Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 16th Mar 2006 03:00 UTC
.NET (dotGNU too) This article presents results of an investigation of the usage of .NET on five versions of Windows. The operating system files for the first version of Windows tested, XP Pro with Service Pack 2 applied, did not use .NET at all. This is understandable because XP was released before .NET was first released. The next version of Windows was the PDC 2003 build of Longhorn. This has a similar number of unmanaged executable files as XPSP2 but it also had thirty five .NET assemblies. Amongst these assemblies were two services.
Permalink for comment 104966
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Flawed Conclusions
by Wondercool on Thu 16th Mar 2006 07:44 UTC
Wondercool
Member since:
2005-07-08

"The platform they were selling was in final form and released (.NET v. 1.0 and 1.1). The platform they were building WinFX and Vista on was in development (.NET 2.0), but nice try."

But still: if MS can not build against .NET 2.0 (because it is a moving target), why do they expect builders to code for 1.0 or 1.1 and later have to rebuild it for 2.0?? I still think Gonzalo has a point here.

Apparently the differences between 1.1 and 2.0 are so big that it is not trivial to go from 1.1 to 2.0.

Else MS own developers would have started coding in 1.1 and have a (near) trivial port 4 years later when the final 2.0 comes out

Reply Score: 2