WinFX 3.0 Renamed .NET Framework 3.0
Soma announced today that WinFX is being renamed to .NET Framework 3.0 to help out with developer confusion. There are a set of common questions that have been asked in the post:
1. What version of the compilers are being used? .NET FX 3.0 is built on .NET FX 2.0 including the CLR and BCL. This means you will be using the 2.0 C# and VB compilers from the redist when using .NET FX 3.0.
2. Will .NET FX 3.0 contain LINQ support? No. LINQ support is in the Orcas product which is shipping after .NET FX 3.0 (which ships in Vista).
3. What directory will .NET FX 3.0 be installed to? We have been working on the naming changes in the product since the decision was made. After this is done it will live in %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\V3.0. This should hopefully be in the next public CTP we release.
When discussing the relationship between .NET FX 2.0 and .NET FX 3.0 internally, we often refer to it as the "Russian doll" model after the figurines which are embedded in their next largest sibling (lather/rinse/repeat).
You can intersect this with the red bits/green bits discussion to get a feeling for how you will see Orcas added to the overall stack.
Is this too complicated? Well I know it isn't as simple as "xcopy this subdir". But I hope it is still easy to work with. For example, you need only run one installer to get .NET FX 3.0. This setup will automatically install .NET FX 2.0 if you don't already have it on your machine. You can then detect what stack you have on your machine and take one dependency on it.
As always community feedback is very valuable. So if you do see any issues or places where we can make things easier for you, please let us know!
Comments
Anonymous
June 09, 2006
Jason,
Thanks for clearing things up, it helps quite a bit :)
Honestly: I'm not sure how I feel about this. While I think it certainly makes sense (and love that you'll now be installing it where it should've been all along), it seems like the way you're versioning stuff now is certainly confusing. Just the simple fact that now the framework version number doesn't match the runtime and compilers version numbers (at least for C#/VB) is sure confusing.
Also, I was under the impression that Orcas would force a new .NET Framework upon us, so if that is true, does it mean that we'll get yet another .NET Framework/Runtime version at that point? (or worse yet, end up with .NET Framework 3.0 with CLR 2.5 and Compilers 3.0?)Anonymous
June 09, 2006
Bueno, dicen las malas lenguas (Jason Zander General Manager del .NET Framework) que se va...Anonymous
June 09, 2006
Out of curiosity, what happens to Windows 2000 support? Im guessing dropped.Anonymous
June 09, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 09, 2006
I don't know about 3.0, maybe 2.1. My understanding is that WinFx is built on 2.0.
What is "orcas" going to be 4.0?Anonymous
June 09, 2006
<script>windows.alet("This could be a cross script acttact");</script>Anonymous
June 09, 2006
You say that LINQ is in the Orcas product. LINQ is a compiler extension. New Compilers have always been part of new .NET Framework versions, not Visual Studio. Will this change?Anonymous
June 09, 2006
This is just a big mess. Why not go with .NET 2.1?Anonymous
June 10, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 10, 2006
Jason Zander (General Manager, .NET Framework) answers some questions about the decision to rename the...Anonymous
June 10, 2006
Does this mean there will be no "Vista-only" parts in .NET 3.0?Anonymous
June 10, 2006
Earlier today, I was working on my article on the timeline for .NET releases over the next 18 months....Anonymous
June 10, 2006
One thought and I dont know if this has been addressed before. Because of the large size of the .NET framework wouldnt it be a nice idea to modularize its installation? Lets say someone does not have the framework on their pc and wants to run a .NET app. The installer could check for the required namespaces and if they are missing then it would install only what it requires.
I like the idea because it reduces the installer size and would allow for a quicker install/download. Another nicety of doing this is compatability, If you have an app that is v1.1 and everything else on your machine is v2 you wouldnt have 2 full installations for an app that may only be using a small slice of the library. Im sure you have considered it before and there is probably some bad downside which Im not seeing.Anonymous
June 10, 2006
Даниил указал интересную ссылку. Итак, отвечены самые острые вопросы по этому паAnonymous
June 10, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 10, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 10, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 10, 2006
Se serviva la parola "fine" all'ambizione di avere con Longhon un sistema operativo basato su una nuova...Anonymous
June 10, 2006
In a fairly quiet announcement, made on a blog (noteworthy all by itself!), Microsoft has decided to...Anonymous
June 10, 2006
Jason Zander's WebLog : WinFX 3.0 Rename...Anonymous
June 11, 2006
[News]WinFXの正式名称は「.NET Framework 3.0」Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Go off the grid to enjoy a weekend of blue skys and 30c and this little number roles in (oh and the scoble...Anonymous
June 11, 2006
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...Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Li no blog do Alfred que a Microsoft decidiu rebatizar o WinFX, nova API do Windows, para .NET Framework...Anonymous
June 11, 2006
I wanted to respond to a few comments..
&nbsp;
Keeron asked about what .NET Framework includes exactly....Anonymous
June 11, 2006
If Orcas will be just an addon to .NET Framework, why WinFX is not an addon, but a new version of framework???????Anonymous
June 11, 2006
Picked this up from Soma's blog:
...we have decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0.&nbsp;...Anonymous
June 11, 2006
PingBack from http://christianotto.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/net-30-features-future/Anonymous
June 12, 2006
Ahora que ya sabemos que WinFX 3.0 será llamado Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 para no confundir a los...Anonymous
June 12, 2006
I'm sorry Jason, I don't understand the objective of Microsoft with this change.
I suppose that if you say .NET Framework 3.0 to (WinFX + .NET Framework 2.0), ¿which will be the name of .NET Framework with Orcas?.
Hovewer, I think that now we have new problems with this decision, and is that other users (the newest users in .NET), will have some problems undertanding that .NET Framework 3.0 uses VB 2.0 and C# 2.0 instead of VB 3.0 and C# 3.0.
I don't know if this decision has other estrategical notes that now we aren't prepared to know, but I think that use .NET Framework 2.5 instead of .NET Framework 3.0 will be a better decision,... or Orcas will be .NET Framework 4.0... and if Orcas is .NET Framework 4.0... Orcas will use C# 3.0 and VB 3.0.
If Orcas is the 3.5 number version,... VB 3.0 and C# 3.0 will be used with .NET Framework 3.5 but don't with .NET Framework 3.0.
Please, think all these things first because in some times, to solve one problem the people create new problems. The solution has to be easier.
Thanks a lot.
I hope that helps.
Jorge Serrano
MVP - Visual BasicAnonymous
June 12, 2006
PingBack from http://et.cairene.net/2006/06/12/net-30-nee-winfx-now-with-clr-20/Anonymous
June 12, 2006
This is all over the Microsoft blogs: so if you're following them you've no doubt already seen this (more...Anonymous
June 12, 2006
I really believe that the 2.5 version number would be more fitting. Jorge's comment about Orcas possible being version 3.5 and requiring framework VB and C# 3.0 while version 3.0 would still use C# 2.0 and VB 2.0 points at some real points of confusion that I think will arise.
You may ask, "What's in a name?"; but I can already imagine the immense confusion about the name. Yet I get the feeling Microsoft has made up its mind already, and its disappointing.Anonymous
June 12, 2006
The name .NET FX is actually good: .NET Framework eXtension.
That is what it is: an extension of the core (CLR+Framework)
The version number is a bit problematic:
is it a version of the "extension" or of the "whole package"?
Maybe it is an attempt to come close to 3.1, a standard Microsoft
version for a "good / really usable". So add LINQ, and call it 3.1 :)
More important is deployment issue.
I would like to see a "custom app .net packaging"
to make it possible to "bundle" needed DLLs along with application,
without requirement for whole Framework and Framework eXtensions(s).
If there was a way to install only "CLR core",
and then bundle minimum set of DLLs with the application
(preferably by a Visual Studio tool),
this would make deploying "Smart Clients" much more popular.
Even current distributions of 32 and 64 bit .NET have become huge, and installation is slow.
Why not make the Framework auto-updateable (i.e. from Microsoft.com),
so only necessary DLLs get downloaded "as needed" when installing a new APP? Not to mention this would
give a chance to download exact pre-compiled code for the current hardware (CPU).Anonymous
June 13, 2006
Formerly called WinFX, the official name of the piece of software art is now called .NET Framework 3.0....Anonymous
June 13, 2006
Noting thatAnonymous
June 13, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 13, 2006
Since Soma announced the official rename from WinFx to .Net 3.0 everyone is talking about it here, here...Anonymous
June 14, 2006
Hey hey... a framework depending upon another framework?Anonymous
June 14, 2006
Like to see the progress of .NET and Vista but I think that you need the marketing team thinking in a new name or in an add for the .NET 2.0 like .NET 2.0++ or something like that. BUT DON´T CALL IT .NET 3.0 !!!
There is no major upgrade in the framework right ? near none ? so simply don´t call it 3.0.
BTW I think that for the .NET developers is really important the SP1 for VS2005 and SP1 for .NET 2.0. In big applications or simply using the edit and continue in VB.NET VS2005 hands up 2 of 5 times !
Anyway keep the good work, I LOVE .NET but I preffer stability than inovation (at last my customers like the first one)
I know how hard must be creating Vista and all the new development plataforms but don't forget the big number of developers that are trying to explain to their boss why they are restarting VS2005 or redoing the work because VS hand ups and why some time before they said that VS2005 give them more productivity and now that is not real... not a happy scenario isn´t ?
Best RegardsAnonymous
June 14, 2006
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 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.*)Anonymous
June 17, 2006
Fuente: http://geeks.ms/blogs/jorge/archive/2006/06/12/453.aspx
Ahora que ya sabemos que WinFX 3.0 será...Anonymous
June 19, 2006
Check out www.netfx3.com. Its the community site for everything 3.0 in the framework. To tell you the...Anonymous
June 19, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 20, 2006
Persone los pioneros non rabata. Great...Anonymous
June 22, 2006
Best of all people w can talk...Anonymous
June 22, 2006
Best of all people w can talk...Anonymous
June 29, 2006
Asaspal. Memrano tu es besta. Amigo.Anonymous
July 06, 2006
Does the .net framework 3.0 contain updates, fixes and performance updates on the old 2.0 asp.net stuff?Anonymous
July 22, 2006
Se pare ca anuntata redenumire a lui .NET&nbsp;FX 2.0+WinFx in .NET FX&nbsp;3.0&nbsp; nu a surprins comunitatea...Anonymous
January 25, 2008
PingBack from http://websitescripts.247blogging.info/jason-zanders-weblog-winfx-30-renamed-net-framework-30/Anonymous
May 17, 2008
PingBack from http://allyson.clearviewprint.info/zanders.htmlAnonymous
July 29, 2008
Detect CLR version under which your BizTalk service is running.Anonymous
January 21, 2009
PingBack from http://www.keyongtech.com/1451612-net-3-0-will-be/2