Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Final

[nekrosoft13]

ok

.net framework 3.0 was released, now the question i have is.

1.1 and 2.0 are different, some programs need 1.1 and some require 2.0. is this the same case?

so now you have to have 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 installed at the same time?

or just 3.0?

32bit
http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/F/0/3F0A922C-F239-4B9B-9CB0-DF53621C57D9/dotnetfx3.exe

64bit
http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/F/0/3F0A922C-F239-4B9B-9CB0-DF53621C57D9/dotnetfx3_x64.exe

[DaveW]

yes you will still need 2.0 and 1.1 frameworks for apps written in them

[K007]

Guess ill install it when we need it..since it offers nothing to the 2.0/1.1 stuff

[nekrosoft13]

yes you will still need 2.0 and 1.1 frameworks for apps written in them

thats just plain stupid

what the hell, so later they release 4.0 and you will need 4 frameworks? it should be backwards compatible

[K007]

thats just plain stupid

what the hell, so later they release 4.0 and you will need 4 frameworks? it should be backwards compatible

Atleast put it as 1 package/patch or something like that...but meh..dosen't really effect much tho..though a bit silly/lazy on there end?

[retsam]

dot net reminds me of all the VB run times you used to have installed to run certain programs..boy did i hate that ****. i guess m$ never learns there lessions

[nekrosoft13]

probably by summer next year we will have 4 .net frameworks. thats just plain stupid

new versions should be backwards compatible. everything else is backwards compatible

what if adobe would do that to photoshop, hey, that file was saved in 4.0, you need to have 4.0 installed

[superklye]

You can't really compare an image editing program to the way programming languages are compiled and run.

[LycosV]

The .net framework is mostly backwards compatable in the sense that you can write a program and compile it with any version. The reason you allow all versions to be installed is so that in case a program requires an older version of a DLL to work you can actually have that older version. Just trying to shoehorn in "backwards compatability" and only having one version all the time is how you end up with version mismatchs of files. If you have a really old program that uses an ancient version of some DLL running a new version may have fixed bugs that will make it not work with your older program. By allowing parallel installs of all of the .net frameworks you'll never have that problem. If the program you need requires 1, install 1; if it requires 2, install 2; etc.

[FCGD]

The .net framework is mostly backwards compatable in the sense that you can write a program and compile it with any version. The reason you allow all versions to be installed is so that in case a program requires an older version of a DLL to work you can actually have that older version. Just trying to shoehorn in "backwards compatability" and only having one version all the time is how you end up with version mismatchs of files. If you have a really old program that uses an ancient version of some DLL running a new version may have fixed bugs that will make it not work with your older program. By allowing parallel installs of all of the .net frameworks you'll never have that problem. If the program you need requires 1, install 1; if it requires 2, install 2; etc.

ala "dll hell"

[vandalous]

The .net framework is mostly backwards compatable in the sense that you can write a program and compile it with any version. The reason you allow all versions to be installed is so that in case a program requires an older version of a DLL to work you can actually have that older version. Just trying to shoehorn in "backwards compatability" and only having one version all the time is how you end up with version mismatchs of files. If you have a really old program that uses an ancient version of some DLL running a new version may have fixed bugs that will make it not work with your older program. By allowing parallel installs of all of the .net frameworks you'll never have that problem. If the program you need requires 1, install 1; if it requires 2, install 2; etc.

That's like the issues with Java compatibility. There are several apps at work that only function with certain versions of Java so my work laptop has to have 3 different versions of Java just so I can run the apps I need. LOL dumb...

[rewt]

Well, on a good note. I believe all of the current Frameworks are built into Windows Vista.

So at least you won't have to install .NET 1, 2, and 3 anymore. You'll probably have to start with 4 though, if the trend continues..

dot net reminds me of all the VB run times you used to have installed to run certain programs..boy did i hate that ****. i guess m$ never learns there lessions

What high level languages don't require runtimes?

And yeah, when my program NVTweak was written in VB6, I had a hell of a time distributing the correct runtimes and dlls it required. It's a breeze distributing apps that are based on .NET however.

My only real grudge with .NET is that it takes so damn long to install on Windows XP/2003 x64. It's rediculous.