.0 missed!

    It this new MARKETING (boom! on this word) renaming for Vista to look cool, we will have C#3.0 with LINQ etc, which won’t work in .NET 3.0 but in .NET 3.5 which is more messy (0.5 should indicate only some feature addons not language/compilers change!). Solution is to rename it to C# 4.0 and skip some version number like in DirectX history.

    AH!

  122. Fduch says:

    The reason I don’t like the change:

    I’d like WPF, WCF etc become part of .Net Framework. But I don’t like the fact that original class libraries  and compilers are "betrayed".

    It would be good to ADD WPF etc to .Net Framework 3.0.

    But you’re just bundling WPF with .Net Framework 2.0 and calling that 3.0. That doesn’t make sense.

  123. Fduch says:

    Will you say after a year:

    "  .NET FX 4.0 is based on .NET FX 3.0 and will therefore use the 3.0 compilers which are 2.0 compilers." ?

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

  125. KB says:

    How about calling it .NET framework 2FX or 2+… When technical people (developers, IT) meet with decision makers 3.0 will just be more cause for silly comments about marketing, as ".NET enterprise servers" and ".NET passport" did, and distracts from the fact that really Microsoft is adding to an already stable framework rather than a bleeding edge .0 release.

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

  127. I ran across an amusing bit of news today that seems to be receiving mixed reactions among the .NET developer community. Yes, the .NET Framework 3.0 is upon us…

  128. wpSlider says:

    What I’d really like to know is when Visual Studio For .NET 3.0 will be released???

    How’s that for being confused.

  129. Oneda says:

    Li no blog do Alfred que a Microsoft decidiu rebatizar o WinFX, nova API do Windows, para .NET Framework…

  130. I’m a little slow on this one due to having a life on the weekend (well, a life without work anyway),…

  131. richardt says:

    Oren – Not sure if your comments were aimed more at .NET or InfoCard, but since you explicitly name the latter, I guess your concerns are around the interoperability of CardSpace (formerly "InfoCard").

    Nothing has changed here. CardSpace is just InfoCard with a "real" name. All that you’ve (clearly) come to understand about this technology remains true.

    CardSafe is Microsoft’s implementation of the core user experience of the Identity Metasystem. CardSafe communicates between identity providers and relying parties using open standard protocols in order to provide an open, inclusive environment in which identity and other forms of personal information can be securely exchanged.

    Hope this clears up your concerns on this front.

  132. Asa cum spunea si Todi, numele de marketing al noului framework va fi .NET Framework 3.0. Chiar daca…

  133. Picked this up from Soma’s blog:

    …we have decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0.&amp;nbsp;…

  134. Thorn says:

    hehe 🙂 M$ can’t catch up their own technologies. :)) It’s dangerous game, dudes! Once in future people will throw away your _ucking "new" API and go to Linux.

  135. Kea says:

    What’s frightening about a .NET 3.0 version instead of a major upgrade of .NET 2.0 to some 2.1 like 1.1 was to 1.0, is that developers would have to obtain Visual Studio Orcas/2007 in order to compile assemblies that target version 3.0 without having to go to Notepad… It’s already spoken that VS2005 is one way to go to develop for Windows Vista, but a major version change indicates that a new version of VS is needed to develop for it.

    Still, I agree that it the correct name most likely IS .NET Framework "some version above 2.0", but also that it makes it hard for developers who are currently targeting something named WinFX.

    So yes, it is wrong to rename products, because it is confusing, and a lot more reasons, but this time it has been changed towards what should always have been.

  136. Jonas says:

    "What I’d really like to know is when Visual Studio For .NET 3.0 will be released???

    How’s that for being confused."

    Visual Studio 2005 will work great with .NET Framework 3.0.

  137. MVPKenLin says:

    I do think, calling is .NET 2.x is better than .NET 3.0

  138. Fozzy says:

    Holy Jeebus! What a bunch of whiny-ass bishes. I too am embarrassed to be associated with this bunch of losers. If you guys can’t even keep a version change straight in your head, you shouldn’t be developers.

    Secondly, it’s Microsoft’s product. They can do whatever they want with it. If mentally converting WinFX to .NET 3.0 is too hard for you, you can always create your own awesome framework/language/compiler.

    Or you can put your tail between your legs and go slink off to Java, and functionality 5 years behind Microsoft.

    Otherwise, STFU…

  139. Doug says:

    Gah, a chance to rename it, and MS stick with .Net? Has noone mentioned what a nightmare it is searching the internet for that? I’m fed up with pages with domainname.net being returned adding to the noise already created with splogs.

    And CardSafe isn’t a very good name imo either. We’re in the 21st Century, I think its safe to drop the metaphors of ye olde worlde without confusing us mere mortals.

  140. Garry Trinder says:

    What about the cost of having to reprint all .NET v2 books, as no one will buy a V2 book once V3 is shipping…

    Likewise with all the MCP exams, all the V2 .NET exams have just had there values reduced by this name change.

  141. &amp;nbsp;&quot;You can think of WinFX like .NET 3.0,&quot; I often said, while explaining how these new technologies…

  142. richardt says:

    Kea – No, you won’t need a whole new version of Visual Studio to compile .NET FX 3.0 applications – just as you don’t need a new version of Visual Studio 2005 to compile WinFX apps today. This is just a packaging and naming consolidation, not a major upheaval.

    And to the points raised in the comments on this blog – everything you know about .NET FX 2.0 will still apply in .NET FX 3.0 – this is why we’re not planning any major updates to .NET FX 2.0 – it’s a great platform with awesome capabilities.

    Most of the “changes” in .NET FX 3.0 are additive – the inclusion of Windows Communications, Presentation and Workflow Foundation, and CardSpace.

    Regarding why we didn’t call this .NET FX 2.1/2.5/whatever is that the additional technologies included in .NET FX 3.0 are a significant addition above and beyond the existing shipping .NET FX 2.0. When we shipped .NET FX 1.1, there were some fundamental changes to the classes included in .NET FX 1.0 – this isn’t the case with .NET FX 3.0 – hence the specific choice of .NET Framework 3.0.

    This naming change may, at first glance appear a little confusing but we strongly believe that consolidating all our managed developer technologies into one long-term platform will offer greater simplicity and consistency than introducing (yet) another developer technology branding of WinFX.

  143. richardt says:

    Comments including this one: http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx#625064 regarding the "Tacking of Windows onto products such as CardSafe":

    This is necessary. In order for Microsoft to protect its implementation of the user experience of the Identity Metasystem. Just as it will be necessary for IBM, Sun, Apple, (name your) Linux distro, etc., to protect their implementation of a similar feature.

    This formal naming of the Windows feature (as mentioned earlier) in no way impacts or changes Microsoft’s commitment to and support of the necessary WS-* protocols to enable CardSpace to interoperate with other technologies and platforms.

  144. The most talked about platform – the Winfx that encompassed the major breakthroughs including the Communication…

  145. Rui Craveiro says:

    Good call. After all, it is the .NET framework itself that has evolved. The best of it is that the CLR will remain V2 for some time, so it is evolving from growth rather than from change. .NET is Good! 😀

  146. Microsoft did it again. MS is going to release .Net Framework 2.0 bundled with WinFX under the name .Net…

  147. BM Bloggers says:

    WinFX 3.0 is now .Net Framework 3.0

    With the aim of providing us with consistency Soma has announced…

  148. I’m a bit worried. To what extent are you going to bloat out the *already huge* .NET framework to include WinFX?

    Please do NOT forget about those of us trying to build real-world applications on the .NET framework TODAY. We have to distribute the .NET runtimes to customers, and it’s already difficult due to the massive size.

    Please just keep this in mind.

  149. C# Distilled says:

    While attending Microsoft TechEd 2006 in Boston, I became aware of a blog posting that was posted on…

  150. I’ve always assumed &quot;WinFx&quot; was just a codename for the new&amp;nbsp;developer technologies coming in the…

  151. Good Move..

      Finally Its nice to hear this news. Many of my friends used to ask about WinFx…But I used to say its a superset of .NET 2.0 and going to be the future languages etc…..But now it would be easy for anyone to recognize and understand the new technology with ".NET Framework 3.0"- – Really great timing move..Keep going

    Mahesh

  152. Jeff Stong says:

    This is all over the Microsoft blogs: so if you’re following them you’ve no doubt already seen this (more…

  153. Gary says:

    This name change is only going to ADD confusion. You’ve been telling us for a long time now that 3.0 is "Orcas" and now it’s CLR 2.0, C# 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0, and some new libraries.

    If you have to change it from WinFX, at least increment the minor version and not the major version number. You’re only making it worse.

  154. ".NET Framework has becomes the most successful developer platform in the world."

    I must’ve missed the news when .NET surpassed Java…

  155. Letzten Freitag wurde bekannt, da&#223; WinFx nun die dritte Version des .NET Frameworks werden wird (Somasegar’s…

  156. A lot of people are avoiding .net , DRM and staforce protected programs . A big Anti .net push is happening lately

    Nlite allows the removal of .net , MS IE , MS OE , MS WMP

    and other things and the intergration of better programs.

    It will be good when Nlite supports Vista and people can

    remove from Vista – MS IE , MS OE , MS WMP , dot net,

    turn off a load of services, remove unwanted bloat .

  157. On Friday, Microsoft announced the name change of WinFX to &quot;.NET Framework 3.0&quot; and also changed the

  158. Grim says:

    I’m with the crowd that thinks this is a Bad Thing®.

    What was the big problem with leaving it separate from the core framework, like the Enterprise Libraries, until the CORE of the framework moved up to version 3 (at which time it would have made sense to roll WinFX into the framework.)

    When it comes down to it, when most developers think of the .Net Framework, they’re thinking of the core "System" libraries.  Calling this .Net Framework 3.0 is going to confuse a lot of people (that don’t read MS blogs) into thinking there really is a new framework (and a new version of Visual Studio), when there isn’t.

  159. I rely think MS shouldn’t include more than the CLR and BCL in .Net Framework, and especialy anything that is pure windows technology. By doing this they won’t be able to release a true new version of .Net Framework without updating all of those satelite technologies wich defeats the very purpose of versioning buit into .Net.

  160. Die Programmierschnittstelle WinFX geht ab sofort im .NET Framework 3.0 auf.

    Dies verk&#252;ndet der Leiter…

  161. As you probably heard by now, WinFX is now .NET Framework 3.0. If you didn’t, check out the announcement…

  162. Fduch says:

     The bad thing is not merging WinFx into .Net. But because of this you delayed improvements to .Net Framework. You cut off C# 3.0 and VB.Net 9.0 , LinQ….. You put in trash compiler enchantments. Delayed the evolution of the platform.

    You betrayed .Net developers.

     Isn’t it bad? If you release such ".Net 3.0" with Vista, you’ll ruin the future of .Net. How may years will pass before you will release C# 3.0 and VB.Net 9.0 ? You’ll delay them for years!

  163. Antonio Sánchez de Tagle says:

    Why making FX2.0+WinFX = FX3.0??? Why??? There is nothing on WinFX that could make it FX3.0. WinFX is built on FX2.0, so why we must take it as FX3.0. Please leave it like it is.  Dont your learn nothing from your last Win16, Win32, Win64 mess??? Please, .NET FX is .NET FX. WinFX is WinFX. .NET FX is a sole entity, WinFX needs .NET FX. Dont mess them.

  164. Srikanth says:

    May be .net2.0 Enterprise Edition or a name akin would be sufficient for including Avalon, Indigo etc and would properly communicate the new additions.  Its a sad decision, I cannot imagine .Net 3.0 without C#3.0 and CLR 3.0

  165. Mike says:

    You guys are missing the point: .NET Framework has always been about shipping a suite of runtime pieces.  Imagine if a user could install pieces separately, like WCF, WPF, etc, instead all together as one set of technologies.  It’s much easier for Microsoft to ship everything as .NET Framework 3.0 and support all platforms.  This way you know that if they have ".NET Framework 3.0" on their machine then they have all the associated technologies.  You cannot install WPF separately, that’s dead now with the new naming, and that’s a good thing.    Forget about what the individual technologies within the version are numbered, i.e. WPF is 1.0, .NET is 2.0.  That’s doesn’t matter.  The entire suite is .NET 3.0 and it’s all or none when you install it.

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

  167. The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX brand didn’t convey this.  The…

  168. WinFX turns into .NET 3.0

  169. Somasegar, Corporate Vice President of Microsof’s Developer Division, has announced that the WinFX brand…

  170. I recently attended the RealDevelopment 06 tour here in Vancouver and had the change to listen John Bristowe…

  171. Chris says:

    So, does this mean that .NET 3.0 won’t support Windows 98, ME, or 2000?  Or will just the FX components not support these operating systems?

  172. Fduch says:

    2Mike: you don’t get the point. Because of this we won’t be able to use next generation of languages and compilers for long time.

    And if they recompile BCL with v 3.0 ….. I guess that will be the end.

    They are going to replace .Net Framework 2.0 only after a year….

  173. iBlog says:

    Vista programming model WinFX has been renamed to .NET Framework 3.0. .Net Framework 3.0 consists of…

  174. Mike Mathison says:

    I think there is some confusion here between the concept of _description_ and the concept of  _brand_. Descriptions (like, say, ‘version 2’ or ‘framework’) convey potentially useful information about what something actually _is_, whereas the ill-defined concept of _brand_ exists primarily to provide justification for the employment of border-line personality disordered corporate parasites who spend their lives inventing half-baked content-free word salads that could otherwise have been provided at substantially lower cost by a committee of below average ten-year-olds.

    As such, branding and the resulting confusion and loathing left in its wake is best regarded as an occupational hazard of _being_alive_at_the_moment_ and should therefore be ignored as far as possible (in the hope that it will eventually go away, or at least subside). In short- I think we should all just try not to worry about this.

  175. staceyw says:

    Thanks You!!

    This make perfect sense and should have been the direction from the start.  Glad to see it.  Cheers.

  176. S. &quot;Soma&quot; Somasegar, corporate vice president of the Developer Division at Microsoft Corporation, announced…

  177. <a href=’http://www.yahoo.com‘></a>Thanks! http://www.insurance-top.com/auto/”>http://www.insurance-top.com/auto/ <a href=’http://www.insurance-top.com‘>auto insurance</a>. <a href="http://www.insurance-top.com ">Insurance car</a>: auto site insurance, car site insurance, The autos insurance company. Also [url]http://www.insurance-top.com/car/[/url] and [link=http://www.insurance-top.com]insurance quote[/link] from site .

  178. Thanks!!! http://www.insurance-top.com/company/”>http://www.insurance-top.com/company/ car site insurance. [URL=http://www.insurance-top.com]home insurance[/URL]: auto site insurance, car site insurance, The autos insurance company. Also [url=http://www.insurance-top.com]cars insurance[/url] from website .

  179. Hi! http://www.insurance-top.com/company/ car site insurance. auto site insurance, car site insurance, The autos insurance company. from website .

  180. WinFX will hence be called .NET Framework 3.0. Read more about this at Soma’s blog and find answers to…

  181. Late last week, Soma posted the news that we’re harmonising the naming for .NET and WinFX under one umbrella:…

  182. jpatel says:

    WinFX + .NET 2.0 SHOULD EQUAL .NET 2.X

    I understand WinFX + .NET 2.0 EQUALS .NET 3.0, but my management is just not going to understand.

  183. See Win App says:

    A while back, I had an acquaintance of mine at another company make the statement &quot;Microsoft is dropping…

  184. Web Reporter says:

    .NET Framework 3.0 will ship with Vista.

    When speaking to developers about WinFX one question that…

  185. atul.kale says:

    I had an understanding before that WinFX components will be available with the .NET Framework itself. Couldn’t think f any other possibility. However, calling it 3.0 is a bit too much. Anyways good thing is that we’ve already started coding in .NET 3.0 😉

  186. Microsoft has just announced the change of the name of WinFX to .NET 3.0:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx

  187. Teiman says:

    I notice the trackbacks on this blog are mangled. Maybe a charset detection is needed, and recode (and translit) everything to UTF8.

  188. jake.stateresa says:

    i was just wondering where the standards went on this decision. will they be submitting specification ECMA on implementing WINFX/.Net 3.0? can’t it just be called Windows.Net for that matter since this is like the next version of the windows api.

  189. Microsoft a officiellement annonc&#233; le changement de nom de WinFX (l’ensemble des API fournies avec Vista),…

  190. Microsoft a officiellement annonc&#233; le changement de nom de WinFX (l’ensemble des API fournies avec Vista),…

  191. Sinmin says:

    I hope .Net framework (2.0 or 3.0) will be included in  the Windows XP beta3, so that our winForm application can released without another .Net Framework to make it run.

  192. Brennon Williams says:

    Howdy,

    I should make it clear from the outset that I am a big supporter of Microsoft and the software you create.

    What I find troubling is the fact you continue to create all this stuff… without fixing what you have alreardy released.

    I have been working on a VSIDE user control inheritence issue for 2 days now… I also have unanswered defects in the msdn forumns regarding WinFX, Cider and all the rest of it.

    Do you think that you are putting enough resources into maintenence of previously released software?

    I look forward to the new stuff… but please fix the old stuff first.

  193. nolisj says:

    I just wanted to be counted among those who believed deeply that this should be .NET 2.x and not 3.0, for reasons already mentioned above. Enough said.

  194. Sarvjeet says:

    Thats Great to have 3.0

  195. [Via Somesegar]

    …we have decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0.&amp;nbsp; .NET Framework 3.0…

  196. B# .NET Blog says:

    Formerly called WinFX, the official name of the piece of software art is now called .NET Framework 3.0….

  197. BM says:

    MS naming is a nightmare, do they not think before releasing?

  198. World Cup 2006: when taglines attack – &quot;One game changes everything&quot;, the tagline for World Cup 2006, is a little close to the bone for US Soccer fans who watched their team get beaten 3-0 by the Czech Republic. This is an example of an emotionally

  199. Shardool Karnik says:

    Great decision! WinFX is really designed for Vista and should be an entirely different framework version. Most people don’t get that…

  200. Fduch says:

    "MS naming is a nightmare, do they not think before releasing? "

    Yes, they do. They try to find the worst action to make.  And they succeed. Just look at comments. They hit the point.

  201. Phil Wheat says:

    OK, quick question – does this mean Microsoft is ready for the "Microsoft drops .Net support for Windows 2000" headlines?  If WinFX won’t be back ported to Windows 2000 or other operating systems, then by putting WinFX into .Net 3.0 you’re saying that Windows 2000 is no longer a supported .Net platform.

  202. CMSwire says:

    Oh how the excitement of keeping tabs on technology thrills us. To quote S. &amp;#8220;Soma&amp;#8221; Somasegar, Microsoft&amp;#8217;s Corporate Vice President of the Developer Division: &amp;#8220;The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX,

  203. IT’S ALWAYS LIKE THIS WHE YOU START GET THE HANG OF THINGS ,ALWAYS GOTTA COME SOME ONE AND THROW SAND IN THE FAN.

    IT’S ALWAYS BUSINESS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE PURPOSE  OF THIS ALWAYS CHANGING NAMES AND VERSION ,IT’S FOR SELLING COURSES ,BOOKS AND BUY MORE SOFTWARE TO ACCOPLISHOUR TASKS.

    ANYWAY I THINK WAY TO GO IS THE OPENSOURCE.ORG

  204. Soma’s blog post announces the name change of WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0

    The change is only a name…

  205. JasonS says:

    Please don’t do this. You will be making confusion out of a name that has clarity. Microsoft should charish the clarity of the .Net Framework name and not trash their hardwork.  

  206. Evan Camilleri says:

    GIVE US A BREAK….. let us get used to 2.0 first!

  207. Edmundo T. Mendiola says:

    Stupid! .Net Framework 3.0 runs on .Net Framework 2.0. Duh! That’s more confusion in the long run than you can ever imagine…

  208. Edmundo T. Mendiola says:

    Why not .Net Framework 2.1 in the tradition of .Net 1.1? Or .Net Framework 2.5: halfway there but not yet there. I mean come on! .Net Framework 3.0 powered by .Net Framework 2.0. Are you a former Java version confusion master?

  209. Edmundo T. Mendiola says:

    This is the stupidest idea ever. .Net Framework 3.0 runs on .Net Framework 2.0. And don’t you dare think C# 3.0 is here. No, no, no. That will come in .Net Framework 4.0 powered by .Net Framework 3.0. Duh?!

  210. Edmundo T. Mendiola says:

    .Net Framework 3.0 is here. Yipee!!! And it runs on .Net Framework 2.0. Boo!!! It would’ve been better if you just call everything .Net Framework 3.0 and kill the .Net Framework 2.0 thing underneath. Meanwhile, update all "C# 3.0" titles in the LINQ project site, because that "3.0" there is announcing how late the project is all by itself. The future of C# is C# 3.0 — oh, but it won’t ship with .Net Framework 3.0. Duh!

  211. Gary says:

    I would like to know since WinFX was not supported on 98 and 2000, if we build a project on .NET Framework 3.0 and we’re not using any WinFX components, will it still run on 98 and 2000? My employer supports mostly Windows 2000 machines with some Windows XP machines. I would like to still be able to develop for 2000.

  212. Edmundo T. Mendiola says:

    "WinFX"… cool… NOT! Let’s call it .Net Framework 3.0 and confuse the hell out of the poor .Net Framework 2.0 late adopters… harharhar… evil!!! Duh!

  213. Smith, A. says:

    Even you manage technically to get it right this is first a very bad managerial decision, very bad communicated, etc.

    It demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the world outside of the MS labs, more specific – the enterprise environments where .Net platform started to get some acceptance.

    it seems that you had in mind just consumer PCs

    very sad day 🙁

  214. Just Coding says:

    Since Soma announced the official rename from WinFx to .Net 3.0 everyone is talking about it here, here…

  215. Anand says:

    As i understand it, .NET framework is just .NET Framework 2.0 + Win FX runtime components. It should be named as .NET framework 2.5 or something instead of naming with big version number change. This will really confuse the developers.

  216. ken says:

    i havent tried it yet but i will let you kmow.

  217. Sad_Developer.NET says:

    Soma and Dev Div,

    Are you listening? Do you care for what the developers and customers really want?

    It is indeed sad that you have great technologies (mis)handled by a bunch of marketing jokers!!!

    Wake up and fix things before more damage is done!

    I hope you are reading the comments posted. I also hope it is you who is really blogging and not a proxy from the marketing and corp. affairs!

  218. Kelly says:

    I really hate this change,  WinFX was cool and was sold as a replacement for Win32.  We we told we would finally have an OS API that was object oriented and managed and was not just a platform on top of Win32.

    Renaming it to .NET 3.0 and leaving it on a 2.0 CLR is going to add a lot of confusion, especially when "Orcas" is released, are we going to have .NET 3.1 then?  

    Please DO NOT DO THIS.  This will just confuse everyone, the old questions of "what is .NET anyway" will all come back.

    If anything make WinFX the furture of the .NET Framework.  Drop the .NET name and use WinFX for this release, the next release can be WinFX 2.0 or even 3.0.

  219. Aleksey says:

    I think this idea is just plain awful and appalling…

  220. There are lots of interesting stuff happening right now! Primarily I’m thinking about BizTalk Server…

  221. Wow, it is great to see the level of passion around the .NET Framework!&amp;nbsp; I wanted to add some additional…

  222. S.Somasegar says:

    Check out this blog entry from Jason Zander who runs the CLR and Frameworks team at Microsoft.

    It tries to shed some light on some of the questions and issues that people have raised here.

    http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2006/06/13/630066.aspx

    – somasegar

  223. In the past nobody referred to ADO, COM+, MSMQ, … as "The Windows DNA Framework" v1.0/v2.0 or v2.5. It is therefore my opinion that this is a good opportunity to reconsider the meaning for "The .NET Framework". There is loosely coupling to some degree between the different .NET components, for example I can perfectly use ADO.NET without the need to use WPF. So why but everything in a single installer package and call it "The .NET Framework"? I don’t want to tell the System Admins that they need to deploy the .NET Framework 3.0 (100MB installer package?) on 13.000 clients just because one of our company programs uses WPF.

  224. Depuis quelques temps, lorsque je fais une pr&#233;sentation qui traite de &#171;&#160;InfoCard&#160;&#187;, je commence toujours…

  225. S.Somasegar says:

    To the person who wanted to know if I am the one really blogging – yes, I am the one blogging.

    – somasegar

  226. It is amazing how big an impact names and terminology have on how we think. If you haven’t heard, Soma…

  227. Posted at Ardent Dev by Derek Hatchard (Go directly to post):  

      In case you’ve missed all the noise…

  228. I am hanging out at Tech-Ed 2006 in Boston this week. After 2 days, I must it continues to amaze me how…

  229. Keets says:

    Well in the marketing perspective renaming of WinFx to .NET 3.0 is okay.

    Though there is an utterly confusion of code names of pre-saled products of microsoft. e.g Avalon, Indigo, Hailstorm, Whidbey, a lot more…

    Better to come up with a naming standard/convention  to avoid such confusions

  230. Keets says:

    Its okay

  231. Chris Brooksbank says:

    This is stupid.

    So DotNet3 will contain the dotnet 2.0 CLR, the same as dotnet2 does.

    Suddenly we disconnect the dotnet version number from the CLR version number.

    A confused developer . . .

  232. Viele haben sich sicherlich schon gefragt, wie das alles weitergehen soll mit WinFx und &quot;parallel&quot; dem…

  233. Praneeth Reddy says:

    Don’t think its a good move. Come on guys for some time keep .Net stable like VB 6.0 was.

  234. Marcel Sorger says:

    I think it’s a great move.

    Convincing managers to buy or even install a new product is much harder then an upgrade, so it’s that much sooner that developers can actually use the features.

    It might have even been even beter to name it 2.1, just  like it happened with the first version.

  235. Hello,

    microsoft decided to name WinFX as .NET Framework 3.0 check this:

    .NET Framework 3.0

    Introducing…

  236. Someone asked how to send binary attachments between .NET and WebSphere.

    &amp;nbsp;

    After much wailing…

  237. by the way..

    what happened to Winfs..?? Is it part of .NET 3.0 ??

    Mahesh

  238. Faizal says:

    Nothing in the name…..Lets see what we will get

  239. .NET must die, assembles rule (it’s true!)! 😛

  240. .NET must die, assembler rule (it’s true!)! 😛

  241.  Last Friday Soma announced that WinFX is no more WinFX.&#160; It’s still .NET and WinFX will be .NET 3.0….

  242. Keith Kelly says:

    Wouldn’t ".Net Framework 2.0 R2" (Release 2) have been a better name, since the CLR and other libraries are not changing?

    It would be more consistent with other naming trends in MS, and avoid decorrelating the version of the framework from the CLR!

  243. Dmitry Vorobyev says:

    2Vasya

    .NET must live, assemblies rule 🙂

  244. I agree with Microsoft, and I think a lot of the people who are complaining are confusing things.  My thoughts are here:

    http://blog.cooltechu.com/2006/06/14/WinFX+Is+NET+Framework+30++Yes+It+Does+Make+Sense.aspx

  245. Ramu says:

    Will there be a new version of Visual Studio.Net  out soon?

  246. S.Somasegar says:

    We are currently working on the next version of Visual Studio which we call internally as "Orcas".  Later this year, we will start shipping CTPs of Orcas.

    – somasegar

  247. S.Somasegar says:

    WinFS is not a part of .NET FX 3.0.  The WinFS team continues to make progress and they are continuing to deliver previews and betas to their customers.

    – somasegar

  248. Dan says:

    Will .NET 3.0 be available on WinXP and can I therefore use WPF, WCF on XP or will .NET 3.0 be Vista Only? What about Linq is that included? If not what version of the framework will Orcas be? Are we going to evolve into .NET 2007 naming conventions

  249. Fduch says:

    "Later this year, we will start shipping CTPs of Orcas. "

    Can I ask how long approximately will it’s beta run? Year or longer?

  250. Merlyn says:

    Deploying the .NET Framework 2.0 on windows clients has created a lot of problems in our enterprise, which we now think relates to side by side deployment breaking when apps use the GAC or other dll’s in common without specifying the .NET version in the application config files.  The machine will always use the most current .NET version as the default, unless told to do otherwise.  So we have learned to go back, and always specify the .NET version in 1.1 and 2.0 applications – since you never know when something in a future version will break your current application.  This sounds trivial, but it can be very cumbersome when dealing with hundreds of machines and dozens of apps that have attempted to re-use components and SOA (all best practices, right?) .

    It now sounds to me like we need to put the brakes on any additional 2.0 deployments, since 3.0 is coming out in just 6 months.   Or is 3.0 really 2.0 as far as the ‘real’ framework is concerned?  This is very confusing.  Could this ‘announcement’ have been handled any worse than this?

  251. I think WinFx, should be kept as an add-on or "beta" (even if WCF, WWF, WPC and WCS are final versions), until the arrival of a REAL .NET Framework 3.0 takes place (a .NET FX that is truly 3.0 from its CLR and includes all the stuff announced previously like C#, LINQ, ..plus WCF, WWF, WPF, WCS), if they don’t do that, the only thing that will take place will be "confussion", and these questions: "what is .NET FX 3.0 really? WinFX on .NET 2.0, a whole new .NET FX? an Add-on for .NET 2.0? a new API?" will be flying around the web….for years, years,..years..maybe until .NET FX 4..:S:S!:P hehe…

    Plus, i think they should let .NET FX 2 be used !!!…it’s too soon to release a .NET FX 3.0..and i think (as many ppl here), it’s coz of the release of Vista….

    VS.NET 2005:

       .NET FX 2.0 (What we have now) + WinFX (if you want to use it)

    VS.NET Orcas

      .NET FX 3.0 (C# 3, WCF, WPF, WWF, WCS, ASP.NET 3.0)

  252. I think WinFx, should be kept as an add-on or "beta" (even if WCF, WWF, WPC and WCS are final versions), until the arrival of a REAL .NET Framework 3.0 takes place (a .NET FX that is truly 3.0 from its CLR and includes all the stuff announced previously like C#, LINQ, ..plus WCF, WWF, WPF, WCS), if they don’t do that, the only thing that will take place will be "confussion", and these questions: "what is .NET FX 3.0 really? WinFX on .NET 2.0, a whole new .NET FX? an Add-on for .NET 2.0? a new API?" will be flying around the web….for years, years,..years..maybe until .NET FX 4..:S:S!:P hehe…

    Plus, i think they should let .NET FX 2 be used !!!…it’s too soon to release a .NET FX 3.0..and i think (as many ppl here), it’s coz of the release of Vista….

    VS.NET 2005:

       .NET FX 2.0 (What we have now) + WinFX (if you want to use it)

    VS.NET Orcas

      .NET FX 3.0 (C# 3, WCF, WPF, WWF, WCS, ASP.NET 3.0)

  253. liolao says:

    Interesting thing to note also, is that as always, even though in these comments a lot of interesting and valid questions have come up, there is a complete lack of replies from M$…. Not that I think anyone at m$ cares about what ever is written on this page, but you would at least expect Somasegar to …. say something???

  254. NamJin, Cho says:

    .Net 영원히…

    닷넷이여 영원하라…

    대한민국 짝짝짝짝~

  255. YogaExpert says:

    Why is it getting late to launch them?

    대~한민국~~ 짝짝짝짝~

  256. JasonP says:

    Couldn’t you just do:

    Codename "WinFX" Windows Framework:

    Platform specific managed code API for Windows, based on and extends the .NET Framework.

    Codename "NetFX" .NET Framework:

    Platform independent managed code API for many different environments and devices. Core framework for other managed code APIs.

  257. jasonz says:

    More answers:

    Dan – .NET FX supports XP, Win2K3, and Vista.  LINQ is a feature of Orcas (3.5).  You need both the compiler and new libraries to execute LINQ code.

    Fduch – on Orcas beta times, we haven’t announced ship schedules yet.  But Orcas is not designed to be a major release so a beta cycle of year is unlikely.

    Merlyn – the binding rules for the CLR version are fairly complicated.  If you do a LoadLibrary on a managed object and that is the first time the CLR is loaded (COM CoCreateInstance is a LoadLibrary) then we do pick the highest version of the CLR to make sure we can run everything.  e.g. if 1.1 was loaded first and you tried to load a 2.0 component, it would fail.  Setting a config file for your app is a fine thing to do.  Since the 3.x releases use the 2.0 engine, you can safely continue to mark your config file as requiring the 2.0 CLR.  And you don’t need to put the brakes on your 2.0 roll outs in your enterprise.  You can safely add the 3.0 FX later to take advantage of the new improvements in that release at your convience.

    Javier – I covered this in a blog post in more detail, but I expect the CLR core engine to ship at a slower pace because we want to keep the base stable.  We need to ship improvements above that on the stack on a regular basis.  LINQ is also a bad example to have used:  LINQ does not require a new CLR.  It requires new compilers and new libraries, but it uses the 2.0 gold CLR (generics support in particular).  LINQ is actually a great example of how you can continue to add really cool features without revving the core engine.

    liolao – Soma has responded several times in the thread as have I.  You can read more detailed posts with answers here:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2006/06/09/624629.aspx

    http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2006/06/13/630066.aspx

    Let me know if you have any questions you feel are unanswered here.

    JasonP – The components added to .NET FX 3.0 are not exclusively around Windows API’s.  WCP for example is about general messaging protocols and advanced web services.  We shipped web service API’s all the way back in .NET 1.0; these are just the most advanced versions tracking the latest standards and solving the next set of problems in this space.  As I mentioned in one of my posts, "WinFX" was always meant to be the next version of the full FX.  The fact that people found this so confusing tells me we did a poor job explaining that up front which I apologize for.  I think as you play with the bits you’ll find it isn’t as complicated as it may have sounded at first.

    Jason

  258. Personal says:

    What, already? Well, the .NET Framework 2.0 RTM’ed in Otober last year, so why not? Actually, it has…

  259. Jörgen says:

    The CLR shoud determine the version number so with CLR v2 the version should  be 2.1. Major version number should only be incremented when the CLR changes.

    .NET Framework 1.0 should have been named WinFX 1.0

    I thing Microsoft should drop the name .NET Framework and fully adopt the WinFX name if they intend it to replace Win32.

    I also think they should drop the .NET suffix from names like ADO.NET and ASP.NET

    WinFX should be the managed API

    The WinFX could then consists of the following parts

    – CLR

    – Win Forms

    – ASP

    – ADO

    – WCS

    – WF

    – WCF

    – WPF

    – Linq

    – …

    the W in WCS, WPF, WCF should stand for WinFX and not Windows since WinFX is not part of (a specific) Windows (version)

    When the CLR is updated (to v3) and these parts are updated to require CLR v3 they should be v3.0. If another update comes that is based on CLR v3 that should be v3.1

    is new .NET Framework/WinFX versions supposed to ship along new Windows versions or new Visual Studio Versions?

    When new parts are released for WinFX without changes to the CLR then the Minor version should be incremented. If CLR 3.0 is released and later Linq is released then the WinFX should be v3.1

    I also think that all managed languages and compilers should have # in their name ie VB.NET should be VB# (like C#) and have the same version number as the CLR that they use (VB 2005 should be VB# 2.0 since it uses CLR 2.0)

    One installation directory per CLR version should be used ie

    WindowsWinFXv3.0. The Assemblies should have the major and minor version numbers in their name (ie ADO(.NET) v2.0:  System.Data.v20.dll and ADO(.NET) v2.1: System.Data.v21.dll)

    When releasing a Service Pack increment the third part of the version number (.NET Framework 2.0 SP1 should have version number 2.0.1.*)

  260. Ramprasad says:

    While I don’t have any issues with naming/renaming the platforms/frameworks, I truly believe you guys should slow down the rate of introducing version after version in such  short intervals. This is the case for almost all your software/technology, with the exception of VC++/VB6/COM/COM+/ASP etc (IMHO). For all their shortcomings, they lasted longer and the RoI on those was/is actually very good.

    Not all companies that use your software, have the resources to train or adapt to keep up with Microsoft.

    This is exactly like auto manufacturers marketing and making available their ‘2007’ model in February of 2006.

  261. Ben says:

    This is a very good move on MS’s part.

  262. Moey says:

    Yea, they definitely screwed this up. Fortunately, it’s beta – and hopefully they get it [naming conventions, versioning, proper clr mapping] correct … before it’s too late.

  263. SoWhat says:

    As richardt mentioned in his post on June 12 in this blog,

    the reason MS calls it .Net 3.0 is that the new components

    are significant addition to .Net 2.0.

    When C# 3.0, LINQ, and ASP.Net 3.0 are ready, they will

    name the new framework as .Net 4.0 since these new

    components are significant addition to .Net 3.0. To be

    reasonable, they may rename C# 3.0 as C# 4.0, etc.

    As long as it sounds good from marketing point of view,

    it doesn’t matter to jump from C#2.0 to C# 4.0.

    If such jump looks too bad to developers, MS may simply

    rename whole framework as something called WinX 1.0.

    What I don’t understand is that why MS spends so much

    time and money on name changes. Why doesn’t it spend

    such resources to something that really helps application

    development(such as adding OWC into ASP.Net)?

    It seems to me that MS spends more and more resources

    to get developers switching from other platforms to Win,

    but pays less and less attention to the developers who

    are already in Win camp. That’s the monopoly power.

    What can we do about it? not much…

  264. Thanks!!! http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/”>http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. [URL=http://www.ringtones-dir.com]ringtones download[/URL]: Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones, Cingular ringtones and more. Also [url=http://www.ringtones-dir.com]samsung ringtones[/url] From website .

  265. Hi! http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones, Cingular ringtones and more. From website .

  266. moondaddy says:

    I think renaming WinFX to the Framework 3.0 is a bad idea.  This name change was for branding reasons as people were getting confused about the difference between WinFX and the Framework.  Personally, it all seems very easy to understand.  WinFX as just DLLs written in .NET 2.0.  Upgrading to a new version of the .Net implies that there are significant changes to the underlying architecture such as adding Generic .Net 2.0 where 1.1 didn’t have Generics.  My issue is we are building (and rolling out) a global application that is being used by fortune 100 companies.  Unfortunately, a lot of these big companies are very slow at adopting new technologies.  We have been working very hard to get .Net 2.0 authorized to use.  We were hoping that it would be a minor hurdle to get the blessing to use WinFX once .Net 2.0 becomes authorized since WinFX is written in .Net 2.0.  Even though that’s all it is, just calling it 3.0 will create huge and lengthy obstacles for building and implementing applications using WinFX (.Net 3.0).  This is a big setback in the effort to using the latest and greatest.

  267. Rich Crane says:

    This is causing a great deal of confusion.  This is reminiscent of when Microsoft branded everything with .NET.  I am attending TechEd 2006 and not one person agrees with this name change.

  268. Tal y como lo anunciar&#225; S. &quot;Soma&quot; Somasegar, en un reciente&amp;nbsp;post: .NET Framework 3.0, en su blog….

  269. Dmitry Vorobyev says:

    Apparently major part of the developers community doesn’t like the name change. I’m wondering if MS will consider the opinion of the majority or pretend to be deaf and blind just because the real purpose of this renaming is a bit deeper than making the things more apt?

  270. Mike says:

    Not one person agrees with this name change, except "Microsoft guys" of course…

    Please, Rollback the renaming!!!

  271. Ian Nelson says:

    Gates to end daily MS role, to spend more time running his charitable foundation.&amp;nbsp; Say what you…

  272. Doesn't matter says:

    Microsoft will NOT respond to the vast majority of developers hating this idea. They have proven time and and time again that our opinions do not matter to them – they forge ahead arrogantly, as if they can do no wrong.

    Microsoft, do yourselves (and us) a favor and PAY ATTENTION JUST THIS ONCE TO WHAT YOUR DEVELOPERS ARE TELLING YOU!!

    This is a BAD idea.

  273. Bryant Longley says:

    After reading this blog as well as Jason’s (with associated comments and clarifications) and then thinking about it for a while (first reaction is not always best reaction!) I think I fundamentally agree with the decision.  I have been thinking of WinFX as "part of the framework" for a while now since things like WCF give (among other things) a better "web service" story, so it makes sense to make it the next version of the framework.

    I do believe that Microsoft need to start promoting the version differences between the CLR, Framework and tools. Eg:

    Framework 2.0 running on CLR 2.0 (this is what we currently think of as Framework 2.0)

    Tools (VS 2005) running on CLR 2.0

    Framework 3.0 running on CLR 2.0

    Tools (Orcas) running on CLR 2.0 SP1 (Possibly requiring Framework 3.0 SP1?)

    etc….

    If these clarifications were (explicitly) made then I think it starts to make the whole story a lot simpler to understand (both for developers and for management).  The problem we have now is that there is no distinction between the CLR, Framework and Tools (hence the yells of NOOOOOO…  that have filled this and a number of other blogs). Saying "Framework 3.0 runs on Framework 2.0" is downright confusing however it’s not what is really happening.  These concepts also aren’t unprecedented…  think Visual C++, MFC and Win32 versions (AFAIK these have never had their versions synced together).

    When it comes to Framework compatibility I have no problem with the Framework 3.0 reporting itself to be compatible with 2.0 (which means that apps compiled for 2.0 will "just work" with 3.0).  We’ve done this before with 1.0 to 1.1 and I don’t really care that it’s a major version change because if we remove the marketing aspect the numbers themselves don’t mean that much.  I know that I’m simplifying here but basically this is an issue we can deal with.

    Management does give us a unique headache when it comes to putting a new "major" version of anything on machines (change control is one of those necessary evils…) even when we know that it’s not really *that* major (which is one of the arguments for calling it version 2.5…) however since we all know that 3.0 is simply the inclusion of (what was) WinFX we can simply only deploy this version to machines that need these services.  Of course this means that Microsoft would need to support (e.g. service packs, etc) 2.0 along with 3.0 for at least a little while (are you guys planning on doing this?) and possibly allow us to choose at compile time whether we want to target Runtime 2.0 or 3.0.  Whether this latter need is actually a requirement will come down to the exact compatibility version Microsoft use (will all the 2.0 assemblies have their version revved for v3.0?).  I haven’t been able to piece this together clearly enough from what I’ve read to comment properly on this.

    With regard to the comments of calling it "Framework 2.5" this only holds true (IMHO) if you don’t have differentiation between framework and CLR versions since most of the comments that I’ve read around this tend to revolve around the "it’s using CLR 2.0 so it should be a 2.x revision" argument.  I must admit that one of my initially reactions was that this was the way it should go however after further reflection I feel that WinFX brings more to the Framework than what a minor revision implies (and since I have disconnected Framework and CLR versioning I’m free to think this 🙂 )

    I am concerned with the size the framework is becoming.  In a business situation this isn’t a real problem (people may complain but at the end of the day businesses are geared up for these sorts of deployments) and it’s not that much of an issue for CD installs.  The issue comes when the average user has to download the framework from the Internet.  I have a fat broadband pipe so I don’t mind but then I’m not an average user.  Most users don’t have really big pipes and asking them to download 100+ MB of framework to run an application that was only a (for example) 20MB download seems absolutely ridiculous.  I know Jason has stated that they are looking into this but with Framework 3.0 this is going to be an issue and I don’t know if Microsoft are planning on dealing with it for this release. My thoughts in the issue are to have two versions of 3.0 ("Core" and "Enterprise").  The "Core" version would be basically what we have today with 2.0 (plus WGF, minus ASP.NET) and the "Enterprise" version would contain the "Core" version plus anything that would be used in the enterprise (ASP.NET, most of WinFX, etc).  So basically most applications would only be dependant on "Core" (with it’s smaller footprint) and those applications that used the extra functionality in the "enterprise" version would require the larger version (installers and the runtime could check this).  As a bonus "3.0 Core" becomes basically what 2.0 is today so you can start to sell this to management as "they didn’t really change anything" (OK I realise that management don’t always understand these concepts but we can’t have everything!).  I’m only guessing here but I figure that if Microsoft do tackle the "framework size" issue then it would have to be along these lines (time will tell).

    These are just the thoughts of a Technical Architect that’s had a think about what the implications are (although I don’t claim to have thought through all of them), applying it to the situations I deal with and coming to some conclusions.  Of course my thoughts do relying on the separating of the versions (at the very least in my own head!) and I really do hope that Microsoft take this on board (will save me from having to explain it to people all the time!).

  274. Rich Crane says:

    BTW, not every Microsoft person agrees with this decision and that is why I posted a comment.  Forget the technical details for two seconds, I am most concerned about the confusion that this is creating with customers.  It could be that in a few months this will all just go away and we won’t think of this anymore.

    The best argument I have heard for making this name change is the following:

    1) The intent is to include WinFX with the .NET Framework.  It makes sense.  ASP.NET, .NET Remoting, Enterprise Services, and Windows Forms are all a part of the framework.  So why shouldn’t WinFX?

    2) WinFX and the .NET Framework 2.0 are installed on Vista.

    3) If I install WinFX, I must install .NET Framework 2.0.  I can’t get one without the other.

    The big question I have is regarding detecting framework version programmatically.  I cannot just check if the .NET Framework v3.0 is install per the guidance below, or can I?

    http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;315291

  275. EricTN says:

    I love Microsoft and I love .NET.  But this seemingly marketing dept. driven renaming should be nipped in the bud early.  It’s not too late to reconsider.

    We developers thought we knew what the .NET Framework was.  It was a class library that supported the development of what Microsoft has been telling us can be referred to as "managed" code that compiles to an intermediate layer that can then be compiled just in time to machine code.

    The majority of Windows itself and therefore, I would presume Windows Vista, is not so-called "managed" code.  It’s not even appropriate to code everything, for example kernel stuff or a device driver, in managed code or to rewrite something that 1000 man-hours were invested in, in managed code just to say you did it.

    So the confusion here for me and perhaps other developers is we thought WinFX was a library or API that supported Windows Vista and new technologies being delivered in the Vista timeframe, many of which, possibly even most of which wasn’t "managed code" built on the CLR.  And if the CLR was going to expose a lot of this functionality to .NET developers, it would potentially be a layer over WinFX that wrapped WinFX up.  That may have been / may be a mistaken impression.

    So it’s really confusing to hear that Windows Vista will ship with what we thought was the .NET Framework 2.0, but because it also will ship with a lot of other new technologies the whole thing is going to be referred to as the .NET Framework 3.0.

    You guys don’t normally like to confuse your customers (which as developers, we are, in this case), and you pride yourself on listening to your customers.  We’re confused and not very happy about this naming idea.

  276. Beta 2 of WinFX was released a couple of weeks ago. Even though I’ve been quite excited about what Microsoft…

  277. mike gromov says:

    Since they already pushed asp, ado, and winforms into FW, nothing will stop them untill they had it renamed.

  278. Peter Monadjemi says:

    I think the renaming was necessary and Microsoft did it at the last possible moment (during TechEd 2006 as the last big developer event before the final roll out).

    I follow Microsoft for many years and even I had a hard time figuring out what WinFX really is.

    Sure, many developers are not happy about the situation having a .NET Framework 3.0 based on a CLR 2.0 and a "C# 3.0 with LINQ" upcoming that are now becoming C# 3.5 or may be C# 4.0 (many Microsoft products, like VS C++, skipped version numbers in the past and VS InterDev – had a hard time recalling that name – even jumped from 1.0 to  6.0 if I remember that correctly) and will be also based on the CLR 2.0.

    But we will get used to this too. Its the price for Microsoft’s decision to give up the idea of a managed Windows API (the original idea of WinFX) somewhere in 2004 without telling the developer community about it so many still think of WinFX as an replacement for Win32.

    Peter

  279. I think the new name is a bad idea.

    Up until now the library version has been the same as the runtime version. Keeping them in synch is logical. Now you’re telling us that .NET library (Vista) will be Framework 2.0, but .NET library (what we have currently, and will be on millions of machines even when Vista ships) will be Framework 2.0 and BOTH will use runtime version 2.0. Tell me again about how this name change will stop confusion?

    If I build a non-WinFX app with VS2005 it will be built for that will be runtime 2.0 (as you know there is a metadata setting for the runtime version) and the libraries it uses will be .NET framework library 2.0 (the assembly metadata gives this). And yet the library this app uses will be *exactly* the same as the 3.0 libraries. But my metadata will indicate the app needs 2.0, and Vista will have 2.0.

    Are you suggesting that the ‘2.0’ library will also ship with Vista? What a waste of space, since the ‘2.0’ assemblies will mirror the assemblies in ‘3.0’, unnecessarily bloating the code installed with Vista.

    What happens if I serialize data with a WinFX app? What version of the class will be put in the serialization stream for a standard type like string? (hint: 3.0) When I deserialize that stream with a VS2005 app the same runtime will be used, but the type version used by the VS2005 app will be 2.0 and so will be will be out of synch with the framework library used by WinFX (3.0). Serialization, quite rightly, does not like initializing an instance of one version of a type with the data from a different version. Yet the *exact* same version of the type will be use, the only difference is an artificial version change created by Microsoft.

    Then there’s the perception of non-technical customers. If I create an app and sell it as running on .NET runtime 2.0 my customers will demand an upgrade for Vista even if I will not use WinFX features, because Vista will have ‘Framework 3.0’ and not ‘Framework 2.0’.

    Messing with versioning like this will create a .NET version of DLL Hell. It has taken Microsoft many years, and many different types of technology to rid itself of DLL Hell, yet now you are inviting it back again in .NET.

    I suspect that the next version of .NET will synch the library and runtime so that they are both 4.0 (ie missing out runtiem version 3.0), but until then we will have the confusion of having TWO versions of the .NET FRamework library running under the same version of the runtime.

    I really think this decision has not been thought through.

  280. Once again, I vote for dropping "The .NET Framework" if the .NET Framework will consist of more than just the CLR and the Base Class Library.

    Release them as seperate products and stop referring to the whole thing as "The .NET Framework" as nobody referred to COM+, MSMQ … in the past as "The Windows DNA Framework":

    Seperate products:

    1) CLR with MSCORLIB (mscorlib.dll)

    2) ADO.NET (System.Data.dll)

    3) ASP.NET (System.Web.dll)

    3) Windows (System.Windows.Forms.dll)

    4) …

    Seriously guys, consider this approach and stop having the marketing guys involved in this as "The .NET Framework" is a set of extensions that will be used by developers and not managers. That’s right the developers are the target audience here.

  281. Carpii says:

    who cares. .NET is WANK !

  282. Edmundo T. Mendiola says:

    Better make it clear across all sites in Microsoft and MSDN that .Net Framework 3.0 is the next version and that VB/C#.Net 3.0 are not the real VB/C#.Net 3.0. Unless you can promise to deliver them with .Net Framework 3.0.

    Also, it should be made clear how .Net Framework 3.0 distribution will be handled now that the framework seems to include the formerly marketed Windows Vista specific foundations.

    And it should be made clear that the formerly marketed Windows Vista specific foundations are going to be made available across all Windows versions that can support the .Net Framework 2.0 onwards.

    Questions:

    – With WPF, what is the future of Windows Forms?

    – With WCF, what is the future of Enterprise Services?

    How will WF and WCS affect the way .Net developers design and develop their applications for Windows and for platforms that support the .Net Framework?

    These Windows Vista foundations are drastically altering the .Net Framework as it was introduced since version 1.0. The foundations are pushing many things obsolete, and probably depracated in the long run, as more and more parts of the .Net Framework programming languages are wrapped into a declarative and more expressive languages like XAML and  LINQ.

  283. Dave R. says:

    Including the WinFX components as an integral part of the future Framework release is a bad idea. Why not release them as an extension to Framework 2.0?

    I’m sure users won’t be happy downloading a framework where the majority of features aren’t going to be targeted by devs either.

    It would be far better for devs to have a Core .NET Framework release (i.e. the 2.0 we have now) and an Extensions release if we want to use Indigo/InfoCard/WPF/whatever.

  284. I haven’t gotten around to writing the next part of &quot;Zen and the Art of Reflection&quot; yet, because I’m…

  285. Ghaladen says:

    Lets not forget the race to 3.0 isn’t over yet. Although they say now that the core of .net 3.0 framework is running on 2.0, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’ll be the case when vista goes live. So let’s just see….

  286. Shamshuddin says:

    Quite confusing. WinFX sounds good. .Net Framework 1.1 then 2 and now 3.0 with just WinFX change 🙁 Hard to take it.

  287. We’re getting ready to start the planning process for the next release of Enterprise Library for .NET…

  288. Thomas says:

    Why not call it .NET Framework 2.1?

  289. Chuck says:

    I’m with Thomas on this – what happens when CLR 3.0 is ready?  (Framework 4.0: now with CLR 3.0?)  If it’s an additive release, wouldn’t it be better to have it be a minor version change?  We had 1.0 and 1.1, why not call this 2.1?

  290. Syed Raihan says:

    Since it will use CLR 2.0, ".NET Framwork 2.5" looks better to me.

  291. kalyan says:

    where can i download .NETFramework 3.0 for windows 2003 server

  292. doobiwan says:

    personally I think it’s a terrible idea, I agree with Chuck on the confusion it causes(3.0?4.0).

    In order to use WinFx you need to understand it and it’s relationship to .NET. If you don’t know, or it confuses you, you’re not the kind of person who should be worrying about it.

    if you have to rename it, why not do the usual MS trick and bundle it under a different integration monicker, I’m thinking ".NET live" seeing as everything else is live these days.

    .NET 3.0 is the single worst thing you could rename it after iNet or .Niit . . . . .

  293. Richie says:

    I need this to help me with a program im trying to run

  294. ethemazun says:

    My god.. renaming an add-on to a framework to be the next version of the framework? wtf???

    Did Bill already left the company?

  295. Tim Sneath says:

    So I’m glad to announce that the WinFX June CTP&amp;nbsp;has just&amp;nbsp;arrived; you&amp;nbsp;can find the download…

  296. Sean Gerety says:

    Looks like it’s time for a fresh batch of WPF (.Net 3.0) goodness.&amp;nbsp; Tim Sneath points us to the…

  297. Jose Morató says:

    Did anyone (in Microsoft) think of getting some feedback from the public before making this name change?

  298. Winfx’s (renamed to .Net Framework 3.0) June CTP is available here. I know its been a while since I posted…

  299. The upcoming Windows Vista will be shipping with a technology called WinFX, which gives software developers (such as myself) a new set of interfaces to write applications against.&#160; These interfac …

  300. Well how about .NET 2006? And then next year .NET 2007? So people would stop mapping the version number to the CLR version number.

  301. Microsoft as merged Dot Net 3.0 with WinFX.&amp;nbsp; Not only will you have the standard base class libraries,…

  302. htor says:

    How on earth does renaming .NET 2.0 make it .NET 3.0? Shouldn’t you wait until the .NET 3.0 CLR and other components are at version 3.0? I reckon this renaming may cause some confusion.

    -htor

    http://www.jjroth.com

  303. Pues,&amp;nbsp;al fin salio a la luz la relacion que tendra&amp;nbsp;WinFx y .NET Framework, Despues de la incertidumbre…

  304. Microsfot’s .Net 3.0 CTP release reflects the renaming of WinFX to .Net 3.0. What’s in a name!

    Download…

  305. Kleefy sent me these cool blocks from his recent trip to Boston

    &#160;Thanks Kleefy!!

    We all know that…

  306. Ray says:

    Seriously when I read this I had to check the date to ensure that it wasn’t dated April 1.

    Who suggested this idea in the first place? I find this decision utterly idiotic, regardless of the justification. So .NET Framework 3.0 will contain .NET Framework 2.0. Good luck trying to explain that to your customers!

  307. Paul says:

    In a way I think it makes sense.  If the CLR is mature enough for .NET to move on without it, that’s OK.

    Remember, it’s the ".NET Framework".  WinFX is a "Framework".  It makes a lot of sense these move on together.  The fact that the CLR hasn’t changed is really just details.

    The .NET framework now has workflow and a better communications system.  I think whats confusing people here is before the framework has grown upwards, now it’s growing outwards.

    I was an early skeptic, but have come around to see their side (after a large scale war in my office).

    Cheers all

  308. Very informative site.
    http://www.butalbital-plus.com
    [url=http://www.butalbital-plus.com]butalbital addiction[/url]
    <a href="http://www.butalbital-plus.com">butalbital addiction</a>

  309. SV says:

    why don’t you guys just use Java??

  310. Hemant says:

    Is CLR and GAC is going to be revised again for Framework 3.0 ?

  311. Russell Mason says:

    Oh great, .net follows Java’s versioning mismatch hell. Framework 3.0 on CLR 2.0, that’s not going to confuse the customer is it?

  312. GW says:

    You guys must have full time employees whose only task is to come up with marketing terms and confuse your customers…ala DDE, Ole, ActiveX, COM, etc.

  313. Patata_666 says:

    onde mierda se baja esta wea?

  314. Raghvendra Raghuwanshi says:

    Hi

    will CLR of .NET 2.0 will change or remain same.

    When will u people planning to release .NET 3.0 .

    "baki sab theek,  Namskar "

    Raghevndra

  315. After overcoming some obstacles with our publishing tools these past few days, we finally are able to…

  316. The upcoming Windows Vista will be shipping with a technology called WinFX, which gives software developers (such as myself) a new set of interfaces to write applications against.&#160; These interfac …

  317. What with the announcement of WinFX being renamed to .Net 3.0, there has been some confusion as to exactly…

  318. This should explain it well enough but to summarize, WinFX has been rebranded as .NET Framework 3.&amp;nbsp;…

  319. Riaan's Blog says:

    With all the hype around WinFX one question that repeatedly com up is &quot;what happens to .Net?&quot;. This blog…

  320. Si vous ne savez pas &#224; quoi correspond la d&#233;nomination &quot;.NET Framework 3.0&quot;, vous devriez jeter un oeil…

  321. ITrethewey says:

    That got your attention didn’t it! Sorry cheap shot. In actual fact, with the intention of getting rid

  322. As the VSTA Premier Support team works with more and more developers who are integrating VSTA into their

  323. 在 2006 年 6 月,微软副总裁 S. Somasegar 宣布 WinFX 将更名为 .NET Framework 3.0

  324. David Boschmans, the developer evangelist for Belgium and Luxembourg, announced on his blog that they

  325. Beta 2 of WinFX was released a couple of weeks ago. Even though I&amp;#39;ve been quite excited about what

  326. Here’s a post&amp;nbsp;from Somasegar about WinFX being renamed to .NET Framework 3.0.&amp;nbsp; Seems to make…

  327. Endnu engang har vi f&#229;et en omd&#248;bning af de kommende teknologier &amp;ndash; det er n&#230;sten ikke til at f&#248;lge

  328. Consumers of the .NET Framework more andmore question the reasoning behind .NET Framework versioning.

  329. … C# 3.0, LINQ, .NET 3.0, CLR 3.0, Orcas, ADO.NET 3.0, WinFX–&gt;.NET 3.0? Whoaa!! wait a minute !!…

  330. The summer was suprisingly very busy time for me so I suspended blogging for some time. There is a lot…

  331. WCS non è Windows CardSpace !!! Questa mattina, leggendo il blog di Richard Turnerleggo questa strana

  332. The most talked about platform – the Winfx that encompassed the major breakthroughs including the Communication

  333. Vineri am anunţat că vom utiliza numele de .Net Framework 3.0 pentru tot ce-a &icirc;nsemnat p&acirc;nă

  334. I came across the following post on MSDN This morning. "Vice President S. Somasegar describes the decision

  335. We just launched a set of 3 e-Learning clinics covering core components of the .NET 3.0 framework including

  336. daomucun says:

    随着Windows Vista的发布日期日益临近,被Windows平台上的开发者寄予厚望的下一代开发平台也逐渐浮出了水面。

  337. mr.wicket says:

    Microsoft .NET Framework download | Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Final x86 [ 50 MB]download | Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Final x64 [ 54 MB]

  338. As our VSTA Premier Support team here at Summit Software works with more and more developers who are integrating VSTA into their applications, we get a lot of questions about the .NET Framework. Some of these questions arise from the fact that Windows

  339. When Apple released OS X, they described a native framework called Cocoa within the operating system that would make developing on it so much easier than before. As most OS X programmers will tell you – it’s either Cocoa or…

  340. Microsoft has renamed WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0 .NET Framework 3.0 aptly identifies the technology

  341. The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX brand didn’t convey this. The

  342. 清风涤尘 says:

    答:当你安装 .NET Framework 3.0 时,installer 会检查你是否已经安装 .NET Framework 2.0,如果没有,.NET Framework 3.0 installer 会替您安装 .NET Framework 2.0,然后再安装 .NET Framework 3.0 component;答:因为 .NET Framework 3.0 只有在 .NET Framework 2.0 之上加入新的 components,所以 .NET Framework 3.0 与

  343. 清风涤尘 says:

    答:当你安装 .NET Framework 3.0 时,installer 会检查你是否已经安装 .NET Framework 2.0,如果没有,.NET Framework 3.0 installer 会替您安装 .NET Framework 2.0,然后再安装 .NET Framework 3.0 component;答:因为 .NET Framework 3.0 只有在 .NET Framework 2.0 之上加入新的 components,所以 .NET Framework 3.0 与

  344. Vanittminden says:

    Aki még nem hallotta esetleg az MS bejelentette, hogy mostantól a korábban WinFX néven futó sok-sok újítást

  345. Al Nyveldt says:

    A new .NET framework already?

  346. 林西 says:

    2006年6月,MicrosoftCorporate副总裁S.Somasegar宣布,WinFX将更名为.NETFramework3.0。请查看他的博客,了解详细信息。

    本文…

  347. Mahesh says:

    DotNet Framework 3.0

  348. Shay Weiss says:

    THE STORY OF MY LIFE: PLAYING BALL

    My dream is to obtain lights for a baseball and softball field, for children in Israel & to write a book about my father.

    My dreams have inspired by my father’s lifetime. In 1948, he lost his eyes, fighting.

    He was a Partisan who lost all his family in the Holocaust, except one sister; he found her after he was wounded from a bomb in Yafo, Tel Aviv, Israel.

    My dad never gave up.

    He began from scratch and successfully raised a family. To me he was a teacher, an inspiration, a housemaster, an inimitable human whom I harbor in my heart and soul every day of my life. For me it was as if my father fought hard in the dark daily, to see me grow up.

    I lost my father when I was 14 years old. We had a golden retriever

    guide dog named Arise. The day my father died, Arise and I felt something die inside us.

    Today I am 39, married with two beautiful children. I have coped with the pain and loss of my father by contributing to the needs of children and disabled people in Israel. I coach badminton and baseball in Tel Aviv, where I grew up playing and dreaming of one day becoming an American.

    I contributed to the beginning of baseball in Israel. Twenty years ago, we went to Europe representing Israel on our own expense to play in a fast-pitch softball tournament where I totaled about 10-12 on my record. Ten years ago in 1996, I played world championship fast pitch softball for the Israeli national team at Midland, USA. I was the best Israeli born player playing fast pitch softball, and I was coaching National little league baseball at the same time as a volunteer for many years. This was a meaningful contribution to baseball in general and to the Israelis kids, who had been playing in school mainly soccer.

    My dream is to obtain lights for the children on the field where I played 25 years ago in Tel Aviv, Israel.

    The loves for the game have kept me going dreaming to be American one day.

    Of course, my father spirit & manner kept me strong to demonstrate to be one of the best players ever in Israel.

    If you wish to contribute or wish to help me in any way please let me know.

    The movie Scent of a Woman (1992) reminds me of my dad; however, this film is small for my dad image

    Directed by Martin BrestWriting credits (WGA) Giovanni Arpino (novel) Bo Goldman (screenplay)

    Sincerely, Shay Weiss

    7441 Wayne Ave #5R

    Miami Beach, FL 33141

    USA.

    Tel/Fax: 305-868-8324

    Posted by: shay | March 1, 2007 2:31 AM

    THE STORY OF MY LIFE: PLAYING BALL

    My dream is to obtain lights for a baseball and softball field, for children in Israel & to write a book about my father.

    My dreams have inspired by my father’s lifetime. In 1948, he lost his eyes, fighting.

    He was a Partisan who lost all his family in the Holocaust, except one sister; he found her after he was wounded from a bomb in Yafo, Tel Aviv, Israel.

    My dad never gave up.

    He began from scratch and successfully raised a family. To me he was a teacher, an inspiration, a housemaster, an inimitable human whom I harbor in my heart and soul every day of my life. For me it was as if my father fought hard in the dark daily, to see me grow up.

    I lost my father when I was 14 years old. We had a golden retriever

    guide dog named Arise. The day my father died, Arise and I felt something die inside us.

    Today I am 39, married with two beautiful children. I have coped with the pain and loss of my father by contributing to the needs of children and disabled people in Israel. I coach badminton and baseball in Tel Aviv, where I grew up playing and dreaming of one day becoming an American.

    I contributed to the beginning of baseball in Israel. Twenty years ago, we went to Europe representing Israel on our own expense to play in a fast-pitch softball tournament where I totaled about 10-12 on my record. Ten years ago in 1996, I played world championship fast pitch softball for the Israeli national team at Midland, USA. I was the best Israeli born player playing fast pitch softball, and I was coaching National little league baseball at the same time as a volunteer for many years. This was a meaningful contribution to baseball in general and to the Israelis kids, who had been playing in school mainly soccer.

    My dream is to obtain lights for the children on the field where I played 25 years ago in Tel Aviv, Israel.

    The loves for the game have kept me going dreaming to be American one day.

    Of course, my father spirit & manner kept me strong to demonstrate to be one of the best players ever in Israel.

    If you wish to contribute or wish to help me in any way please let me know.

    The movie Scent of a Woman (1992) reminds me of my dad; however, this film is small for my dad image

    Directed by Martin BrestWriting credits (WGA) Giovanni Arpino (novel) Bo Goldman (screenplay)

    Sincerely, Shay Weiss

    7441 Wayne Ave #5R

    Miami Beach, FL 33141

    USA.

    Tel/Fax: 305-868-8324

    Posted by: SHAY WEISS | March 1, 2007 2:32 AM

    Trying to get in touch with friend Art Shamsky from New York…can you help? Art are you there? HA!

    Susan

    214-477-7854

    Posted by: Susan Gavin | October 25, 2007 12:59 PM

    Subject: Hello,yes it was my idea. Maybe one day you well send me and my kids an invitation aboard the aircraft .

    This letter was written 4-5 years ago.

    Dear Mr. President,

    George W. Bush

    I would like to personally thank you and your presidential committee for progressive triumph over terrorism. I am a native Israeli and I have faced many hardships that terrorism has caused in Israel and around the world. Please continue your noble work and just know that I and many other Israelis support your effort for fighting terrorism. I was not able to vote in the passing 2004’elections but I am grateful that the American people made the right choice. There are a few suggestions I have, that I would like you to consider. I believe Cohn Powell should replace Kofi A. Annan as the United Nations secretary general. Cohn Powell has demonstrated to be a very determinant person and has positively influenced decisions affecting the United States and the world. I would also like to see a more proactive approach, by the United Nations, to fight terrorism. Troops, not only Americans, should send to defend “our” safety.

    Regulations should an established for preventing further terrorists from attacking innocent people. For example, deportation of terrorists’ families may help in deterring continuous attacks. In your father’s lifetime, I believe it deserves to have a navy aircraft carrier named after him that would protect the Middle East that would be in the best interest for the United States.

    Again, I would like to thank you and the other “Three Aces” (Cohn Powell, Dr.Condoleeza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld) for all of your hard work and effort.

    God Bless all of you and America

    Sincerely,

    Shay Weiss

    MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141

    7441 WAYNE AVE #5R

    From: wiess

    Date: 12/11/2007 18:23:52

    To: nnwebmaster@ngc.com

    Subject: This is the time to require & ask for the Jewish vote to elected RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI. He is going to be the best president ever for USA & Israel. The Jewish have to elect Republicans as a gesture to the policy of the president George .W. Bush & his staff. This message has to go all over the country and especially in synagogues. This is the time to put on the car & out of doors the American flag, proudly outside the hose to supporting our services troops. However the USA at war with the terrorist every day & everywhere in the world Thanks to the US Troops soldiers & President George W .Bush, we have a freedom a liberty & plenty of rope to live good & vintage in the USA. Where is the UN? The UN needs to fight the war against the terror & not the USA. We must bomb the terror facilities instantly at once & for all. Let them-terrorist be dread from the USA, once and for all Every now and then, we see the terrorist in the TV in their marches & camps why we do not destroyed them in Iran & Syria. Take the fighting to them and do not hesitate! Where is all the association of human rights for the lost of the innocent people that died from terrorists? This is the time that Europe & the UN should close or shut down the mosques in response to the Terrorisms. In addition, to lower the voice of the prayer of the Mosques in Europe, there is now religion that is so noisy for the public such as the Arabians. Enough, we do not need to be dread from them. We have to make a stop to their lunatics & to their terrorism. FROM: SHAY WEISS MIAMI BEACH, FL USA

  349. it360 says:

    .NET Framework 3.0 版本命名與部署 Q

  350. Some guy says:

    where do u download???

  351. 幸福 says:

    在2006年6月,微软副总裁S.Somasegar宣布WinFX将更名为.NETFramework3.0,请知道更多详细资料请看它的Blog。

    这份文件包含了关于.NE…

  352. Hyderabad says:

    Hmm, but then if you are still using the same CLR 2.0, why did you want to make a major version number change for the .NET framework. As a .NET developer I will not find any changes in .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.0 then. Is that right?

  353. I kind of liked the sound of WinFX, but Soma decided to rename it back to .NET Framework 3.0. I guess

  354. changgeecom says:

    在 2006 年 6 月,微软副总裁 S. Somasegar 宣布 WinFX 将更名为 .NET Framework 3.0,请知道更多详细资料请看它的 Blog。 这份文件包含了关于 .NET Framework 3.0 更名常被问到的问题,对于部署额外的问题请参照 MSDN 上的 .NET Framework 3.0 deployment 文件。 问 1:什么是 .NET Framework 3.0(先前代号 WinFX)? 答:.NET Framewrok 3.0 是微软受管理程式码编写模型,它是..

  355. Jonathan Pilon says:

    Vista 64bit is the most unreliable piece of garrbage I have ever tried. What a waste of my time

  356. Karthick says:

    when the .net framework 3.0 will be available in xp and 2003 server ??

  357. Fair Trade says:

    So after reading all that I’m still not 100% clear – I’m sorry! – can I remove the 2.0 now I have the 3.0 installed on my comp running XP?

  358. MegP_MS says:

    Fair Trade – You should not uninstall .NET 2.0.  The versions of the framework are built on top of eachother so that 3.5 won’t run without 3.0 which won’t run without 2.0.  This makes each release smaller as just additive on top of the previous version.

    -Meghan

  359. Bame says:

    i doing an assignment on winFS PROGRAMMING MODEL and i cnt understand the difference between it and WinFX and .Net framework

  360. Detect CLR version under which your BizTalk service is running.

  361. janebush08 says:

    Now as .net 3.5 has came, more improvements has been done…

  362. You’ve got to be kidding me . &quot;The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX brand didn&rsquo;t convey this. The WinFX brand helped us introduce the incredible innovations in terms of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF),

  363. Наум says:

    Хороший блог 🙂 Люблю почитывать каждый вечер (ну и в другое время тоже :)).

  364. Varun Gautam says:

    what does this democratizing application life-cycle management

    means?

    will there be elections on visual studio.net 2010

  365. Sean says:

    Do I need 2.0 and 3.0 to both be installed? In add/remove programs it says I have both, but are they both necessary? or could I just delete one?

  366. somaie says:

    There is no doubt in my mind what so ever that Profit lance will show you how to make money online, but there are many obstacles your going to face in order to do it or to get to where I am at. What I mean is, there’s allot of information, tools and resources in this course that your going to have to get familiarized with before you can become successful. Yes you will earn money but to make a living out of it your going to really need to understand how everything works.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  367. davidbaer says:

    The Beginning The working life is already tough enough, but the worries of being out of work was even tougher. The unsecured working environment have prompted me to search the internet for an alternative source of extra income so that I could learn how to Make Money Work for me and be Financially Independent. I listed down a number of Free Internet Business Opportunity Ideas while researching ways how people earn money online while working-from-home…….

         www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  368. steveping says:

    thanks for you share“ You’ve got to be kidding me . &quot;The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX brand didn&rsquo;t convey this. The WinFX brand helped us introduce the incredible innovations in terms of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF),  

    i love <A href="http://www.umbrellabuy.com/">umbrellas<A>very much

  369. Snehil says:

    Please provide the difference between 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5.