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.
Thread beginning with 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

RE[3]: Flawed Conclusions
by n4cer on Thu 16th Mar 2006 09:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Flawed Conclusions"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

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


In the majority of cases, 1.0/1.1 apps would not have to be rebuilt against 2.0. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that WinFX and anything that took a dependency on it was dependent on .NET 2.0, which was currently in active development. WinFX uses many features that are specific to .NET 2.0. During the time of Vista's development, the APIs for both .NET 2.0 and WinFX were in constant flux. New features were being developed, and others were undergoing API changes based on feedback from MS' partners and the wider development community. It's hard to use something as a base when changes in the API and behavorial changes occur from build to build (which could be daily internally). This is concerning new functionality like partial types, iterators, generics, and new class libraries, not anything that involved .NET 1.x.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Flawed Conclusions
by kaiwai on Fri 17th Mar 2006 08:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Flawed Conclusions"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

In reference to .NET, from what it looks like, things have stablised, and 3.0 will be merely a move of extending the foundation through more libraries, and some enhancements at the compiler level, all in all, compatibility with 2.0 will be maintained.

As for WinFX; its a completely new API for programmers to target; no different to the transition from win16 to win32, but the tranisition is alot more radical.

What I do hope is that Microsoft does a good job evangelising the features in WinFX to win over companies, so as a result, we eventually start seeing software take full advantage of the features which Microsoft have included.

Reply Parent Score: 1