[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework

Why 3.5 sp1 instead of just 3.6?

RealCat

8/16/2008 7:55:00 AM

The final .NET Framework 3.5 service pack 1 is out. It doesn't only
have fixes for existing features, but it also has bunch of new
features such as support for shader. Then, why not just name it 3.6,
instead of the long 3.5 service pack 1? It would be a lot shorter and
less confusing to tell someone "Hey, you need .net 3.6 to run my
application" than telling "No, .net 3.5 is not enough, you need .net
3.5 service pack 1 to run my application." Some users who are not so
familar with computers may be confused between 3.5 and 3.5 sp1.

This maybe a trivial question but, why didn't Microsoft just change
the version number?
17 Answers

Jesse Hand

8/16/2008 9:18:00 AM

0

>This maybe a trivial question but, why didn't Microsoft just change
>the version number?

Only Microsoft marketing might know that :-)

Marc

Scott M.

8/16/2008 4:07:00 PM

0

Probably because 3.5 was a pretty big deal and the modifications included in
SP1 are based on the new technologies introduced in 3.5.



"RealCat" <typingcat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc3d0efb-bef8-46ae-bb5d-c9c7d359629d@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> The final .NET Framework 3.5 service pack 1 is out. It doesn't only
> have fixes for existing features, but it also has bunch of new
> features such as support for shader. Then, why not just name it 3.6,
> instead of the long 3.5 service pack 1? It would be a lot shorter and
> less confusing to tell someone "Hey, you need .net 3.6 to run my
> application" than telling "No, .net 3.5 is not enough, you need .net
> 3.5 service pack 1 to run my application." Some users who are not so
> familar with computers may be confused between 3.5 and 3.5 sp1.
>
> This maybe a trivial question but, why didn't Microsoft just change
> the version number?


Alex Chudnovsky

8/17/2008 12:33:00 AM

0

Scott M. wrote:
> Probably because 3.5 was a pretty big deal and the modifications included in
> SP1 are based on the new technologies introduced in 3.5.

Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug fixes.

In my view Microsoft made big mistake starting with v3.0 of .NET (it
should have never been called that) and now this version stuff continues
with SP1 - what annoys me most is that CLR is still version 2.0!

I suppose we must be grateful that we don't get .NET 2008 releases!

regards,

Alex

Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]

8/17/2008 3:31:00 AM

0

You are exactly right on that note. Service packs don't contain new language
features at least until now. Windows security updates shouldn't update
unrelated .NET assemblies...etc. What we have now is that microsoft is
breaking all of the rules, or defining new ones. Time to adapt, adjust,
fight back...

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
Download OWC Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $15.00
Need a free copy of VSTS 2008 w/ MSDN Premium?
http://msmvps.com/blogs/alvin/De...
-------------------------------------------------------


"Alex Chudnovsky" <alexc@majestic12.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#OfFGDAAJHA.1224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Scott M. wrote:
>> Probably because 3.5 was a pretty big deal and the modifications included
>> in
>> SP1 are based on the new technologies introduced in 3.5.
>
> Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug fixes.
>
> In my view Microsoft made big mistake starting with v3.0 of .NET (it
> should have never been called that) and now this version stuff continues
> with SP1 - what annoys me most is that CLR is still version 2.0!
>
> I suppose we must be grateful that we don't get .NET 2008 releases!
>
> regards,
>
> Alex

Cnu

8/17/2008 6:02:00 AM

0

On Aug 16, 12:54 pm, RealCat <typing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The final .NET Framework 3.5 service pack 1 is out. It doesn't only
> have fixes for existing features, but it also has bunch of new
> features such as support for shader. Then, why not just name it 3.6,
> instead of the long 3.5 service pack 1? It would be a lot shorter and
> less confusing to tell someone "Hey, you need .net 3.6 to run my
> application" than telling "No, .net 3.5 is not enough, you need .net
> 3.5 service pack 1 to run my application." Some users who are not so
> familar with computers may be confused between 3.5 and 3.5 sp1.
>
> This maybe a trivial question but, why didn't Microsoft just change
> the version number?


MS only knows the correct answer!!!

-Cnu

Frans Bouma [C# MVP]

8/17/2008 10:05:00 AM

0

Alex Chudnovsky wrote:
> Scott M. wrote:
>> Probably because 3.5 was a pretty big deal and the modifications included in
>> SP1 are based on the new technologies introduced in 3.5.
>
> Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug fixes.
>
> In my view Microsoft made big mistake starting with v3.0 of .NET (it
> should have never been called that) and now this version stuff continues
> with SP1 - what annoys me most is that CLR is still version 2.0!

In a sense you're right, though they did have a problem: the CLR which
had the same version and other libraries which aren't v2.0. So you could
do a couple of things:

1) release a new v2.1 where everything is versioned v2.1, even though
the CLR isn't updated
2) release a new version 3 where the new stuff is v3 and the existing
stuff is v2.

Both arent ideal, though indeed I'd have picked 1). After all: if
someone builds an app which uses WPF, the user using such an app has to
have .NET 3.0 installed, so if that .NET 3.0 install installs a new CLR
or not, the user doesn't know nor care.

Now about this service pack: when EF slipped, they had a problem: if
they would have placed it on a website to download it as an add-on,
no-one would ever download it, except a few consultants. So they
streamlined it into the service pack to get it onto everyone's machine
to save the project.

In my book, that's bundling similar like IE in windows of a free
competitor of commercial applications. However, what can I do about it?
I'm not going to go to trial with them and fight a long costly war which
will have no winners.

So the end result is that MS did a sneaky bundling and made the service
pack the launch vehicle of the EF. Together with the EF, they also
packed some features which were cut from VS.NET 2008 RTM for reasons
no-one knows.

I agree that with this much new features they could have named it v3.6,
but that might have given a lot of problems because all the docs out
there talk about .NET 3.5, not .NET 3.6.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.l...
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp....
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex Chudnovsky

8/17/2008 2:05:00 PM

0

Frans Bouma [C# MVP] wrote:

> So the end result is that MS did a sneaky bundling and made the
> service pack the launch vehicle of the EF. Together with the EF, they
> also packed some features which were cut from VS.NET 2008 RTM for
> reasons no-one knows.


I think that's really it - they simply had to cut down features they
planned originally for VS 2008 in order to ship it on time. That's fine
by me (though I'd prefer Microsoft to throw more resources at .NET -
it's strategic but does not seem to get sufficient attention in my view).

I suppose I am grateful to get SP1 with new good features rather than
having to wait a lot longer for them to be included into a bigger
update, however this certainly creates additional problems for
deployment - all this sudden version fragmentation is not healthy.

IMO in any case CLR version should have tracked declared .NET version -
if anything runtime should be able to quickly check what it runs on,
otherwise what's the bloody point in versioning!

regards,

Alex

Scott M.

8/17/2008 11:29:00 PM

0

> Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug fixes.

That has not been historically true, looking at Microsoft's SP's for various
pieces of software over the years.

-Scott

Alex Clark

8/18/2008 6:23:00 PM

0

Well, by now it should actually be .NET 2.3, because 3.0 was really 2.1, 3.5
was really 2.2, and 3.5SP1 is really 2.3. IMO anyway...

"RealCat" <typingcat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc3d0efb-bef8-46ae-bb5d-c9c7d359629d@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> The final .NET Framework 3.5 service pack 1 is out. It doesn't only
> have fixes for existing features, but it also has bunch of new
> features such as support for shader. Then, why not just name it 3.6,
> instead of the long 3.5 service pack 1? It would be a lot shorter and
> less confusing to tell someone "Hey, you need .net 3.6 to run my
> application" than telling "No, .net 3.5 is not enough, you need .net
> 3.5 service pack 1 to run my application." Some users who are not so
> familar with computers may be confused between 3.5 and 3.5 sp1.
>
> This maybe a trivial question but, why didn't Microsoft just change
> the version number?


Patrice

8/18/2008 6:57:00 PM

0

If I remember the final versioning was actually more along what you said and
they finally changed to start fresh with 3.0. IMHO they were afraid that
developers would think they should do something to ensure that their
existing 2.0 application would still work with 2.x (perhaps based on the 1.0
to 1.1 both ways compatibility while 2.0 and 1.1 were clearly different
beast).

By choosing 3.0 my guess is that they wanted to make clear that 2.0
applications are still running unchanged (which could have been a question
with a 2.1 scheme).

So finally we would have seen then a thread telling that 2.1 should have
been named 3.0 ;-)

So generally I don't bother, use whatever naming they come with and move to
other matters as I'm afraid there is just no perfect naming scheme and one
could always argue that the opposite scheme would have been better...

--
Patrice

"Alex Clark" <quanta@noemail.noemail> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : OyxUF#VAJHA.716@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Well, by now it should actually be .NET 2.3, because 3.0 was really 2.1,
> 3.5 was really 2.2, and 3.5SP1 is really 2.3. IMO anyway...