Talk:.NET Framework/Archive 3

Alternative Implementations - out of date
Under alternative implementations, it says that Novell is actively developing Mono. Novell has since been acquired by Attachmate, who has dropped support for Mono and has laid off hundreds of developers. There's some uncertainty about Mono's future, but Miguel de Icaza is rumoured to be starting his own company to develop it. Not sure how this should be properly worded / wikified... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.116.100 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Size of the .Net Fx 2.0
Somebody added this to a software description page (Create Synchronicity). I think it belongs here more, since it essentially describes the .net fx (I trimmed the description a bit):


 * It also requires the Microsoft .NET 2.0 framework (or above) which adds another 22.4MB (minimum, plus service pack 2 at 23.8MB and security updates) to be downloaded and installed if not already present. Microsoft specifies that .NET 2.0 requires up to 280MB of disk space and Service Pack 2 for it requires up to an additional 500MB of disk space . This could bring the total requirements to over 50MB of downloaded files and 780MB of disk space. These requirements can be considerably higher if a later version of .NET is chosen instead (of the 2.0 version)

I thought someone might want to have a look at it: I haven't added it myself, since I thought it may require a little reorganization, and I wouldn't want to interfere with other people working on this =) It's basically .net Fx Criticism, but anyway it doesn't belong to the software page (I think). Cfpcompte (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism cleanup
Farther down this page, an anonymous coward makes an interesting point:
 * "Now here I was, laboring under the received wisdom that Wikipedia could possibly provide me with a clear and understandable article about the .NET Framework, specifically why I, as a layman with no interest in programming, should require it to take up so much space, so surreptitiously, on my computer. What I read is opaque, nearly impenetrable jargon that - in those sections that are understandable to a non-programmer - sounds like an angel chorus singing its praises."


 * I presume that your use of the word 'coward' refers to the 'anonymous'. Clearly limited thought has gone into that association. There are many of who do not spend our lives here; we are that irritating populace that actually uses Wikipedia. We show up, read an article, and wishing to help we try to make constructive comments. But we are 'fly-bys': we will not be back so our signature helps neither you or us so we do not bother.


 * I echo the sentiment expressed by that anonymous visitor. I admire all who contribute here; it takes time, effort and is appreciated. But there is a general problem that seems to be spreading at WP: of articles being written by insiders...for insiders. This probably arises because debate about content arises from within this gene pool but the result is that the article ends up reflecting that esoteric knowledge.


 * But experts in a field have expert texts they can consult and only they can consult. The whole point of a public encyclopedia is to satisfy the needs of non-experts: a more general (and unwashed) public. If you wish to create more of that 'user-unfriendly' text, you can write another book. Here, the text is supposed to be intelligible to those who have little or no background.


 * I spent 40 years in IT (am now retired) and I barely understand any of this article! Gentlemen (a fair assumption I think), you don't have to start again but you should redo the start. I agree that the likely visitor has to be someone who has some IT experience but you should at least start the article with something that the average person might be interested in and understand. Something like this: ".NET was created by Microsoft in (year) to attempt to create a modern entirely web-focused environment for programmers. Many of the languages and tools available before .NET were conceived before the age of the internet and each language often operated in a different and incompatible way with others. .NET was designed from the start to provide a web-focused environment that would allow systems to be designed with a variety of languages to operate together. There has been some success.... but critics wonder whether these goals have been achieved...". [Then--although hopefully in gradual steps--the knowledge might get more esoteric]


 * This sample text is all likely rubbish but perhaps it is some help.
 * --174.7.56.10 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A rant to be sure, but it seems a valid rant to me.

What does .NET bring to the average user such that it is worth installing its considerable bulk? Blocking the often-exploited "Buffer Overflow" sounds nice, but bad actors won't go there in .NET so it's a thin point. "Language independence" for those languages re-jiggered to run in .NET is nice, but not particularly interesting to non programmers.

If MS hasn't built (or funded the build) of .NET for the 'nix universe, is not the core claim of "platform independence" made thin? Is not the shadow of "monopolistic behavior" increased? That question seems an 800 lb gorilla in the room, thus an up or down answer is needed.

I believe this article would profit from a modern list of end-user focused applications programs using the .NET framework and what that has added to their lives.

rosebud (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed this:


 * In a managed environment the regularly occurring garbage collection for reclaiming memory suspends execution of the application for an unpredictable lapse of time (typically no more than a few milliseconds, but in memory-constrained systems can be much longer). This makes such environments unsuitable for some applications such as those that must respond to events with predictable timing (see real-time computing).

As it is an issue with all garbage collected VM languages, not just .NET.

65.161.188.11 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That Microsoft has applied for patents on some parts of the Framework is not a valid complaint on the framework itself, the comment about Novel and MS:s patent deal is quite a bit off topic and speculative. Thus I was bold and removed this section.


 * Microsoft has applied for patents on some parts of the Framework. An agreement was made however between Microsoft and Novell whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell or its customers for patent infringement, allowing the implementation of these parts in the open-source Mono implementation of .NET. According to a statement on the blog of Mono project leader Miguel de Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono, but only for Novell developers and users. It was criticized by the Open source communit--202.153.41.115 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)--202.153.41.115 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)--202.153.41.115 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)y because it violates the principles of giving equal rights to all users of a particular program (see Patent Agreement with Microsoft). In February 2007, rumors circulated that the Free Software Foundation is reviewing Novell's right to sell GNU software, which makes up much of a Linux operating system, because of this agreement. However Eben Moglen later said that he was quoted out of context, and referring to possible changes that could be made to the GPL version 3, that would block similar deals in the future.

Signed User:Swetha Rani Peddaboina 09:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of cleanup, this point:


 * Several developers have reported issues with something known as "the parking window". There are times when the parking window will put itself into a condition which Windows treats as fatal, and thus the .Net application is terminated.

This is not .NET-trac, an arbitrary obscure bug is not proper criticism. 85.8.4.157 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the GetHashCode complaint on breaking changes between FW versions. The result of GetHashCode was never designed to be stored/used/etc. beyond a single application run. 24.124.103.251 04:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Mach

I find the entire criticism section of dubious value. The first few points don't seem very significant. Then, those regarding performance, reverse engineering of code, and garbage collection are (as noted) not specific to the .Net framework, and "criticism" seems too strong a label. I'm inclined to remove the first points, and retain these last three under a new heading named "Disadvantages". What do y'all think? Leotohill (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though some of these criticisms are not specific to .NET, seeing as how .NET is one of the primary implementations of a managed environment used today, these do appear to be some of the most common criticisms of it. So it seems like they could belong here, but perhaps organized under a heading explaining this point. Calwiki (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

60.240.111.29 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the main criticism is the simplest one: The entire framework is a bargelike white elephant that shouldn't exist in the first place. There is nothing particularly clever about it, its basically a cleanup and re-sell of their DCOM architecture, and it yet again reinvents wheels that were already spinning as far back as the 80's.  It is complicated to use, requiring the use of specialized tools to sort out the mess for the developer (thereby removing control and certainty from them), slow, resource hungry, and from what we've seen so far, a complete security nightmare.


 * Sorry but "I don't like it" does not constitute as criticism. --soum talk 15:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cshuller (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * C++ Memory allocation error. One has two options for creating a variable in C++, on the stack, or on the heap.  If we interpret "grab a variable" to mean "use the 'new' operator" then the comment is reasonably correct.  However it is generally preferred to use the stack unless there is good cause to alloc something.  Using the stack (also called automatic variables, or statically allocated variables) means there is no system call, and is very fast.

Cshuller (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on the general tone. I am looking for real criticisms of .Net.  What I read were real critisisms of other development tools.  The "bargelike white elephant" comment above gave me more information than the entire published section:  Very Large, Repackaging of Old Ideas, Hard to use, Resource intense.  Many of which I was able to infer from the features the .Net framework provides, but I saw no clear rebuttals.  For instance, the size of the .Net framework is in question, compare it to the size of the Java environment.  How much larger is it really?  (I happen to know on my system they were comparable, except I had 3 .net versions and only 1 Java version.).  Another interesting question is size of the GNU C++ library (with the STL) and the size of the .Net framework.  It's not really apples to apples, but gives me a solid basis for comparison.  We all expect C++ to be relatively feature poor compared to .Net, so we expect it to be quite a lot smaller, perhaps it's only a bit smaller though....


 * "Applications running in a managed environment such as the Microsoft framework's CLR or Java's JVM tend to require more system resources than similar applications that access machine resources more directly. Some applications, however, have been shown to perform better in .NET than in their native version.[citation needed] This could be due to the runtime optimizations made possible by such an environment, the use of relatively well-performing functions in the .NET framework, just-in-time compilation of managed code, or other aspects of the CLR."

Yeah, a citation's definitely needed there. I've never once seen .NET code that can outperform native code, either in test cases or real-world software. In my own tests, the same code in Delphi for Win32 and Delphi for .NET (one of the few languages where you can actually do a straight-up comparison of the exact same source code) tends to require 5-20x more memory and 3-5x more "CPU %" to accomplish the same task, and I've never once seen a commercial .NET application that I'd describe as "fast" or "responsive". I'm removing everything after the first sentence. Someone feel free to put it back in if you can find a valid source to reference. --Masonwheeler (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with the removal of the uncited claim, but I'm not ok with replacing it with another uncited claim.  I reverted your edit. Leotohill (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy into any of the speech about the .NET framework being cross-platform. It's designed to be cross-platform, but in practice the only implementation is on Windows. Compare this to Java or Python or Ruby, or what the heck, C++, where each release is more or less simultaneous for all platforms. Mono is not a compatible implementation of the .NET framework. It's a very interesting platform on its own, but not reliable at the same level as Java or C++. Maybe tie this to the lack of will by Microsoft to support its technology on other platforms? --Ruijoel (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Calwiki removed a part on .NET framework assistant firefox plugin. Since this is a pressing matter (FF 3.5 just blocked the plugin for me), it cannot be just deleted. You are free to fix inaccuracies, errors, add s etc, but please don't remove all references to the disputed assistant. 193.110.109.30 (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Section is too specifc and obscure to belong on an encyclopedic page about the .NET Framework. This article is not a buglist or a list of all current and past security vulnerabilities in the framework (WP:NOTDIR). This topic is called "a pressing matter," but this article is not for news about the framework, nor is it for warning people or for advocating a change in the design of the framework (WP:NOTADVOCATE). Even if significantly shortened, the complaint is still much too obscure to belong in the Criticism section. Calwiki (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

NAGARAJU

Hidden Firefox Add-On & Giant .NET 3.5 SP1 KB951847
On about 27jan09 MS pushed out the giant 250MB .NET 3.5 SP1 KB951847 via auto-update. Some users report various problems, typical of giant Service Pack installation. It is reported that even if the file is downloaded manually and installed that way, the auto-update tries to download the whole thing again:

http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1233328930
 * "This is a large file and takes a bit to D/L and install. I install NetFramework on all our customers XP Pro new builds. So I thought that I would just D/L and save the file to my thumbdrive with the rest of my needed installation files and then just install it manually. Well, surprise, even after a manual install, MS Update insists upon D/Ling and installing it again, same KB951847. What am I missing here?"

This SP forces new extensions and plugins into Firefox, without notice or option, and does not allow removal. The article should mention this.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1064265&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
 * "I found that this Microsoft Update had installed the extension Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0. It also installed the plugin Windows Presentation Foundation."
 * "I am incandescent about MS adding this to MY FF installation without so much as a "by your leave" AND THEN not giving the option to uninstall it. The naive arrogance of MS is the absolute limit and why, after 10 years of web development on MS platforms I'm now moving to Linux."

-68.236.103.195 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this request. Microsoft's hidden Add-On caused a huge outcry and should definitively be mentioned here. It's been a while already since the incident, but there is still no word of it here.

My Firefox browser informed me today that Microsoft had installed an add-on to the browser I am using. I did not ask for it. But is that not the usual modus operandi of this rapacious company? I am not a techie, a programmer, or any other sort of computer geek. However, I am a writer, and quite a good one. In my occupation I take complex situations or topics and make them readable and understandable. Now here I was, labouring under the received wisdom that Wikipedia could possibly provide me with a clear and understandable article about the .NET Framework, specifically why I, as a layman with no interest in programming, should require it to take up so much space, so surreptitiously, on my computer. What I read is opaque, nearly impenetrable jargon that - in those sections that are understandable to a non-programmer - sounds like an angel chorus singing its praises.

Let's see now. Is this regurgitated Microsoft pap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.150.32 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The OneClick extension for Firefox was clearly detailed in the release notes. Saying it is "Hidden" is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hidden, means if you can't ctrl F and find the word 'Firefox', it's hidden. Not that difficult a concept is it? When it was first put out, .net framework completely broke My(and 3 of my friend's) Firefox browsers. Since then, it still inserts itself needlessly, but doesn't seem to cause obvious stability issues. Now I just identify what registry keys, files and folders it installs and simply lock those names out from the operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.187.162.224 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Installation
How about a criticism on the installation? More and more applications see "no .net framework" as a selling point, typically listed as a bullet point saying "written in C++" or "written in native code", "simple installer" etc. Whether true or not, many users refuse to install the .net framework because of the size and complexity of the installers. For this reason, consumer products using the .net framework can lose out to applications with quick and easy installers. It is difficult to sell a 1 MB application online if you require end users to download and install a 50MB framework using a complex installer, simply to try the product. Frank Hileman (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now added some text that mentions this concern, because I believe it has some merit. However, I do think your phrasing exaggerates it. Is the .net framework install complex?  I think it's just one or two clicks.  And I question your "more and more" claim... some verifiable facts would be nice. Leotohill (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * EVERY damn library ever written must be present before it can be used. Whether they are C/C++ libraries (which generally tend to be statically linked) or dynamic libraries like .NET Fx, Java, or even the interpreted languages like Python, Ruby and even JavaScript is immaterial. Even C++ requires the runtime library pre-installed. Just because they can be embedded with every application does not mean it is not required to be installed. There is nothing exceptional about .NET Framework to deserve a criticism. You can have your installer automatically download and install the framework - even silently if you will. Or packages exists to even embed the parts of .net fx into your installer. Where is the complexity? --soum talk 07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think there is a significant quantitative difference between, say, a small app that is entirely supported by a single EXE, and the .Net framework. If I wanted the widest-possible adoption of my calculator program, for example, that's the way I'd plan it. A 5-second download, and it runs.  I also think the demand for little apps like this is pretty small, but I think it's ok to mention the consideration.  Leotohill 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "plan" would also depend on the amount of dev effort you are willing to put in. If you want the calc to be done in half an hour, you would go for either .net fx or java (okay, generalizations are bad, but, I hope you get my point). Plus there is a very good chance that .net fx will already be there on the client machine. Btw, my previous post was directed mainly at the gross exaggeration of the first post. --soum talk 16:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was speaking purely from the perspective of the end user and not the developer. The complexity and hassle is perceived primarily as the download size and separate installation steps. While C++ applications require libraries, they can be statically linked, meaning we do not need a giant end user download containing lots of code never exercised by the application. The concern is real and if you discuss the problem with shareware authors, you will find they recognize the problem. End users want small downloads for trials, and they want the installation process to be as simple and reversible as possible. .net installers are getting larger and larger with each new version of the framework, and they are not always robust. I personally went through hell trying to apply a service pack for a released version of the .net framework; it was a buggy installer from Microsoft that caused the problem. No KB was ever posted on Microsoft's site for this problem and Microsoft support was helpless to solve it. I discovered many others had the same problem by googling. To summarize, if you use a later .net framework for a small application you risk being labeled bloatware or people have fears of installing Microsoft "packages" because of previous poor experiences with Microsoft applications and installers. This is not a "gross exaggeration" and I suggest anyone who believes it is an exaggeration, to discuss the problem in a mailing list or newsgroup for shareware authors, to see for yourself. Some other comments: Frank Hileman (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Static linking - self contained apps...a good thing? Thats NOT at all a yes or no question. Depends on a lot of thing. For something as basic as a NIO library or a web services stack (which is potentially used by dozens of apps) ... shared library is better, and that mandates dynamic linking. Now if each such library (numbers rivalling as many separate components are there in .net fx) were to be separately installed, that would be a nightmare to manage. In that case, .net fx is definitely a better idea. So, as I said, its all subjective and depends on a lot of things, and not a "real concern" without any other variables.


 * That said, there is a very high probability .net fx is already installed (either because it was installed for some previous installation or already as a component of the OS). So most apps will not need a "hefty download". IBtw, isn't this the same behavior as Windows Installer itself? Thats not too lite a download. As for increase in size, the later versions are inclusive of older versions (e.g., 3.5 includes 2.0 SP1 and 3.0 SP1). You have the online installer, which is free of this "bloat".


 * As for the installation issues, I know. I had the problem too. Even verbose installer log was of very little help. For three different issues. But the problem twice was traced to some non-standard system setup. True a part of the blame lies with MS but blaming all on MS isn't the solution. Depends on the issue - for this case as well.


 * As such, you need to provide claim that this is a problem faced by the majority, not someone's wishlist, and reproducible on demand. Plus attested by a reliable source (sorry, but mailing lists and forums are not). As I already showed, all the problems are very subjective, and depends on a lot of other things. As such, justifying them as criticism would not be so easy. WP is not a bug database. Just because of a bug, something does not get included here. Everything is judged on their own notability. --soum talk 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Page views vs downloads has decreased from about 80% to 60%" -- that is not a "reliable source"? That is as reliable as we can get for such a topic. I humbly suggest you provide a reliable source indicating there is no problem : ) .--Frank Hileman (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a anonymous comment regarding an unnamed application. Of course it's not a reliable source. Leotohill (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not reliable either? Now lets apply the same "reliable source" request to the claim that end users are not burdened or turned off by large, unreliable Microsoft installers running when they attempt to install a small application. Lets see some reliable sources please. Until we have such a reliable source, not based on any statistics from Microsoft, we must not assume everything is peachy in the .net redistribution world. Frank Hileman (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The installers are considerably better than in the past. Let's assume that you install the .Net Framework once... you no longer have to install it when new applications targeting the framework are installed.  To test this I just created a .Net 2.0 program with an installer... total size, 681K.  That's all I distribute.  So, if the client/user does NOT have the .Net Framework on their machine then the installer will download and install the framework which is then the larger package.  In the past with Visual Basic 6 as an example your installation package often included everything with it and very frequently could include differnt versions of the same file which was an extraordinary headache for devlopers, something that has been remedied with the Framework's setup.  As per the size concern, if we look at Java for a comparison of another managed language framework, the runtime for it is currently 13.92MB for an offline install on Windows and nearly 18MB on Linux .  So further, think about this, The .Net Framework 3.0 is installed by default in Vista... that being the case, any program targeting it can have extremely small installation packages because the framework is already there by default.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.237.241 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a small example of some frustration felt by an end-user installing a later version of the .net framework. I believe earlier versions of the framework were relatively painless, but .net 3.0 and 3.5 are a pain in the butt for end users. From a review of "ID Vault" on Amazon: "After multiple reboots, software updates, uninstall/reinstalls, uninstallation/reinstallation of '.NET Framework 3.0', installation of '.NET Framework 3.5', installation/reinstallation of same using both the ID Vault install disc and the 'dotnetfxsetup.exe' separately, trying both the downloaded ID Vault software and the original disc, etc. etc., nothing could get ID Vault to recognize the presence of the device." While we might attribute this to poor quality of other software, I believe the frustration with later versions of the .net framework is common. As for reliable sources, none of the Microsoft sources that unconditionally praise .net are reliable.  --Frank Hileman (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) More notes on the pain of the .net framework 3.5 installation: An excerpt: "The install takes forever on XP and installing patches for .NET take forever as well." --Frank Hileman (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (deindent) Just one instance (that too arguably where a separate software is being crticized) cannot be used to demonstrate it being "common". Need reliable citations to claim that its "common" - original research won't work, nor will self published sources. Plus, you might want to educate yourself what reliable sources are. --soum talk 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to my personal experience, "reliable sources" are the ones which happen to support the unconfessable biases of some "truth-guardians" @ Wikipedia ^__^ KSM2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You win souma. I am tired of digging up sources and having them labeled unreliable. No academic paper will ever be published describing various end user hells created by .net framework installers. The only organization that has any good statistics on this, Microsoft, will never tell us how bad the situation is. By the same standard for reliable sources, probably most of this article should be deleted. What is your name, souma? Are you a "reliable source"? Frank Hileman (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"no .net framework" as a selling point, typically listed as a bullet point saying "written in C++" or "written in native
 * Hi, just wanted to voice my support for Frank here. I'm a non-techie and wanted to download Paint.net - only to find that this small programme needed the whopping big .net Framework for it. So I didn't download that - instead I came here to see if the programme was useful (and having read the impenetrable article - I'm not really sure if I'll ever need this programme again since there's no list of progs that use it). So basically, Frank has a point that the size is a turn off - and I sympathise with him that there are no good places to quote to use as a source for his comment. BUT Frank, don't give up - only controversial claims need sources - and your claim is logical and intuitive. Soum should be a little less fanatical here and allow what you say because it makes sense god dammit. Malick78 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Up to date I have refused four programs the require .NET, while this dosen't count as reliable source, it is evidence. My reasons are that it requires a huge install and keeps trying to update itself. It reduces the performance of my PC. From a technical perspective, I know that .NET is not necessary, it dosen't add any new functionality, it is only used because programmers want to use it. The internet also shows that many people have problems with .NET and that its function is unstable between versions. NET is very much like Java, and people don't install it for the same reasons.--83.216.149.7 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything imaginable is said on the Internet, the question is: Is it reasonable and from a reputable source. Saying that "no .Net" is a valid criticism of .Net is beyond laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether "no .NET" is a valid criticism or not, it's a selling point and shows that some people do not want to use .NET, the validity of any criticism can be argued endlessly. This discussion begins with people asking if they really need to install .NET --83.216.149.7 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

.NET on the Mac (via Silverlight)
Since Silverlight (as virtual machine / browser plug-in / standalone app) now supports, contains, or otherwise executes .NET code, and runs native on the Mac OSX, I for one, find it misleading to paint .NET as a single-platform platform.

Can we have a reasoned consensus on this? 72.242.6.114 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is possible to execute .NET code on non-Windows platforms, through mono or silverlight, the limitations of these solutions still make multi-platform .NET development difficult and often impractical. I think the article should reflect that.Nimrand 03:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on Silverlight (infact the current silverlight 1.1 for everything has nothing to do with .NET yet). However, Mono is not as limited as you seem to think. Making anything work on Mono that works on .NET takes very little work if any most of the time unless you are doing something platform specific to windows (like COM interop). The 3.5 features are little behind but it's almost head and head with .NET 2.0 (and some of the features in 3.0). - Zac  Bowling  (user 05:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Silverlight isn't meant for cross-platform .net development. While it does include the (almost) same runtime and gc, the class library is too bare-bones to be called a .net port. If you are interested in writing cross-platform .net apps, write them on mono. Since it is a subset of .net fx, it will work on both .net fx and mono. --soum talk 06:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Versions
The versions table is way overkill. Having all of these listed here really clutters up the article. Perhaps all of the detailed information could be moved to another page? This table should contain one RTM for each version, and it should have the latest beta for the version that is not finalized yet. Calwiki 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is hugely distracting - an ugly blotch on a article that could yet become featured. I'm inclined to just keep the table of versions, and delete all the details.  Still, that could be considered useful information, so I do like the idea of moving it to another page.  How would that page be titled?  "A history of releases of the .NET Framework" ?  Is there any precedent for this sort of split? Leotohill (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally we'd change it from a table into prose. A "history of" section would be a pretty interesting addition to the article.  -/- Warren 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * if you mean prose as in an descriptive narrative of the history of .net, identifying participants, key decisions, etc., then yes that could be nice. But what I am suggesting is that we remove the existing text that provides minutiae of each minor version, and leave the existing table which is concise. Leotohill (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how people are starting to add to the table again, I am going to ahead and move it. It's just too big, but I'll put the information in another place so that it will not be lost. Calwiki (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest nuking the table and replacing it with a link to the article titled "List of .NET Framework versions" (which for some strange reason isn't listed is the "See also" section; WWTT?) 72.251.90.15 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes a table is the best way to convey information. Does it not aspire to what you think Wikipedia should look like? --Campoftheamericas (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Garbage collection
The main article only mentions garbage collection once and gives no details. I feel that G.C. is a very important feature of the .net framework, and the fact that the .net framework is capable of moving objects to eliminate holes and virtually eliminate memory fragmentation. As a programmer, this allows one to not worry about when to free an object, and circular references between objects don't require any special consideration by the programmer--any object that can't be traced back to a static or stack variable eventually gets destroyed.

--Robert Richter  Robertbrichter 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC) ==
 * Garbage collection is not specific to .NET and has its own Wikipedia page.--83.216.149.7 (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GA nom
I guess it is time for a GA nom. What say? --soum talk 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We're still short a few references for the architecture and design goals sections. Otherwise I think it has a chance, yeah. -/- Warren 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it still needs work. See my recent comments on this page. Leotohill (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Title
According to the naming policy mentioned here, shouldn't this article should be moved to .Net Framework or something? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and move it if there are no objections. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both WP:NAME as well as WP:MOSPN says to disregard the convention and go with all caps when the general usage is almost always in caps. .NET Framework, in all official usage is spelled with capital N-E-T. So, this does qualify for the exception to the convention. Btw, as long as all the proper redirects are in place, how does it matter? --soum talk 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Soumyasch. .NET (all caps) is the official name, not .Net. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But according to WP:MOSTM, if it's a standard English word, it should use the English capitalization, "Net", right? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NO. .NET Framework is the official name, not .Net.  Therefore the page should stay at .NET Framework. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 22:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MOSTM, "don't invent new formats". .NET Framework IS the standard usage in English. Not .Net framework. (.net framework is not a standard english word. the "word" comes from the trademark). --soum talk 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Official name" is not a strong consideration if the formatting violates English language conventions. However, I think that regardless of what is "official", ".NET" is the formatting used by just about every publication, so there would be an "inventing formats" concern with moving it. Croctotheface (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, the fact that MS uses ".NET Framework" in all of it's official literature and product names means nothing to you? Since when are we supposed to correct the English language violations of companies?  I must have missed that memo.  No matter what you say, the official name remains ".NET Framework", and therefore the page should be named likewise. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't MOS:TM say to avoid exactly that. Like, where it says KISS should be Kiss? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I quote from MOS:TM, the style guide on trademarks: "but, don't invent new formats: For the standardized test, SAT is standard English, while 'Sat' is essentially never used." Why the hell do you want to invent a new name format for the .NET Framework?  I still don't see a reason why we should ignore the official literature and name this page ".Net Framework".  &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the MOSTM talk page:
 * Because Wikipedia, like many publishers (e.g. the NYTimes), has an internal style guidelines for consistency and does not simply reproduce the style that any organization chooses to use. For example, REALTOR&reg; is the official style propogated by the National Association of Realtors, who hold a trademark on that word, but saying "REALTOR&reg;" all the time instead of "Realtor" is silly.  In the same way, the Wikipedia community decided not to use all caps except for things that are actually acronyms (or psuedo-acronyms like MCI, which is read M-C-I, even though the letter don't stand for anything).  Fox, being derived from the publisher's name, is clearly a word and not an acronym and as such our convention is to treat it in Title Case rather than ALL CAPS. Dragons flight (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * - Onmyounomichi (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As soum already said, ".NET" isn't just a fancy spelling of the English word "net"; it's actually pronounced "dot net". As such, I don't think the guideline of using standard casing for English words applies here. For brandified but standard english names like Fox, it can use nice to use standard spelling rules. But here, we have something that doesn't exist in the English language. Or at least not in any form other than ".NET". That, and then there's still WP:SENSE of course. – Chip Zero 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, like "FOX," it's presumably based on a real word, "net" (short for "network"), and the "dot" actually invokes another part of the policy:
 * Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love").
 * - Onmyounomichi (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that MOS is not policy, it's a guideline, meaning it's always possible to reach compromise as how a title has to be spelled. Regarding this case, I think ".NET" could be changed to ".Net", but not to "Dot Net"; the latter would be a totally new title. In such a case I would be concerned about the "don't invent new formats" premise: I have seen the title as .NET and also as .Net (and even as .net) but I have never seen it as Dot NET/Net/net. Thus ".Net Framework" seems like a good compromise to me. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) @Kazu-Kun, you saved me a lot of typing.
 * That's my point actually; the guideline says that words are equal regardless of unpronounced characters. But the 'dot' is not an unpronounced character; '.NET' is a different word. – Chip Zero 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * @Onmy...: MOS is a guideline and is not binding. If there is a genuine need to disregard it, it can be done so without consequence. And interpreting the lines you quoted, the "." isnt used in place of "dot" rather its the other way round wherever the exception is made (the filenames, as windows doesnt allow a filename to start with a .)
 * WP:NAME, which is a binding policy, however, states that "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English". .NET Framework falls in this category exactly. True, it has been colloquially called .net framework, .net fx, .Net framework, .Net Framework, .NET Fx and what not. But it is like arguing since leetspeak is also used colloquially, it should be used for official speak. And from the same policy, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." I don't see any basis for your request to change the title. What can you possibly gain by changing the title? You are the only one arguing for a name change without any concrete reason, only hopping from one policy to another hoping one would convince others without providing any concrete evidence for a need to change the name. This is strongly discouraged. This discussion is sure to end the dead horse way. --soum talk 08:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I started out, after seeing it on the .hack//Sign talk page, thinking the policy was absolute and trying to apply it on other pages where I saw problems. Now I just want to understand it, since I've heard conflicting things (for instance, Kazu-kun saying that the "official" name should be compromised with the policy, e.g. ".Net Framework"). The MOSTM policy (the only policy I've been "shopping") has been used many times to change article titles in the same way suggested here, hence my confusion.  Has this been wrong, or why is this an exception?  - Onmyounomichi (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, don't put words in my mouth. ".Net Framework" was a suggestion from my part; I never say the title should be changed. I'm not interested on changing articles' titles, let alone stable articles. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing that defines the name of the article is its most common usage (no that does not mean the usage in casual im talks, but in formal circles). Earlier it was a necessary navigational tool (before redirects) but now it not absolutely necessary but the practise has still prevailed. The guideline serves to summarize the common usages for a large number of scenarios (but by no means all). But if there is anything whose most common usage is different, that is given precedence over any guideline. Also with redirects, handling of alternate names isn't a problem. As such, moving from NET to Net does not give any advantage (even if you could argue with the alt name clause). Without any advantage, stable articles are not to be disturbed. However, say the name is changed to .OFR Framework, then the article should be moved, as it is not an alternate name but a new name altogether. Till then, its best not disturbed. --soum talk 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kazu-kun: That's not what I said, I never meant that you thought that specific change should be made. On the Sign page you were pretty adamant about some compromise being necessary on pages like this, and that's all that I said.  Has your opinion changed, or was ".hack//SIGN" unstable? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * soum: Wouldn't something important like that be in policy form? If there's one thing Wikipedia likes to do, it's put things is writing.  I'm not well-versed in WP, so there could easily be something I've missed somewhere, but unless I see it this will just sound like hand-waving to me. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, hell,.. give it up, man! Yes, policies are written down here, but they're not written in stone!  Just about every rule, guideline, and policy allows for some exceptions.  It seems like you want to apply those guidelines simply for the sake of following of a rule.  That is NOT a sufficient reason for changing a high-importance article.  If you were to effect this change, not only would you be going against the mountain of offcial documentation AND common usage, you'd disrupt the all of the links that point to this article, which is over 500 (see the What Links Here function for proof), all for the sake of following a silly rule! &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks reference
There has been some work done lately on the study guide for certification exam 70-536 on Wikibooks (title .NET Development Foundation). Although incomplete it is usable as is and contains some references back to Wikipedia for related articles. I was wondering if this was the kind of links you would put in the see also section of the article. BTW feel free to comment and modify the book as you see fit :-) --Jacques (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add the template above to the External links section (not see also, as it leads off Wikipedia). Btw, the link you used in the template does not work. --soum talk 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Update is done. The link works (at least for me). Regards --Jacques (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is working now. No idea what happened earlier. --soum talk 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty occupied now with the wikibook but if I can be of any help for anything around .NET I'll be happy to try. --Jacques (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This Article Reads Like a Microsoft Press Release.
This reads like PR for MSFT. Where is the reflection of independent criticism that one looks for and comes to rely on from Wikipedia? There is plenty of criticism of .NET published in existing sources. Indeed, .NET has accomplished very little, despite the massive hype and push given to it by Microsoft. Most power-users I know who must use IE remove .NET from their system (or use a scaled back v.1.1 instead of v.3.0, to avoid all the drain on system resources). Is Wikipedia (and the .NET project here) succumbing to the juggernaut of persistence by Microsoft employee sockpuppets, who now are evaluated (in part) by descriptions of their projects on Wikipedia? How sad. NetNot (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll need to be specific about what you'd like to change. Or just change it.   But be correct, and not POV.  Leotohill (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the articles for Java_Standard_Edition, J2ee, and Jvm to compare to this one. Those articles have little to say about the reasons for using those technologies,  so in comparison I guess this article may look like it is promotional rather than factual.  However, in my opinion the articles should describe the justification and goals for the technology.  As they (the Java articles) exist today, they are only valuable to a limited audience.  They should be improved Leotohill (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The comment about power users using a scaled back version 1.1 instead of 3.0 to save system resources leads me to believe there is a lack of knowledge by that poster on the specifics of the .Net Framework. First, system resources (other than hard disk) aren't used unless a program targeted for that version of the framework is being run.  Second, programs are written against a version of the framework, so the user in most cases doesn't have the option of picking and choosing which version of the framework to use (there are cases where, a system admin can setup something like Sharepoint to use 1.1, or 2.0 as an exception) but for compiled programs, users can't choose which version of the Framework to run because said program was compiled against a specific version of the Framework and must use that version to run.  If these power users removed the .Net framework 3 and no programs were affected, they weren't using it anyway.  The user has the option to install or not install a version of the framework but they can't force a .Net program to use a "scaled back v1.1" if they simply don't want to have version 3.5 on their system.   How can your argument be taken seriously with incorrect information and flat out insults included in it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.237.241 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that 74.129.237.241 meant to say "leads me to" rather than "doesn't leads me to". Then his argumeent is self-consistent.  I agree that NetNot's claims reflect a lack of understanding.   Leotohill (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake, and yes, you are correct in how it should have read, my apologies for that. I went ahead and fixed the typo to avoid confusion.  Thank you for pointing that out, I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.237.241 (talk • contribs) 16:40, December 23, 2007


 * I am an admiring newbie to Wikipedia edits; pardon any protocol error. I write under this 'press release' comment because I logged on to try to figure out more about pitfalls.  I am a fairly advanced end-user running WinXP Pro SP3 on a six-year old fairly powerful quite standard Win PC.  A new ATI video card required .NET 2.0 for it's "Catalyst" drivers so I tried it.  Next I was bedeviled by error messages that were indecipherable (it had made at least 100 registry entries).  So not knowing what to do, I uninstalled both .NET 2.0 and the ATI catalyst drivers.  Monitor works fine.  Usually Wikipedia better helps me understand pitfalls.  I come here, and while "press release" may be a bit unfair, I find the article to be very much about what the program does *if it works* which it didn't.  This is a pretty clean 1 year old rebuild I'm working with.71.139.14.229 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised if the .Net Framework 2.0 was the problem.. more likely the "catalyst" drivers that were the offending culprit. My suggestion would be to install the .Net Framework seperate and see if you have any issues... if not, then you know it's the drivers.  The framework is simply a set of managed libraries.  It is designed so that different versions can be on the same system without causing problems to the last (e.g. you didn't corrupt or overwrite anything when you installed it breaking the video).  If I write a program targeted for the framework 1.1, installing 2.0 causing no problems because my program will continue to use the 1.1 libraries.  Your culprit is likely the drivers.  The article is about what it does though as this isn't a troubleshooting forum.  I could suggest some sites to help you but I'm also kind of a newbie at this not sure if that's acceptable (my only other edit was on this topic a month or two ago, I was actually reading to see if anyone responded).


 * The problem is not the drivers per se. I'm another (virtually)new-to-Wikipedia-edits end user who's had the ATI .NET problem. Specifically, it relates not to the actual drivers but to ATI's own grossly bloated (because it's .NET-dependent?) "control panel" application, which can be separately uninstalled, leaving the drivers to be managed in the usual Windows way, which removes all the problems I saw. Unfortunately I've had similar problems with other .NET-dependent apps. Fortunately none of them were essentials so I've ended up uninstalling them all and never wish to see .NET on any of my machines again. Colleagues at work have had similar experiences and reached similar conclusions.


 * If .NET is the common factor when multiple different disparate apps misbehave in similar ways, it seems to me that .NET *is* likely to be the problem (or at least that will be the perception). Either it's a broken implementation, or it's too difficult for today's typical developers to use correctly (which may mean it's architecturally broken, or that the implementation is insufficiently robust when handling erroneous applications, or just that decent architects/designers/programmers are few and far between these days).


 * The more important thing which actually brought me here was an attempt to find out whether .NET is a "language-independent" runtime, as it is largely described, or more accurately, a "this-year's-Microsoft-languages language-independent" runtime, which so far seems to me to be closer to reality. Specifically, a truly language-independent runtime would be architected, designed, and documented in a way which would permit the *simple* integration of non-MS languages such as Ada, COBOL, FORTRAN, etc (amongst other dinosaur ones which won't go away any time soon). As far as I can tell, unhelped by the main article, .NET barely has the language independence of the gcc world, although the justification would presumably be that gcc and .NET are different paradigms. Would any clued-up and neutral contributor care to clarify this, 'cos I surely don't see anything in .NET which matches the simple language-independence which VMS had thirty years ago (and still has today, for anyone who cares to look: Ada, BASIC, C, COBOL, Coral, DIBOL... etc)? 80.229.247.139 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be asking why the CLR can't work with all languages from all vendors, and suggesting that if it can't, it's not language independent.  Language independence means, among other things, that programs written in different languages must be able to share instances of their Types. Therefore it requires that the languages have a common means of expressing their Types, or require a intermediary to translate Type representation.   COM and Corba use the intermediary approach, meaning that the solution lies outside the programming language itself.  The  .NET Common_Type_System (CTS), on the other hand, defines a common representation of Types, which must be implemented within the language. So yes, .NET language independence applies only to .NET languages.  The collection of .NET languages (which includes non-MS languages) cannot really be compared to the gcc, which is just a collection of languages that do not have a common type system, and thus cannot share object instances without intermediation. If VMS offered a common type system, then good show, it was ahead of its time in many ways. Leotohill (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (de-indent) All language implementations are outside the scope of the main article. They are not a headache of the runtime, so they are only tangentially related. It would be foolish to expect that info in the main article. Use the navigation aids at the footer to find all related article. For Ada, there is A#. A more comprehensive list can be found at .NET languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumyasch (talk • contribs) 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the press release portion, but at least there is a criticism section (and a good one that could use some expanding and links). I found the following tidbit interesting, as it applies to me:
 * "Since the framework is not pre-installed on older versions of Windows an application that requires it must verify that it is present, and if it is not, guide the user to install it. This requirement may deter some from using the application."

I run AdAware on my computer and while the program is usually useless, it noted registry changes associated with the .NET update. The mere fact that there is a suppressed criticism section on the Wikipedia article led me to cancel the installation. Thank you, Wikipedia.Eccomi (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the meaning

 * What is the meaning of ".NET"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.120.83.12 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am an admiring newbie to Wikipedia edits, pardon if haven't followed any protocol.Well, to my knowledge the dot in the .NET represents to the current version of the framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.158.90 (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ".NET" is simply the name Microsoft gave to this platform. It doesn't really mean too much.  Microsoft had to come up with some sort of name.  Microsoft probably chose the "net" part to hint at the platform's internet/networking abilities.  The dot part does not mean anything in regards to version number.  Unless you're actually interested in the etymology of the word...there's no great meaning to the name.  In fact, the original (public) name for .NET was NGWS (Next Generation Windows Services). 12.10.248.51 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The official Microsoft course MS2373, "Programming with Microsoft Visual Basic .NET", states: "The .NET platform is a set of technologies designed to transform the Internet into a full-scale distributed computing platform." --Negrulio (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was named .NET because it came about during/as part of their ".NET vision", which some say failed. http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/research/2001/07jul/0701sttnc.htm

Design goals and principal features
The Design goals and principal features paragraph should be modified, because it is not backed up by references, and these are not the goals stated by Microsoft itself (see .NET Framework Overall Design Goals. Design Goals as stated by Microsoft are:
 * provide a consistent object-oriented programming, whether object code is stored and executed locally, executed locally but Internet-distributed, or executed remotely (not stated in the paragraph),
 * Simplified Deployment: provide a code-execution environment that minimizes software deployment and versioning conflicts,
 * Security: provide a code-execution environment that promotes safe execution of code,
 * provide a code-execution environment that eliminates the performance problems of scripted or interpreted environments (not stated in the paragraph),
 * make the developer experience consistent across widely varying types of applications, such as Windows-based applications and Web-based applications (not stated in the paragraph),
 * Interoperability : build all communication on industry standards to ensure that code based on the .NET Framework can integrate with any other code.

Common Runtime Engine, Language Independence, Base Class Library, and Portability are NOT stated as design goals by Microsoft, so they should be removed from the paragraph. Hervegirod (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These seems to be some marketing-perspective on the topic ("VS 2005 Guided Tour" - says anything, doesn't it?). The principal features currently explained are essentially basic technical features and goals. You can find these in the official standard specification: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm --Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.66.189 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Standardization and licensing
I have added a note to the first paragraph to the effect that both proposed ISO standards were withdrawn, going of the status pages linked to in the same paragraph. RobbieAB (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another .NET Criticism: "Runtime Hell"
Another criticism of .NET is that MS solved one problem (DLL Hell) and created a new one (Runtime Hell). I have taken the latter term from here: A (hopefully) verifiable source for the problem is Don't do Shell Extension Handlers in .NET I'm not sure if this belongs in the article, and how it should be written, but maybe someone will put it in. 84.46.0.134 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not "hell", yet. Have .net 1.1 and 3.5, the chances of facing the problem is greatly reduced. But anyway, the problem is very close to being solved. The Microsoft Silverlight CLR supports side-by-side loading. Just wait for that CLR to show up in .NET, and the problem is solved. Btw, its not just .NET. MSXML, MSHTML, JRE, and lots of others suffer from the same problem - multiple instantiations in the same process not allowed. This problem at least (I believe) is mentioned, whether the dramatized version (runtime hell) should be, I am not sure. --soum talk 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The phrase "runtime hell" is a neologism. -/- Warren 05:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

History section?
I think this article would benefit from a section detailing the history of .NET; how/why it came about etc. - even why it is called .NET in the first place (I have never found an answer to this question). SteveRwanda (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this page looking for information on the history of .Net. I am especially interested in the personalities involved. I think the guy behind Turbo Pascal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg was involved. But I came here to find out. Worik (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Going to third this motion. WHY IS IT CALLED .NET? The article should answer this question! 173.178.23.19 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, .net has a history going back to Borland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billegge (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for citation
If you are a .NET developer here I suggest you guys can look at Paint.NET and see if they are written in ASP native code, because I have tested on Celeron processor that codes written in native version do take roughly 30% or less time to load, thus making it suitable for a citation accordingly, Paint.NET v3.35.

I am only guessing they probably are written in native code, because I am a JWS developer not a .NET guy. So...anyhow good luck

== Criticisms== Some concerns and criticisms relating to .NET include: * Applications running in a managed environment such as the Microsoft framework's CLR or  Java's JVM tend to require more system resources than similar applications that access machine resources more directly. Some applications, however, have been shown to perform better in .NET than in their native version.

--Ramu50 ([[User talk:Swetha Rani.P]) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How Many Versions Are Needed?
I realize this sounds more like a forum question, but could someone address the question of how many .NETs do you need installed at one time? Some say the latest version always covers the others, others say you need to install 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0, and now maybe 3.5 too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.72.122 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You need the version that the program you want to run was written against. One version does not cover another version though it is true that some versions are built off of previous versions (for instance, 3.5 is built off of 2.0).


 * I would find it useful if there was a chart that reported on which versions of .net support applications asking for an older version. For example, I have a machine with a corrupted .net 1.0. I removed it and could easily install .net 1.0 again but could I instead install .net 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, or 3.5 and will existing applications that want 1.0 components/behaviour work?64.60.120.145 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to format such a table. But here is the answer: .NET Framework 1.1 would suffice for 1.0 and 1.1 apps, and .NET Fx 3.5 would be enough for 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 apps. I am not sure about 4.0 - while it looks like it is an incremental update over the version 2.0 runtime (which powers .NET Fx 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5) and so should take care of the older apps, it is nevertheless a different one (as it supports side-by-side loading, which the 2.0 runtime did not). So there might be incompatibilities. Best would be to install 4.0 as well once it is available. --soum talk 05:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The confusion comes from the versioning numbers of the .Net Framework and CLR. While they were actually lockstep in the early versions, they are actually seperate. For instance, .Net 3.5 runs on the CLR 2.0 version. Perhaps we should make a note of the related but independent concepts of the .Net package from MS and the CLR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.101 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Version 4.0 doesn't cover 3.5 Learned the hard way :( Now the article doesn't mention backwards compatibility explicitly, the design features part contains stuff that really hint about it. Interoperability, Common runtime engine, Simplified deployment, portability etc they are a bit overstatements in this regard. Especially the simplified deployment; I need the 1.1, 3.5, and 4.0 or 4.5 at least for all programs to work. This craziness could be mentioned in the article (but I can't find nice enough words to do it myself, being not a bit upset) Hoemaco (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

See Also section
This section is supposed to be for related issues which are not discussed and linked in the article, not a list of randomly chosen topics that someone happens to find pertinent (what is the justification for the links if they're already discussed and linked? Why those links? What makes them more important than the other few hundred in the article? etc...).

As such, I have removed all the links which are already linked. Please do not add them again without specific reasoning.-Localzuk(talk) 10:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment is supported, in general, by WP:SEE ALSO:


 * Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.
 * PL290 (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

v1.0 SP1 and SP2: Did they ever actually exist?
Yesterday I was attempting to set up a series of virtual machines with different version of .NET for testing changes to some legacy software.

To my surprise, v1.0 SP1 and SP2 apparently are not available on any Microspft website or on any of the usual sites that archive this sort of thing.

The "Did they ever actually exist?" title above is tongue in cheek, but those particular service packs certainly appear to have managed to do a complete disapearring act. Is a "no longer available" note in the article justified, or am I just really bad/unlucky at web searching?

Also see my comment on the talk page for the "List of .NET Framework versions" article where some of the links are bogus. 72.251.90.15 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * .NET Framework 3.0 SP2 is also completely missing from the Internet.


 * Also, .NET Framework 3.0 and .NET Framework 3.0 SP1 are downloader files only; they dowload the actual software from Microsoft (until the day that Microsoft decides to close that page, at which time hey too will be completely missing from the Internet.) I think there may be a way to extract a full copy from Windows temporary files.


 * Another oddity; you can download and install .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, but when you run Windows Update it will install something else also called .NET Framework 3.5 SP1.

75.84.238.18 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried Windows Update? I bet they're available there.  12.165.250.13 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I tried, No they are not available there. 75.84.238.18 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they existed. You can download them from Microsoft's web site using the following links:

.NET Framework 1.0 Service Pack 1

.NET Framework 1.0 Service Pack 2

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will test the above next time I do a fresh install and report back. They error out with no error message (SP1) and a numeric error code with no explanation (SP2) (They made no no attempt to download the rest of the Service Pack -- the above links are to small uploader programs) when I try them on a system with all .NET versions and service packs installed, but that's to be expected; a fresh install of Windows is the real test.


 * Is a "no longer available" note in the article for 3.0 SP2 in the article justified, or am I just really bad/unlucky at web searching? 75.84.238.18 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

They do exist, I have the former bundled on my MSDN disk of Visual Studio .NET (2002) 94.168.168.153 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Downloadable vs. Redistibutable?
Some .NET versions/Service Packs are only available as small bootstrap programs that initiate a download from Microsoft (Some have what MS calls "Redistributable" or sometimes "Full" versions, but many do not.) There are several examples in the section above. Also see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959209 -- seperate downloaders for XP, XP x64, vista and Vista x64 with nor redistributable listed.

Besides the fact that many IT departments like to be able set up PCs in a fully offline scenario where the system has no Internet connectivity (See http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archive/2008/07/17/8745415.aspx for one example), the lack of a full-install version exposes the developer of software based on .NET for some older operating systems to the risk of one day waking up and finding that the downloadable .NET his software depends upon is no longer available from Microsoft.

I have seen a few cases where the install programs for hardware drivers require .NET. What if this happens with a Modem, NIC card or wireless adapter? You would have to access the Internet to install the driver that you need to access the Internet... This brings up a question in my mind; should this article (or perhaps the list of .NET versions article) list which ones are available only as downloads vs. no-internet full installs? 75.84.238.18 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No. In Visual studio, when making an installer for your .NET program, software developers can choose whether to download and bundle the full (offline) redistributable of the framework with their app, or whether to let the installer download it automatically for the client if required. For CD innstalls for e.g a corporate deployment to off-net machines, the former option would be the correct choice 94.168.168.153 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A Jargon-Free Overview Needed
99% of the folks looking up this subject probably are like me and want to know if these gigantic files are really necessary on their computers. Nowhere did I see (before I fell asleep from all the techical speak) any mention,in laymans terms,why we actually can't live without this framework stuff. Can it all be deleted? What are some examples of every-day programs which MUST have this Framework stuff?

PLEASE! Not everyone is a computer scientist.BrianAlex (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)BrianAlex

funny the little corners of the internet you can find, like when opening a doll's door in the antic reveals a cubby space of dust and cobwebs. Anyway, I'm with BrianAlex, I went from downloading a simple open source avi to flash converter to downloading a 50mb runtime library or whatever this is -- I just want to know if this is an industry standard or if I should move on to finding another free program with less of a headache to install. A section detailing industry reception, common use, and current trends would be helpful. Wiki can sometimes feel like a front in forever raging wars, culture or otherwise... StevenPine (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - by all means go into detail but first please define - (a) what is .Net, (b) what is meant by the term ".Net Environment", (c) what is the point of .Net, and (d) is it actually necessary? Preferably in no more than one sentence each, and in terms your great-granny can understand. It's for answers to questions like these that people look things up in encyclopaedias. The other stuff they can get from geek forums. Rintincan (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here goes a quick answer. (a) .Net is a combination of technologies, notably including the C# programming language, developed by Microsoft. (b) The .Net environment is the backend for the programming languages used in .Net (c) The idea behind .Net is that it will increase interoperability (sorry for the big word) between various languages. (d) (Non-NPOV, sorry guys) .Net is completely unnecessary unless you want to run .Net code written in programming languages like C#. Microsoft created it mainly to create a bit more of a monopoly (.Net is not very cross-platform compatible). People who program in C# should be enlightened about the 50 bajillion other languages out there that don't need a ridiculous back-end. Yeah, that was a rant. Termine (talk) 7:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Termine, that was really helpful. Why don't you put it in the article itself? The users who have posted are not the only ones asking for greater clarity so that people who understand big works like "interoperability" but don't do programming in C++ or C# can figure out what to do with this plug-in (that MS has just added without asking me first)? In other words: "Do I need it or can I delete it?"


 * There's a comment at the top posted by Wiki editors that:


 * The article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please improve the article to make it accessible to non-experts, without removing the technical details.


 * Who is the intended/likely reader of a Wikipedia article? The article should be geared to being comprehensible and usable to that reader. There are probably other, better fora (plural of forum) for experts to debate whether it is the best program and what are very technically specific issues. Where does the average college graduate reader go to determine what this is and whether it's needed?  The latter issue is relevant because people are understandably suspicious/skeptical of things MS says are good for us. Ileanadu (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thirded - what applications actually need this large user of disk space?


 * .NET is primarily used for creating Web sites or in-house business applications. But to answer your question, Paint.NET, Windows PowerShell and SyncToy are built on the .NET platform.  I'm sure that there are others.  BTW, disk space is cheap.  It's not 1990 anymore.  You can get a terrabyte of storage for only $70 and I've seen it even cheaper.  12.165.250.13 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That first sentence is really helpful. Why don't you put it in the article? But no, you did not "answer" the question.  The question is not just about storage space or disk space.  The question is what is this good for (i.e., do I need it?).  The writer didn't ask for advice on storage space.  The writer is suggesting that as a representative reader the article is not helpful in some respects.


 * From what I understand, every program that is added to a computer presents possible incompatibilities with the programs already there; thus, new programs should not be added blithely without regard to the consequences. There's also the issue of tying up system resources with unnecessary programs. We can always add more disk space and (possibly) more RAM, but this seems like a very inelegant solution.  Think about it as if it were an office: Let's not throw anything out, just file everything and if we need more space, we add more filing cabinets and buy more space. Now, computers aren't completely subject to the same restrictions that physical information presents, but there is a cost to clutter, even when it's digital.Ileanadu (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is elegance no longer a desirable quality of programming? Or efficiency? Ileanadu (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know: a- can I delete it if I do not use any .net (paint.net) programs? b- If you have a new version (3.0) do you need older versions too? I know this is not a .net tutorial, but it goes to the essence of the discussion to state whether the average user will use it, i.e. is the state of development of generally accepted apps such that it has any consequence for USING a PC today? A more comprehensive list of apps noted as most popular, and most important (forward looking, or innovative) would help define the current importance of framework.net. These points help to define .net (as encyclopedias ordinarily define)for the average reader/student.


 * The fact that people keep bringing up the same questions suggests that there is a need for information that the article does not meet. Perhaps the authors of the articles believe the article should not be about fulfilling those needs, but people with those needs keep coming here expecting them to be met. So, for the (at least) 7th or 8th (including the wiki request) time on this discussion page, please help computer users understand what .NET Framework is and whether we need it; and if we do, do we need different versions. If there's a better place to look for these answers, then please include a link. Pretty please? Ileanadu (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also not into computer programming or computer technology but I understand the article in its entirety. If you don't understand it, you're probably better off not worrying your pretty little head about it. Oh and DON'T delete it if you don't know what it does - just let it do what it's supposed to do.

miss something in history ( focus on people licence and not technology )
think the introduction miss something. framework come with C# language and arise because microsoft old technology ( WFC, DCOM,OLE, ActiveX...C/C++) could not use java  to avoid like Java remote method invocation the problem with it DCOM technology in a remote environnement (marshalling storage ). So microsoft ask to one of the developper of the first real IDE of name turbo pascal and the chief architect of Delphi, to begin java GUI on WFC. when microsoft could not change the specification of java ( see ( ligation against J++),Anders Hejsberg create   as a lead architect the C# programming language and so ... microsoft could make something against java technology before Google Chrome OS arise !!! . 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Patent lists
I would like to see exactly what patents are under discussion here. These are just unverified claims about patents being presented here.

Here are some of them i could find:


 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7162723.html ASP.NET HTTP runtime United States Patent 7162723
 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0174845.html ASP.NET HTTP RUNTIME United States Patent Application 20070174845
 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0018827.html ASP.NET HTTP runtime United States Patent Application 20030018827
 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0026668.html Web application framework United States Patent Application 20060026668
 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0288085.html Modular server architecture for multi-environment HTTP request processing United States Patent Application 20060288085


 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0167277.html  Application program interface for network software platform United States Patent Application 20030167277
 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6920461.html  Application program interface for network software platform United States Patent 6920461
 * http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0100967.html Application Program Interface for Network Software Platform United States Patent Application 20070100967

Mdupont (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the WP:NPOV dispute about?
I came to this page yesterday and noticed that there's a WP:NPOV tag from September 2009 on the article. But I don't see anything on the discussion page about the dispute. What exactly is the problem? 12.165.250.13 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Without any actual discussion/dispute on the topic, the banner is quite pointless; I just removed it. – Chip Zero 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove Criticism Point
This point;

"Newer versions of the framework (3.5 and up) are not pre-installed in versions of Windows below Windows 7. For this reason, applications must lead users without the framework through a procedure to install it. Some developers have expressed concerns about the large size and reliability of .NET framework runtime installers for end-users. The size is around 54 MB for .NET 3.0, 197 MB for .NET 3.5, and 250 MB for .NET 3.5 SP1 (while using web installer the typical download for Windows XP is around 50 MB, for Windows Vista - 20 MB). The size issue is partially solved with .NET 4.0 installer (x86 + x64) being 54 MB. "

Is dishonest and false.

Is it a valid criticism of software that it needs to be installed? This is absurd. Further, if it were (it is not), in this case, we see a totally ridiculous construction to validate this "point".

"3.5 and up are not pre-installed on below W7" -- of course not, they didnt exist -- they couldnt possibly be "pre-installed".

"The size is around 54 MB for 3.0....NET 4.0 installer (x86 + x64) being 54 MB." -- So, the larger versions -- those that didnt exist, and couldnt be "pre-installed" -- that need to be installed, are only 54MB. So the concern is moot.

I have removed this nonsense.


 * Someone added the text without comment here. I have restored my edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the text has been added without comment. I've restored my edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually correct, even though you may not like it. If the needed version of the framework it's not already installed, the user faces an extra huge download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.88.134 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Although high speed internet seems to be reasonably common, it's not universal. And when it is present, downloads >50 megs still take time. And an installer greater than 50 megs will take a long time to complete. This complaint is valid. A user should not waste time waiting for the computer to do something, the computer should spend time waiting for the user. Why do you think people turn their computers on? To wait for a download and sit through a long installation, or to run a program that they wish to use for something? I will admit though, bloatware is not just a .net problem, it's just that a company as rich as Microsoft is expected to do better than this. 206.174.221.192 (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is confusing and erroneous; what does it talk about anyway?
The entire article seems to discuss about both, the .NET framework standard and the Microsoft implementation of the .NET framework without clearly distinguishing them. Further, the article can be confusing as it assumes discussion on Microsoft's implementation of the .NET framework for the Windows platform in most places and sometimes there is a general discussion with all the implementations.

I could have possibly changed it myself but that would involve changing even the heading of the article, so decided to have a discussion. Please share your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinashrcs (talk • contribs) 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I had always thought of the .net framework 'as' microsoft's implementation of a programming language/object framework/?  For all intents and purposes, the Framework does not exist outside of Microsoft's implementation of such.  It is, essentially, then 'ported' to other platforms.   I suppose the first half of the article, where it discusses framework features would be the 'Framework' article, with the arguable proposition that other platforms could implement it.  The Version history of the .Net Framework on Windows (i.e. 1 -> 1.1 -> 2, etc.), all the issues with the installer, etc. are specific to Windows.  Wikipedia articles always make a poor repository of release notes anyways, so some of that could be cleaned out to focus on the framework proper.Cander0000 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject
I noticed that someone has added a to the article.  Perhaps I can be of assistance. Are there any particular issues that need to be addressed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

.NET provides the basis for adding additional layers of functionality
One thing I miss in this article is a statement or discussion saying that the design of .NET encourages the addition of further layers of functionality via class libraries. There are thousands of commercial and open source class libraries extending .NET functionality that developers can buy or download and incorporate in their programs, and many companies develop their own proprietary class libraries on which they then develop their own proprietary applications.

The design of .NET encourages this, and there are books by Microsoft people outlining how to design class libraries based on their experiences in developing the .NET framework, making the combination of .NET plus extra class libraries appear practically seamless.

I'm not sure exactly how this should be expressed, but I think it should be in the article, and even mentioned in the lead. --RenniePet (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a .NET specificity. It's also true of Java (there's much more class libraries for java than for .NET), Python or Ruby. Hervegirod (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. I've now taken a look at the Java (software platform) article, and I can see it doesn't say anything about the extension-encouraging nature of that framework either, where additional layers of class libraries result in a kind of amplification of the power of the framework towards the desired goal. To me this is one of the greatest strengths of .Net (or Java). Is this concept discussed in any Wikipedia article? --RenniePet (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy Issue re Public Key Tokens
The article states "thus two assemblies with the same public key token are guaranteed to be identical from the point of view of the framework". This is not true. The public key token is a hash of the public key, not of the assembly itself. Provided the public key is unchanged, the token will be the same. Many different assemblies may have the same token, provided they are signed using the same key pair. Done it myself many times. Now, if the token, name, and version are all identical, then it ought to be the same (although anyone holding the private key could break this assumption, possibly by accident). -Kevin 99.244.184.166 (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should definitively start whit what it is and who it's for (and not for), my guess is that this is what most users want to find out by visiting this article. (And there's no answer for that Q. yet here in plain English.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.43.235 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

...and it supports several programming languages
I miss a section like "Supported languages" very much! The introduction says: "and it supports several programming languages", but I don't see their listing anywhere. Because everybody thinks of C first when hearing the word ".NET", I wanted to add IronPython to this article, for which I have source. (http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/) But I don't see where to write it. Bináris (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://ben.skyiv.com/clrversion.html
 * In .NET Framework on 2011-05-20 21:40:36, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In .NET Framework on 2011-05-31 13:11:49, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ten year life expectancy is coming to a close.
I went to the roll out of Visual Studio .Net back in early 2002. Microsoft said at the time that they would support the framework for about ten years. The ten year anniversary is next year. What happens next? Is Microsoft planning to replace it or are they going to continue to improve it longer than ten years?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC).


 * The .NET framework was created as an attempt to screw Sun and their Java, period. Only incompetent developers and careless, uninformed end-users, are blind to the inherent peskiness of the whole dot net thing. 189.120.156.205 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Did Microsoft change its mind on its plan to support .net for only ten years?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC).


 * I have no idea what you are referring to regarding a 10 year lifetime. I think you misunderstood. The whole idea that MS would announce the end-of-life of a product at the same time that they are rolling it out sounds unlikely in the extreme, and there has been no mention of such a possibility in MS or press publications, AFAIK. Leotohill (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

KISS
As the banner says, too much Jargon. Encyclopedias are supposed to be for the general public; by definition: overviews.

I needed to know if I should instal .Net for a program I was considering. Basic stuff that should have been in or near the lede.

Here's my notes, please consider incorporating. Quote:

What is the .NET Framework, and do I need all these versions? "To grossly oversimplify, it's a package of common support software that can be used by programs so that they don't all have to re-write the same software over and over again. More specifically, it's aimed at users of...."

Determining Which Version of the .NET Framework Is Installed You can install and run multiple versions of the .NET Framework on a computer. You can install the versions in any order. To see which versions are installed, view the %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework directory. [winXP: C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework] (You should also view the Framework64 directory on a 64-bit computer, which can have 32 or 64-bit versions installed.)       Each version of the .NET Framework has a directory, and the first two digits of the directory name identify the .NET Framework version; for example: v1.1.4322 for the .NET Framework 1.1, v2.0.50727 -- for the .NET Framework 2.0, v3.5 for the .NET Framework 3.5, and so on.

How many PCs in the world have the .NET Framework installed ...

Jan 20, 2010 –After some digging, here's what I've got: Well over 90% of the PCs in the world have some version of the .NET Framework installed. Over 65% of Windows PCs in the world have .NET 3.5 SP1 installed.. ... end quotes

--68.127.87.28 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford