Somasegar's WebLog : .NET Framework 3.0

Anonymous said:

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

# June 9, 2006 5:06 PM

lexp said:

I hope FX3.0 will be installed by single installer and resist in the same directory (Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.0\...

# June 9, 2006 5:15 PM

Thomas Lebrun said:

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

# June 9, 2006 5:15 PM

Matt W's Windows Workflow Place said:

The cat's out of the bag on the WinFX name change.&nbsp; That's right, it's now the .NET Framework 3.0.&nbsp;...

# June 9, 2006 5:28 PM

Robert McLaws: FunWithCoding.NET - Windows Vista Edition said:

Also, "InfoCard" becomes "Windows CardSpaces (WCS)"
A couple days ahead of TechEd 2006, Microsoft's...

# June 9, 2006 5:39 PM

guidmaster´s .NET blog said:

Endnu engang har vi fået en omdøbning af de kommende teknologier &ndash; det er næsten ikke til at følge...

# June 9, 2006 5:40 PM

Jan Tielens' Bloggings said:

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

# June 9, 2006 5:42 PM

Robert McLaws: FunWithCoding.NET - Windows Vista Edition said:

Also, "InfoCard" becomes "Windows CardSpaces (WCS)"
A couple days ahead of TechEd 2006, Microsoft's...

# June 9, 2006 5:48 PM

Vibro.NET said:

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

# June 9, 2006 5:49 PM

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 :)

# June 9, 2006 5:55 PM

Dave McMahon said:

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

# June 9, 2006 6:08 PM

Hatim said:

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

# June 9, 2006 6:13 PM

Cyril said:

What about Visual Studio "Orcas" ?

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

# June 9, 2006 6:17 PM

JD on EP said:

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

# June 9, 2006 6:18 PM

Christophe Lauer said:

# June 9, 2006 6:20 PM

Christophe Lauer said:

# June 9, 2006 6:22 PM

Jack Gudenkauf (JackG) WebLog said:

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

# June 9, 2006 6:26 PM

Koistya `Navin said:

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

# June 9, 2006 6:27 PM

Windows Presentation Foundation SDK said:

Microsoft has&nbsp;renamed WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0
.NET Framework 3.0 aptly identifies the technology...

# June 9, 2006 6:28 PM

Welcome to The Metaverse said:

It's official:

"InfoCard" has a REAL name - Windows CardSpace™.
WinFX is being renamed to .NET Framework...

# June 9, 2006 6:36 PM

Sam Gentile said:

You've got to be kidding me.
The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX...

# June 9, 2006 6:39 PM

Hatim.Net » .Net Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.hatim.net/2006/06/09/net-framework-30/

# June 9, 2006 6:58 PM

Oran said:

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.

# June 9, 2006 7:27 PM

Mike Taulty's Weblog said:

# June 9, 2006 7:36 PM

Waseem Sadiq said:

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

# June 9, 2006 7:44 PM

Fabrice's weblog said:

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

# June 9, 2006 7:48 PM

Erwyn van der Meer said:

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

# June 9, 2006 7:56 PM

KeithH said:

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.

# June 9, 2006 8:12 PM

.NET at 9.400 ft above sea level said:

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

# June 9, 2006 8:38 PM

JasonP said:

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.

# June 9, 2006 8:39 PM

Tech Talk Blog said:

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

# June 9, 2006 8:41 PM

.NET a 2.860 m de altura said:

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

# June 9, 2006 8:45 PM

Maarten van Stam said:

# June 9, 2006 9:16 PM

a said:

a

# June 9, 2006 9:23 PM

Ben Hollis said:

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

# June 9, 2006 9:25 PM

Microsoft News Tracker said:

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..

# June 9, 2006 9:27 PM

Haaron Gonzalez said:

Acorde con el&nbsp;articulo Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0 y con el post de Somasegar's Blog WinFX ahora se llamara...

# June 9, 2006 9:32 PM

Jason Zander's WebLog said:

Soma announced today that WinFX is being renamed to .NET Framework 3.0 to help out with developer confusion.&nbsp;...

# June 9, 2006 9:36 PM

Fear and Loathing said:

Whatever it is I want some.&nbsp;Fast. Before you change another name.
Okay, awhile ago MS introduced...

# June 9, 2006 9:37 PM

jasonz said:

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.NET\Framework\V3.0.

Jason

# June 9, 2006 9:38 PM

Expert Texture » Blog Archive » WinFx becomes .NET 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://et.cairene.net/2006/06/09/winfx-becomes-net-30/

# June 9, 2006 9:50 PM

John said:

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...

# June 9, 2006 9:58 PM

From a Support Engineer : Here's .NET framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from https://blogs.msdn.com:443/seshadripv/archive/2006/06/10/624657.aspx

# June 9, 2006 10:00 PM

[VB punto NET] said:

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

# June 9, 2006 10:03 PM

Israel A said:

# June 9, 2006 10:11 PM

Dotnet 3.0 is coming, oh wait, it’s not. - Ten Times Better said:

PingBack from http://tentimesbetter.com/2006/06/09/dotnet-30-is-coming-oh-wait-its-not/

# June 9, 2006 10:25 PM

Kim Cameron’s Identity Weblog » STRAIGHTENING OUT OUR NAMING said:

PingBack from http://www.identityblog.com/?p=469

# June 9, 2006 10:30 PM

David L. Walker - .NET Solution Provider said:

http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx
In my opinion, this ROCKS. Though I have...

# June 9, 2006 10:46 PM

Shaurya Anand said:

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.

# June 9, 2006 11:00 PM

Rob Windsor's Weblog said:

Soma (S. Somasegar: Corporate Vice President, Developer Division)&nbsp;announced today that WinFx will...

# June 9, 2006 11:04 PM

Volkan said:

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

# June 9, 2006 11:27 PM

Robert Naum said:

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.

# June 9, 2006 11:33 PM

Mitsu Furuta said:

# June 9, 2006 11:54 PM

D N Joshi said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 12:20 AM

Don Box's Spoutlet said:

# June 10, 2006 12:24 AM

Joku said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 12:24 AM

Don Box's Spoutlet said:

# June 10, 2006 12:28 AM

Federal Developer Weblog said:

Today we announced the rebranding of WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0
See Soma's blog for the full story...but...

# June 10, 2006 12:29 AM

Srivatsn's Blog said:

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

# June 10, 2006 1:18 AM

Der-Albert.com sein Blog! said:

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

# June 10, 2006 1:58 AM

MrDave's (David Yack) Blog! said:

When I first read &ldquo;.NET 3.0&rdquo;&nbsp; I thought &ldquo;April Fools? Did I miss the planning?&rdquo;&nbsp;&ndash;...

# June 10, 2006 2:18 AM

WinFX=.Net 3.0! » MSBLOG said:

PingBack from http://www.msblog.org/?p=769

# June 10, 2006 2:54 AM

Chris said:

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

# June 10, 2006 3:09 AM

Giorgio Sardo's Blog said:

# June 10, 2006 3:25 AM

Managed from down under said:

# June 10, 2006 3:29 AM

schrankmonster blog said:

# June 10, 2006 3:46 AM

Arash Ghandhi said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 3:47 AM

DotNetDeveloper said:

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

# June 10, 2006 4:14 AM

DotNetDeveloper said:

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

# June 10, 2006 4:21 AM

Mighell's blog said:

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

# June 10, 2006 4:36 AM

Giorgio Sardo's Blog said:

# June 10, 2006 4:47 AM

Yonatan Betzer said:

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

# June 10, 2006 5:03 AM

Andrej Tozon's blog said:

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

# June 10, 2006 5:28 AM

StrangeLog - Il blog di Andrea Saltarello said:

# June 10, 2006 5:29 AM

StrangeLog - Il blog di Andrea Saltarello said:

# June 10, 2006 5:31 AM

Gabriel Lozano-Morán said:

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 ...

# June 10, 2006 5:34 AM

Andrew A said:

I assume this also means schema uri changes?

# June 10, 2006 5:34 AM

Tom said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 5:40 AM

Antonio said:

# June 10, 2006 5:47 AM

dotnetkicks.com said:

Trackback from dotnetkicks.com

# June 10, 2006 6:26 AM

Dennis said:

"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!

# June 10, 2006 7:22 AM

Kimo said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 7:35 AM

notgartner.com: Mitch Denny's Blog said:

# June 10, 2006 7:36 AM

STEFANO DEMILIANI WeBlog said:

# June 10, 2006 8:15 AM

CedarLogic - Shawn Cicoria said:

Somasegar's WebLog : .NET Framework 3.0.
This will stir up lots of conversations about how marketing...

# June 10, 2006 8:53 AM

Cengiz HAN said:

PingBack from http://www.cengizhan.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=cfc02041-fd36-42fe-8855-ba8ae9112e96

# June 10, 2006 9:46 AM

Kea said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 9:58 AM

Philip Rieck said:

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!

# June 10, 2006 10:31 AM

Bashmohandes said:

Winfx renamed to DotNet Framework 3.0

# June 10, 2006 10:48 AM

Intellectual Hedonism said:

# June 10, 2006 10:57 AM

Todd Powers said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 11:04 AM

jmarlowe said:

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

# June 10, 2006 11:19 AM

Required said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 11:33 AM

Required said:

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...)

# June 10, 2006 11:40 AM

Weblog di Fabio Cozzolino said:

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

# June 10, 2006 12:54 PM

Scobleizer - Microsoft Geek Blogger » Chris Pirillo doesn’t get Second Life (and gives us Windows Vista stats) said:

PingBack from http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/06/10/chris-pirillo-doesnt-get-second-life-and-gives-us-windows-vista-stats/

# June 10, 2006 1:01 PM

BC said:

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

"So what are you working on?"

"Computers..."

# June 10, 2006 1:03 PM

Javier G. Lozano said:

# June 10, 2006 1:05 PM

Timothy Fries said:

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?

# June 10, 2006 1:09 PM

T. Wang said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 1:15 PM

Co Kierepka czyta, wie lub myśli, że wie :) said:

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

# June 10, 2006 1:28 PM

G.T. said:

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

# June 10, 2006 1:39 PM

Mike Ormond's WebLog said:

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

# June 10, 2006 1:50 PM

Thomas Goddard said:

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

# June 10, 2006 2:24 PM

How things (should) work said:

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

# June 10, 2006 2:34 PM

Colin said:

>>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.

# June 10, 2006 2:35 PM

Marek said:

"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?!

# June 10, 2006 2:38 PM

Keith Cox - Thoughts and Commentary said:

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

# June 10, 2006 3:02 PM

Arron said:

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

# June 10, 2006 3:13 PM

khuboz.com » WinFX to become .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.khuboz.com/?p=21

# June 10, 2006 3:17 PM

John Lewin said:

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!

# June 10, 2006 3:19 PM

Aaron Stebner's WebLog said:

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

# June 10, 2006 3:51 PM

Damir Tomicic : ein Tag in der Community said:

# June 10, 2006 4:12 PM

Jonathan said:

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.

# June 10, 2006 4:42 PM

Adnan Hashmi said:

<a href="http://www.pkblogs.com/coredotnet/2006/06/net-2-fast-3-furious.html">2 Fast, 3 Furious</a>

# June 10, 2006 4:51 PM

Douwe said:

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?

# June 10, 2006 5:00 PM

Christian Nagel's OneNotes said:

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

Windows Presentation Foundation...

# June 10, 2006 5:04 PM

Dmitry Vorobyev said:

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

# June 10, 2006 5:12 PM

Sad_Developer.NET said:

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!!!

# June 10, 2006 5:15 PM

Brad Abrams : Toward .NET Framework 3.0... said:

PingBack from http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/06/10/625717.aspx

# June 10, 2006 5:17 PM

Blog » Blog Archive » WinFX heet voortaan .Net Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://blog.pointlogic.com/2006/06/10/winfx-heet-voortaan-net-framework-30/

# June 10, 2006 5:25 PM

Blergh » links for 2006-06-10 said:

PingBack from http://blergh.wordpress.com/2006/06/11/links-for-2006-06-10/

# June 10, 2006 6:19 PM

Mike Taulty's Weblog said:

# June 10, 2006 6:51 PM

Fduch said:

Did you ever thight of having a poll when making such deceisions?
Do you mind developers' opinions?

# June 10, 2006 6:55 PM

Fduch said:

"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...

# June 10, 2006 6:56 PM

Security Briefs said:

# June 10, 2006 7:05 PM

keylime said:

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.
###

# June 10, 2006 7:48 PM

nas said:

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!

# June 10, 2006 8:05 PM

Olav's Blog said:

# June 10, 2006 8:15 PM

David Boschmans Weblog said:

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

# June 10, 2006 8:28 PM

Marco Russo said:

Se serviva la parola "fine" all'ambizione di avere con Longhon un sistema operativo basato su una nuova...

# June 10, 2006 9:04 PM

Chris Lang said:

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?

# June 10, 2006 11:23 PM

MasterMaq's Blog said:

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

# June 11, 2006 1:00 AM

DISAPPOINTED said:

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

# June 11, 2006 1:19 AM

Diego Vega said:

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 ;)

# June 11, 2006 2:59 AM

Mehran's Blog said:

It makes complete sense. Read more.

# June 11, 2006 3:45 AM

@baz said:

# June 11, 2006 3:46 AM

OPC Diary said:

Somasegar's WebLog : .NET Framework 3.0 ...

# June 11, 2006 3:51 AM

Mehran Nikoo said:

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?

# June 11, 2006 4:01 AM

Fduch said:

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.

# June 11, 2006 4:16 AM

James said:

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

Hope you didn't spend too long learning them

# June 11, 2006 4:22 AM

のぶろぐ said:

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...

# June 11, 2006 4:29 AM

ZioTom said:

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 :)

# June 11, 2006 5:07 AM

ххуйъ said:

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

# June 11, 2006 6:02 AM

Cow Powered » Blog Archive » Goodbye WinFX said:

PingBack from http://cowpowered.com/blog/2006/06/11/goodbye-winfx/

# June 11, 2006 6:33 AM

Dmitry Vorobyev said:

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?

# June 11, 2006 8:18 AM

Joteke's Blog said:

First thought is: "Wow, I haven't yet get really started with v2.0, and now they bring 3.0." :-) Well,...

# June 11, 2006 9:07 AM

Venkatarangan's Blog [வெங்கடரங்கன் வலைப்பதிவு] said:

# June 11, 2006 9:24 AM

Antonio Pelleriti said:

che confusione!

# June 11, 2006 9:58 AM

Mike McIntyre [MVP] said:

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

# June 11, 2006 10:56 AM

mike mcintyre's said:

# June 11, 2006 11:07 AM

Et-soft said:

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?

# June 11, 2006 11:14 AM

regix said:

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)

# June 11, 2006 11:19 AM

bkchung's WebLog said:

http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx
WinFX라는 이름이 .NET이 없어지는 것처럼 보였던 이미지 때문에...

# June 11, 2006 11:22 AM

La treaba! v3 said:

Vineri am anunţat că vom utiliza numele de .Net Framework 3.0 pentru tot ce-a însemnat până acum .Net...

# June 11, 2006 11:46 AM

Enjoy.NET said:

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

# June 11, 2006 12:13 PM

Express said:

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.

# June 11, 2006 12:20 PM

DkAmirit said:

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 www.microsoft.com is good idea.

Regards

# June 11, 2006 12:31 PM

Convert.ToString(System.Core.Dump) said:

# June 11, 2006 1:32 PM

Kirk Allen Evans' Blog said:

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

# June 11, 2006 1:38 PM

proMX: Christian Otto » Blog Archive » WinFX will be named .Net 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://christianotto.wordpress.com/2006/06/11/winfx-will-be-named-net-30/

# June 11, 2006 1:52 PM

Fduch said:

"Let's try to clear... "
He he... This is the source of the confusion.

# June 11, 2006 1:53 PM

Can Erten » Blog Archive » .Net Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.canerten.com/net-framework-30/

# June 11, 2006 2:33 PM

Jorge Serrano - MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic said:

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

# June 11, 2006 4:19 PM

Andre said:

".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.

# June 11, 2006 5:09 PM

cowgaR said:

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!

# June 11, 2006 5:33 PM

Fduch said:

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.

# June 11, 2006 5:36 PM

Fduch said:

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." ?

# June 11, 2006 5:46 PM

A .NET pontja k??r??l » said:

PingBack from http://www.hatvany-online.net/wordpress/?p=24

# June 11, 2006 6:15 PM

Andrew Stopford's Weblog said:

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

# June 11, 2006 6:19 PM

KB said:

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.

# June 11, 2006 6:23 PM

Eric Nelson - Development for WinFX for ISVs said:

Why? Simple - WinFX is being renamed .NET Framework 3.0 :-) IMVHO this is an overdue rename and very...

# June 11, 2006 6:24 PM

TrackBack said:

PingBack from http://www.cduv.org/2006/06/11/noticias-interesantes-de-la-semana/

# June 11, 2006 6:59 PM

Visual Basic Thunder said:

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...

# June 11, 2006 8:14 PM

wpSlider said:

What I'd really like to know is when Visual Studio For .NET 3.0 will be released???
How's that for being confused.

# June 11, 2006 8:33 PM

Oneda said:

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

# June 11, 2006 8:44 PM

Darryl Burling @ Work said:

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

# June 11, 2006 9:08 PM

????????? ?????? ????????? » InfoCard?????? ??????. ????????? “Window CardSpace” said:

PingBack from http://blog.initech.com/planning/?p=49

# June 11, 2006 10:01 PM

richardt said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 12:04 AM

En pocas l??neas 12 at nacho.com.ar said:

PingBack from http://nacho.com.ar/2006/06/en-pocas-lineas-12/

# June 12, 2006 12:42 AM

Weblogul lui Zoli said:

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

# June 12, 2006 2:08 AM

Erno de Weerd said:

# June 12, 2006 2:20 AM

Johan Danforth's WebLog said:

Picked this up from Soma's blog:

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

# June 12, 2006 2:42 AM

JoshBlog » JoshBack said:

PingBack from http://thejoshblog.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/joshback/

# June 12, 2006 3:42 AM

Thorn said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 4:20 AM

Kea said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 4:23 AM

Jonas said:

"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.

# June 12, 2006 4:38 AM

MVPKenLin said:

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

# June 12, 2006 4:53 AM

Fozzy said:

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...

# June 12, 2006 4:57 AM

Doug said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 5:18 AM

ringi said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 5:22 AM

Robert Burke's Weblog said:

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

# June 12, 2006 5:58 AM

richardt said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 6:33 AM

richardt said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 6:41 AM

garyshort.org » Blog Archive » WinFX Now .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.garyshort.org/?p=253

# June 12, 2006 7:01 AM

The dot before the Net said:

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

# June 12, 2006 7:12 AM

Rui Craveiro said:

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! :-D

# June 12, 2006 7:14 AM

Vassilis Aggelakos said:

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

# June 12, 2006 7:56 AM

BM Bloggers said:

WinFX 3.0 is now .Net Framework 3.0
With the aim of providing us with consistency Soma has announced...

# June 12, 2006 8:02 AM

Jonloh - Tech News, Security, Microsoft, Apple, Software, Hardware, Tips, Mac, Cars, Linux, Gadget, Firefox, Game box Reviews said:

PingBack from http://www.jonloh.com/index.php/2006/06/12/net-framework-30-announced/

# June 12, 2006 8:42 AM

System.Web.Services.Protocols.BrainException said:

PingBack from http://blog.markwillems.nl/DetailsView.aspx?PostingID=f838a915-e5ed-49e8-ba80-6a267441ab3f

# June 12, 2006 9:00 AM

Mark Richards said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 9:19 AM

C# Distilled said:

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

# June 12, 2006 9:32 AM

JrzyShr Dev Guy said:

I've always assumed "WinFx" was just a codename for the new&nbsp;developer technologies coming in the...

# June 12, 2006 9:38 AM

Mahesh kumar.R said:

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

# June 12, 2006 9:45 AM

Nasir Ali Khan : .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://weblogs.com.pk/nasir/archive/2006/06/12/4228.aspx

# June 12, 2006 9:56 AM

Jeff Stong said:

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

# June 12, 2006 9:57 AM

Gary said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 9:59 AM

Luke Hutteman said:

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

I must've missed the news when .NET surpassed Java...

# June 12, 2006 10:01 AM

e-Fuze.com - e-Fuze mobile said:

PingBack from http://www.e-fuze.com/community/?p=475

# June 12, 2006 10:55 AM

We did start the fire (sorry Billy) said:

Letzten Freitag wurde bekannt, daß WinFx nun die dritte Version des .NET Frameworks werden wird (Somasegar's...

# June 12, 2006 11:11 AM

Charliebrownau said:

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 .

# June 12, 2006 11:12 AM

Ken.Robertson.Blog said:

On Friday, Microsoft announced the name change of WinFX to ".NET Framework 3.0" and also changed the

# June 12, 2006 11:29 AM

Grim said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 11:34 AM

Pop Catalin Sever said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 11:51 AM

.NET User Group West Austria said:

Die Programmierschnittstelle WinFX geht ab sofort im .NET Framework 3.0 auf.
Dies verkündet der Leiter...

# June 12, 2006 12:04 PM

Shy Cohen's WebLog said:

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

# June 12, 2006 12:30 PM

Fduch said:

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!

# June 12, 2006 12:39 PM

Antonio Sánchez de Tagle said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 12:56 PM

Srikanth said:

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

# June 12, 2006 1:00 PM

Mike said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 1:22 PM

Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life said:

# June 12, 2006 1:23 PM

Wooley's Wonderings said:

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

# June 12, 2006 1:34 PM

Keith Barrows - StarPilot said:

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

# June 12, 2006 1:49 PM

Praveen's Blog said:

WinFX turns into .NET 3.0

# June 12, 2006 2:20 PM

It's Way Too Early For This said:

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

# June 12, 2006 2:25 PM

Rob Chartier ~ Contemplation... said:

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

# June 12, 2006 2:29 PM

Chris said:

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?

# June 12, 2006 3:24 PM

Fduch said:

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....

# June 12, 2006 3:26 PM

iBlog said:

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

# June 12, 2006 3:39 PM

plaxoed! » Big news for my old team! [Mark Jen’s life @ Plaxo] said:

PingBack from http://blog.plaxoed.com/2006/06/12/big-news-for-my-old-team/

# June 12, 2006 4:32 PM

Mike Mathison said:

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.

# June 12, 2006 6:41 PM

staceyw said:

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

# June 12, 2006 7:08 PM

Notes2Self.net said:

S. "Soma" Somasegar, corporate vice president of the Developer Division at Microsoft Corporation, announced...

# June 12, 2006 9:02 PM

car insurance said:

<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 .

# June 12, 2006 9:08 PM

insurance auto said:

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 .

# June 12, 2006 9:08 PM

insurance auto said:

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

# June 12, 2006 9:08 PM

From a Support Engineer said:

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

# June 12, 2006 10:23 PM

shlock (1) - Nigels Retrospective said:

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

# June 12, 2006 10:32 PM

jpatel said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 12:16 AM

See Win App said:

A while back, I had an acquaintance of mine at another company make the statement "Microsoft is dropping...

# June 13, 2006 12:40 AM

Web Reporter said:

.NET Framework 3.0 will ship with Vista.

When speaking to developers about WinFX one question that...

# June 13, 2006 1:01 AM

???????????????????? ?????????? » .Net framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://sundaybytes.com/2006/06/13/net-framework-30/

# June 13, 2006 1:33 AM

Todotnet Blog said:

# June 13, 2006 2:42 AM

Todotnet Blog said:

# June 13, 2006 2:44 AM

atul.kale said:

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 ;)

# June 13, 2006 3:03 AM

Boczek's .NET Blog said:

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...

# June 13, 2006 3:29 AM

Teiman said:

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

# June 13, 2006 4:08 AM

jake.stateresa said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 4:21 AM

SQL Server, BizTalk Server, le 64 bits, l'architecture et au-delà !... said:

Microsoft a officiellement annoncé le changement de nom de WinFX (l'ensemble des API fournies avec Vista),...

# June 13, 2006 4:22 AM

Site d'informations sur Windows Vista et "Windows Longhorn Server" said:

Microsoft a officiellement annoncé le changement de nom de WinFX (l'ensemble des API fournies avec Vista),...

# June 13, 2006 4:30 AM

Sinmin said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 5:35 AM

Brennon Williams said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 5:38 AM

Technology Experience said:

# June 13, 2006 6:28 AM

nolisj said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 7:21 AM

Sarvjeet said:

Thats Great to have 3.0

# June 13, 2006 8:12 AM

Stefan Goßner said:

[Via Somesegar]
...we have decided to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0.&nbsp; .NET Framework 3.0...

# June 13, 2006 8:20 AM

B# .NET Blog said:

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

# June 13, 2006 8:34 AM

BM said:

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

# June 13, 2006 9:08 AM

Strategic Name Development Product Naming Blog said:

World Cup 2006: when taglines attack - "One game changes everything", 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

# June 13, 2006 9:22 AM

Craig Stuntz's Weblog said:

Noting that

# June 13, 2006 9:35 AM

Shardool Karnik said:

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

# June 13, 2006 9:35 AM

Fduch said:

"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.

# June 13, 2006 9:41 AM

Phil Wheat said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 9:54 AM

My Blog said:

# June 13, 2006 9:59 AM

CMSwire said:

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

# June 13, 2006 10:20 AM

FABIO VALLIDO said:

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

# June 13, 2006 10:31 AM

Camalot Designs said:

Soma's blog post announces the name change of WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0
The change is only a name...

# June 13, 2006 11:28 AM

JasonS said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 12:03 PM

Evan Camilleri said:

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

# June 13, 2006 12:28 PM

Edmundo T. Mendiola said:

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...

# June 13, 2006 12:38 PM

Edmundo T. Mendiola said:

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?

# June 13, 2006 12:43 PM

Edmundo T. Mendiola said:

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?!

# June 13, 2006 12:45 PM

Edmundo T. Mendiola said:

.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!

# June 13, 2006 12:51 PM

Gary said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 12:54 PM

Edmundo T. Mendiola said:

"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!

# June 13, 2006 12:54 PM

TheChaseMan's Frenetic SoapBox said:

# June 13, 2006 12:54 PM

Smith, A. said:

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 :(

# June 13, 2006 1:06 PM

Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life said:

# June 13, 2006 1:11 PM

Just Coding said:

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

# June 13, 2006 1:33 PM

Anand said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 2:42 PM

ken said:

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

# June 13, 2006 2:54 PM

Sad_Developer.NET said:

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!

# June 13, 2006 3:09 PM

Kelly said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 4:30 PM

Aleksey said:

I think this idea is just plain awful and appalling...

# June 13, 2006 5:08 PM

Topics on BizTalk, .NET, etc. said:

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

# June 13, 2006 5:48 PM

Jason Zander's WebLog said:

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

# June 13, 2006 6:01 PM

WinFX becomes .NET Framework 3.0 » Tudy - Tudor Damian said:

PingBack from http://www.tudy.ro/2006/06/14/winfx-becomes-net-framework-30/

# June 13, 2006 6:45 PM

Gabriel Lozano-Morán said:

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.

# June 13, 2006 7:41 PM

links for 2006-06-14 | BiZwiKi.CN - ?????? PK ?????? said:

PingBack from http://www.bizwiki.cn/teamblog/?p=122

# June 13, 2006 8:30 PM

Ardent Dev said:

# June 13, 2006 8:53 PM

Carol Roy's WebLog - Journal web de Carol Roy said:

Depuis quelques temps, lorsque je fais une présentation qui traite de « InfoCard », je commence toujours...

# June 13, 2006 9:53 PM

Software Deployment, Deployment, Setup - Bret Grinslade said:

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

# June 14, 2006 12:36 AM

derek hatchard said:

Posted at Ardent Dev by Derek Hatchard (Go directly to post):
In case you've missed all the noise...

# June 14, 2006 1:35 AM

BorisJ's Blog said:

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

# June 14, 2006 2:31 AM

Alessandro Lacava’s Blog » WinFX renamed to .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.alessandrolacava.com/public/blog/?p=54

# June 14, 2006 4:03 AM

Keets said:

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

# June 14, 2006 4:45 AM

Keets said:

Its okay

# June 14, 2006 4:52 AM

Chris Brooksbank said:

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 . . .

# June 14, 2006 6:31 AM

Softwareentwicklung ist COOL! said:

Viele haben sich sicherlich schon gefragt, wie das alles weitergehen soll mit WinFx und "parallel" dem...

# June 14, 2006 6:56 AM

Praneeth Reddy said:

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

# June 14, 2006 7:00 AM

Marcel Sorger said:

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.

# June 14, 2006 7:29 AM

Marwan Tarek's Blog said:

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

# June 14, 2006 7:45 AM

All About Interop said:

Someone asked how to send binary attachments between .NET and WebSphere.
&nbsp;
After much wailing...

# June 14, 2006 10:02 AM

Maheshkumar.R said:

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

Mahesh

# June 14, 2006 10:12 AM

Faizal said:

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

# June 14, 2006 10:13 AM

Target IT » Blog Archive » WinFX=.Net 3.0! said:

PingBack from http://targetit.net/?p=218

# June 14, 2006 10:51 AM

Vasya V. Thriller said:

.NET must die, assembles rule (it's true!)! :P

# June 14, 2006 11:00 AM

Vasya V. Thriller said:

.NET must die, assembler rule (it's true!)! :P

# June 14, 2006 11:00 AM

Keyvan Nayyeri said:

Last Friday Soma announced that WinFX is no more WinFX.  It’s still .NET and WinFX will be .NET 3.0....

# June 14, 2006 11:11 AM

Keith Kelly said:

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!

# June 14, 2006 11:19 AM

Dmitry Vorobyev said:

2Vasya
.NET must live, assemblies rule :)

# June 14, 2006 11:35 AM

Mark Freedman said:

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

# June 14, 2006 12:12 PM

Ramu said:

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

# June 14, 2006 12:48 PM

Dan said:

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

# June 14, 2006 4:02 PM

Bruce Johnson's SOA(P) Box said:

# June 14, 2006 4:22 PM

Fduch said:

"Later this year, we will start shipping CTPs of Orcas. "
Can I ask how long approximately will it's beta run? Year or longer?

# June 14, 2006 5:38 PM

Merlyn said:

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?

# June 14, 2006 7:42 PM

Javier David Carrillo (JaviDavi) said:

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)

# June 14, 2006 8:29 PM

Javier David Carrillo (JaviDavi) said:

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)

# June 14, 2006 8:30 PM

liolao said:

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???

# June 14, 2006 8:35 PM

NamJin, Cho said:

.Net 영원히...

닷넷이여 영원하라...
대한민국 짝짝짝짝~

# June 14, 2006 9:43 PM

YogaExpert said:

Why is it getting late to launch them?
대~한민국~~ 짝짝짝짝~

# June 14, 2006 10:26 PM

Architect’s Linkblog » Blog Archive » 10 Links for 6/14/06 said:

PingBack from http://asailorskis.com/arch/?p=40

# June 14, 2006 10:46 PM

JasonP said:

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.

# June 15, 2006 12:05 AM

jasonz said:

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

# June 15, 2006 12:54 AM

Personal said:

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

# June 15, 2006 4:54 AM

sph3r.bl0g » winFX = .netFX 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://sph3r.com/blog/index.php/2006/06/15/winfx-netfx-30/

# June 15, 2006 6:58 AM

Jörgen said:

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
\Windows\WinFX\v3.0\. 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.*)

# June 15, 2006 7:14 AM

Ramprasad said:

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.

# June 15, 2006 10:28 AM

Zinoblog said:

# June 15, 2006 1:10 PM

Ben said:

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

# June 15, 2006 1:11 PM

Dr. Random said:

# June 15, 2006 1:11 PM

Moey said:

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.

# June 15, 2006 1:25 PM

SoWhat said:

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...

# June 15, 2006 1:26 PM

ringtones free said:

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 .

# June 15, 2006 3:31 PM

ringtones free said:

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

# June 15, 2006 3:33 PM

moondaddy said:

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.

# June 15, 2006 4:52 PM

Rich Crane said:

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.

# June 15, 2006 5:06 PM

Sergio Tarrillo's Blog -> enhancements said:

Tal y como lo anunciará S. "Soma" Somasegar, en un reciente&nbsp;post: .NET Framework 3.0, en su blog....

# June 16, 2006 1:53 AM

Dmitry Vorobyev said:

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?

# June 16, 2006 3:17 AM

Mike said:

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

Please, Rollback the renaming!!!

# June 16, 2006 3:24 AM

Tekkie » Blog Archive » Microsoft is confusing people again said:

PingBack from http://tekkie.wordpress.com/2006/06/16/microsoft-is-confusing-people-again/

# June 16, 2006 5:50 AM

Ian Nelson said:

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

# June 16, 2006 10:18 AM

Doesn't matter said:

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.

# June 16, 2006 2:43 PM

Bryant Longley said:

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!).

# June 16, 2006 5:46 PM

Rich Crane said:

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

# June 16, 2006 7:41 PM

EricTN said:

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.

# June 16, 2006 9:38 PM

James Newton-King - Newtonblog said:

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

# June 17, 2006 1:09 AM

mike gromov said:

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

# June 17, 2006 6:03 PM

priya said:

good

# June 18, 2006 12:33 AM

Peter Monadjemi said:

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

# June 18, 2006 7:08 AM

Richard Grimes said:

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.

# June 18, 2006 10:35 AM

Gabriel Lozano-Morán said:

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.

# June 18, 2006 11:00 AM

Carpii said:

who cares. .NET is WANK !

# June 18, 2006 3:52 PM

Edmundo T. Mendiola said:

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.

# June 19, 2006 6:08 AM

TangibleThoughts : .NET 3.0 = 2.0? Oh God! My head hurts. said:

PingBack from http://tariqayad.com/blogs/tangiblethoughts/archive/2006/06/19/25.aspx

# June 19, 2006 8:22 AM

Dave R. said:

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.

# June 19, 2006 8:42 AM

Vijay P. Mehta said:

I haven't gotten around to writing the next part of "Zen and the Art of Reflection" yet, because I'm...

# June 19, 2006 8:00 PM

Ghaladen said:

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....

# June 20, 2006 3:03 AM

Chris Pirillo doesn???t get Second Life (and gives us Windows Vista stats) - davecentral Planet David Central & Dave Central Planet said:

PingBack from http://www.davecentral.net/2006/06/10/chris-pirillo-doesn%e2%80%99t-get-second-life-and-gives-us-windows-vista-stats/

# June 20, 2006 7:00 AM

Peter Schneider said:

Let WinFX live!!!!

# June 20, 2006 10:08 AM

Shamshuddin said:

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

# June 21, 2006 5:46 AM

Tom Hollander's blog said:

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

# June 21, 2006 3:02 PM

Thomas said:

Why not call it .NET Framework 2.1?

# June 21, 2006 4:07 PM

Chuck said:

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?

# June 21, 2006 5:57 PM

Syed Raihan said:

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

# June 22, 2006 3:50 AM

andreas04: close to attraction said:

PingBack from http://billsbaby.com/index.php/2006/06/22/windows-vista-are-we-missing-the-point/

# June 22, 2006 6:41 AM

kalyan said:

where can i download .NETFramework 3.0 for windows 2003 server

# June 22, 2006 8:16 AM

doobiwan said:

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 . . . . .

# June 22, 2006 10:52 AM

Service Station, by Aaron Skonnard said:

# June 22, 2006 7:24 PM

Richie said:

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

# June 23, 2006 2:36 AM

ethemazun said:

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

Did Bill already left the company?

# June 23, 2006 11:46 AM

Tim Sneath said:

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

# June 23, 2006 1:49 PM

Sean Gerety said:

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

# June 23, 2006 4:05 PM

Jose Morató said:

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

# June 23, 2006 4:49 PM

Mahjayar's WebLog. said:

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

# June 23, 2006 6:08 PM

Digital Oxygen Weblog said:

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.  These interfac ...

# June 23, 2006 7:25 PM

Gabriel Lozano-Morán said:

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

# June 23, 2006 8:43 PM

John Spano's Blog CTO and Cofounder of NeoTekSystems said:

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

# June 23, 2006 10:55 PM

htor said:

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
www.jjroth.com

# June 24, 2006 7:45 AM

Williams Molina Blog said:

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

# June 24, 2006 10:54 AM

Mahesh Babu's Blog said:

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

Download...

# June 24, 2006 2:03 PM

E.Krishna Kumar’s Weblog » Microsoft .Net Framework 3.0?? said:

PingBack from http://ekrishnakumar.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/microsoft-net-framework-30/

# June 25, 2006 2:37 AM

Yuval Ararat » Blog Archive » .Net Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.ararat.org.il/net-framework-30

# June 25, 2006 7:24 AM

Yuval Ararat » Blog Archive » .Net Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.ararat.org.il/net-framework-30-2

# June 25, 2006 7:24 AM

Sharing my thoughts… » Blog Archive » said:

PingBack from http://sarathc.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/39/

# June 25, 2006 8:01 AM

Sharing my thoughts… » Blog Archive » said:

PingBack from http://sarathc.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/39/

# June 25, 2006 8:01 AM

Sharing my thoughts… » Blog Archive » .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://sarathc.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/net-framework-30/

# June 25, 2006 8:03 AM

K# said:

# June 25, 2006 10:02 AM

frankarr - an aussie microsoft blogger said:

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

 Thanks Kleefy!!
We all know that...

# June 26, 2006 3:43 AM

Ray said:

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!

# June 27, 2006 9:48 PM

Paul said:

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

# June 28, 2006 10:01 AM

butalbital addiction said:

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>

# June 28, 2006 3:32 PM

SV said:

why don't you guys just use Java??

# June 28, 2006 4:13 PM

Hemant said:

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

# June 29, 2006 2:47 AM

Russell Mason said:

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?

# June 29, 2006 6:07 AM

ANATOLY said:

ANATOLY

# June 29, 2006 10:44 AM

GW said:

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.

# June 29, 2006 2:31 PM

Patata_666 said:

onde mierda se baja esta wea?

# June 29, 2006 5:47 PM

Raghvendra Raghuwanshi said:

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

# July 3, 2006 1:28 AM

The Expression Designers: Graphic, Interactive, Web said:

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

# July 4, 2006 6:13 PM

Digital Oxygen Weblog said:

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.  These interfac ...

# July 11, 2006 11:40 AM

Bring It On said:

# July 12, 2006 5:22 AM

protected virtual void jaysonBlog { said:

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

# July 13, 2006 12:25 AM

The Daily Ramblings of an SMS Engineer said:

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

# July 13, 2006 8:18 AM

Riaan's Blog said:

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

# July 14, 2006 12:05 AM

Christophe Lauer, Blog Edition said:

Si vous ne savez pas à quoi correspond la dénomination ".NET Framework 3.0", vous devriez jeter un oeil...

# July 19, 2006 10:32 AM

ITrethewey said:

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

# July 26, 2006 7:12 AM

Bill Fisher's WebLog said:

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

# July 31, 2006 3:32 PM

Soci blog » Blog Archive » WinFX -> .NET Fw. 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://soci.hu/blog/index.php/2006/08/02/winfx-net-fw-30/

# August 2, 2006 7:03 AM

Vijay shankar ganesh K » Blog Archives » Internet Explorer 7 not to have different name in Windows Vista said:

PingBack from http://blog.vijay.name/index.php/2006/08/06/internet-explorer-7-not-to-have-different-name-in-windows-vista/

# August 6, 2006 12:30 PM

圣殿祭司　奚江華 said:

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

# August 7, 2006 11:40 PM

.NET 3.0 is coming! oh wait, it's not said:

PingBack from http://spicycode.com/articles/2006/06/09/net-3-0-is-coming-oh-wait-its-not

# August 8, 2006 8:16 AM

For the RecordI am disheartened by Andrew Baron’s decision to -- Centplus Tech said:

PingBack from http://www.centplus.com/for-the-recordi-am-disheartened-by-andrew-barons-decision-to/

# August 10, 2006 2:02 AM

Gabriel Lozano-Morán - The .NET Aficionado said:

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

# August 10, 2006 2:47 PM

James Newton-King said:

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

# August 18, 2006 4:50 AM

ABA Report on Presidential Signing Statements: A …So whatrsquo;s wrong -- Centplus Tech said:

PingBack from http://www.centplus.com/aba-report-on-presidential-signing-statements-a-so-whatrsquos-wrong/

# August 25, 2006 2:02 AM

Mindberg said:

# August 27, 2006 11:03 AM

Bryan Corazza BizTalk said:

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

# August 28, 2006 5:13 PM

guidmaster´s .NET blog said:

Endnu engang har vi fået en omdøbning af de kommende teknologier &ndash; det er næsten ikke til at følge

# September 2, 2006 6:30 AM

Paul Gielens:ThoughtsService said:

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

# September 2, 2006 2:07 PM

Community Blogs said:

... C# 3.0, LINQ, .NET 3.0, CLR 3.0, Orcas, ADO.NET 3.0, WinFX-->.NET 3.0? Whoaa!! wait a minute !!...

# September 5, 2006 4:18 PM

Software Development with Visual Studio 2005 said:

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

# September 8, 2006 6:48 PM

Chagel’s weblog » WinFX????????? .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://chagel.com/blog/?p=14

# September 18, 2006 10:29 PM

.NET Framework 3.0When speaking to developers about WinFX one question -- Centplus Tech said:

PingBack from http://www.centplus.com/net-framework-30when-speaking-to-developers-about-winfx-one-question/

# September 22, 2006 2:01 AM

Windows Vista, .NET 3.0 and Windows SDK Compatibility MatrixI originally -- Centplus Tech said:

PingBack from http://www.centplus.com/windows-vista-net-30-and-windows-sdk-compatibility-matrixi-originally/

# October 1, 2006 4:00 AM

Weblog di Fabio Cozzolino said:

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

# October 3, 2006 4:07 AM

Alexandre Gomes » .Net Framework 3.0 to be released with Vista (Updated) said:

PingBack from http://www.alexandre-gomes.com/?p=71

# October 4, 2006 10:15 PM

The dot before the Net said:

The most talked about platform - the Winfx that encompassed the major breakthroughs including the Communication

# October 6, 2006 10:54 AM

La treaba! v3 said:

Vineri am anunţat că vom utiliza numele de .Net Framework 3.0 pentru tot ce-a însemnat până

# October 10, 2006 5:30 AM

.NET Framework 3.0When speaking to developers about WinFX one question -- Centplus Tech said:

PingBack from http://www.centplus.com/net-framework-30when-speaking-to-developers-about-winfx-one-question-2/

# October 14, 2006 3:59 AM

Geezerville USA: Wordpress Blog DesignQuality work backed by incredible support. -- Centplus Tech said:

PingBack from http://www.centplus.com/geezerville-usa-wordpress-blog-designquality-work-backed-by-incredible-support/

# October 15, 2006 4:00 AM

Mykre's Space said:

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

# October 16, 2006 8:05 AM

.NET Framework 3.0When speaking to developers about WinFX one question -- Centplus Tech said:

PingBack from http://www.centplus.com/net-framework-30when-speaking-to-developers-about-winfx-one-question-3/

# October 19, 2006 3:59 AM

My Technobabble said:

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

# October 25, 2006 4:07 PM

daomucun said:

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。

# October 26, 2006 10:31 AM

.NET Framework 3.0 ????????? - ??????????????? said:

PingBack from http://www.javanet.tw/ckbase/?p=12

# October 30, 2006 8:57 AM

Shey’s Rebellion » Microsoft Releases .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.sheysrebellion.net/blog/?p=31

# November 7, 2006 7:39 AM

mr.wicket said:

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

# November 9, 2006 3:15 AM

Microsoft’s .Net 3.0 June CTP is here « Mahesh Punyamurthula’s Blog said:

PingBack from http://jsmags.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/microsofts-net-30-june-ctp-is-here/

# November 10, 2006 12:20 PM

Bill Fisher's WebLog said:

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

# December 4, 2006 3:37 PM

Matt Brindley said:

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...

# December 16, 2006 7:30 PM

Voyager ??? ?????? » ??????-.NET Framework 3.0????????????Q&A said:

PingBack from http://jlinv.mx500.com/blogs/?p=111

# December 25, 2006 12:10 PM

Hecgo.com » Blog Archive » .NET Framework 3.0 (formerly WinFX) said:

PingBack from http://www.hecgo.com/2006/06/14/net-framework-30-formerly-winfx/

# January 13, 2007 3:40 AM

Windows Presentation Foundation SDK said:

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

# January 23, 2007 5:32 PM

Buu Nguyen’s Blog » Blog Archive » .NET 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://www.buunguyen.net/blog/?p=13

# January 30, 2007 4:37 PM

Julio C??sar Carrascal Urquijo » Archivo » La conspiraci??n Redmond. said:

PingBack from http://jcesar.3stecnoinformatica.com/2006/06/14/la-conspiracion-redmond/

# March 19, 2007 5:19 PM

Keith Barrows - Aggregated said:

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

# March 27, 2007 11:12 PM

WinFX = .NET Framework 3.0 at Sanal Kiler said:

PingBack from http://sanal.org/?p=117

# April 14, 2007 7:46 PM

清风涤尘 said:

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

# April 28, 2007 8:23 PM

清风涤尘 said:

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

# May 10, 2007 10:52 PM

Vanittminden said:

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

# May 15, 2007 2:33 PM

Al Nyveldt said:

A new .NET framework already?

# June 25, 2007 5:30 PM

A new .NET framework already? said:

PingBack from http://www.nyveldt.com/blog/post/A-new-.NET-framework-already.aspx

# June 25, 2007 5:31 PM

Zinoblog said:

# July 1, 2007 3:59 AM

林西 said:

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...

# August 14, 2007 10:47 PM

free myspace layouts hot stuff said:

free myspace layouts hot stuff

# September 17, 2007 5:48 AM

fun codes free myspace layouts said:

fun codes free myspace layouts

# September 18, 2007 1:57 AM

Mahesh said:

DotNet Framework 3.0

# October 30, 2007 4:34 AM

Daniel Oskarsson .se » Blog Archive » .NET Framework 3.0 said:

PingBack from http://danieloskarsson.se/?p=65

# November 11, 2007 7:51 AM

Shay Weiss said:

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 fatherâ€™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