Template talk:.NET Framework version history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014[edit]

please, correct typo "supercedes" should read "supersedes" (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for pointing that out - to quote Wiktionary "Supersede is the only English word ending in sede. Similar words include four ending in ceed, and several ending in cede (apart from seed). Because of this, supercede is a common misspelling of this word." - Arjayay (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014[edit]

|- |4.5.2||4.5.51641||2014-05-05||Visual Studio 2013||data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; font-size: smaller; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | N/A||4.0, 4.5, 4.5.1 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

.NET 4.5.2 was announced and released.


Done, thanks. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What kinda release of Windows Server 2003 distribute .net framework 2.0?[edit]

I just wish this is Wikipedia.org not Microsoft Official website! Fact is just Fact, should never be modified. Windows Server 2003 was released in year 2003, when .net framework 2.0 was not about releasing at all. For the ever Windows .net Server, the .net framework 1.1 was the default .net framework included in the Windows Server 2003 installation media, also the dot net framework 1.0 was included on the Windows XP Service Pack 1 media. They might be just the partial, runtime or demonstration but they were there, and that is the fact. This is the section to tell the history, why should be affected by anything that is meaningless at all?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janagewen (talkcontribs) 02:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Janagewen
Do you have proof in the form of reliable secondary source? If yes, then all your problems are solved.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed what I posted here because of your behaviours, and I got a warning about being blocked here! That is for what? I think you, Codename List, had better show respect to yourself before anything. You could do anything to my account without needing telling me again and again. I don't want to have any biz with you, Codename Lisa! Janagewen (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

According to MS FAQ[1] in the 10th question "What is the Support Lifecycle policy for the different versions of .NET Framework?", ".NET Framework 1.1 SP1 will continue to be supported until end of support of Windows Server 2003 SP2 (with 32-bit only, not 64-bit)." That's confirm 1.1 SP1 to have been delivered within the SP2 of Windows Server 2003. And if .NET 2.0 is new in 2003 R2 (6th note in the template), it means it is NOT part of 2003, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I am so glad that you paid attention to this topic. Definitely, .net framework 2.0 is not part of Windows Server 2003, but an integrated part of Windows Server 2003 R2. I should have to make clear another thing, .net framework 1.1 SP1 is not delivered by SP2 of Windows Server 2003, but an integrated part too. Sorry to reply late, but late is better than never come. -- Aaron Janagewen (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"That's confirm 1.1 SP1 to have been delivered within the SP2 of Windows Server 2003."
Bzzzt! Wrong. That only proves the support policy is aligned for the convenience of the supporter.
"And if .NET 2.0 is new in 2003 R2 [...]"
Says who? The source says it isn't. It says it was included in 2003. Why don't you guys level that with Microsoft? Wikipedia is a downstream publisher anyway.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What Does "DISTRIBUTED" Really Mean in This Template?[edit]

According to 1, yes, and of course, "Windows XP didn't come with any version of the .NET Framework." and "It is not an OS component on this OS." from 2. But what the heaven does the word "distributed" mean in the template? First, distribute has relation with word "channels", with no relation with word like "integration", "component" and the forth. Second, "Windows is not a .NET Framework delivery channel either" from 1 already provides the evidence against to this template. Third, confusion or misleading to refer Windows Server 2003 as Windows Server 2003 R2. They are different releases like the relation between Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2. Only Windows Server 2003 R2 installation media includes .NET Framework 2.0 and that is part of it 2. "Distributed with" is the most improper phrase here, once again, "Windows is not a .NET Framework delivery channel either"! Janagewen (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Windows is not a .NET Framework delivery channel either" is a disclaimer, not not a denial. The blog post does not deny that .NET Framework comes with Windows; it confirms it. But how did you get from that to claiming "distributed with" is an improper phrase? Anyway, if you have a better suggestion, let's hear it. Fleet Command (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I largely agree with User:Janagewen, although I don't think that the terminology distinction is particularly important. What is the difference between Windows 8 and 8.1 including version 3.5 as an optional component, and XP including 1.0/1.1 as an optional component (per the source above)? The correct answer is that there is no difference whatsoever - either both inclusions are listed here or neither one is. Furthermore, there is no mention of the editions of XP which actually included it as an integrated component, nor is it mentioned that 64-bit versions of Server 2003 did not include it (both facts per the source above, once again). In short, this template is a mess per the established facts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree with everything you said, except your first and last sentence. Still, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a bitch, isn't it? Fleet Command (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
My Thank you goes to Dogmaticeclectic, yeah, I do apologize that I changed this wonderful template and made deletion of what I post here without reason and judged as vandalism. For FleetCommand, so many thanks for your faithful reply. I think "Occurrence since" is much better than "Distributed with", because this template explains the history rather than makes some a research. I am so sorry for my rudeness. Janagewen (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "distributed with" is problematic. It implies that the distribution method mentioned is the primary distribution method, whereas Raymond Chen's blog says it isn't. (It is an optional component that can be uninstalled.) But "occurrence with" is semantically and syntactically wrong. "Occurrence" only applies to something that can occur, such as an event. And because "occurrence" is noun, it cannot take a proposition like "with". ("Occurs with" would be correct for events.) But computer software can be developed, published, distributed, delivered, licensed or bundled with. I recommend "bundled with". Software bundling it implies that the distribution method is not primary.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So many thanks go to Codename Lisa. The very first .net framework 1.0 has been found in the Visual Studio .net development suite, and found in some Windows XP with Service Pack 1 installation media. For this occurrence, that is not Windows XP distributed .net framework 1.0, but only some installation media. Likewise Windows Server 2003(Windows Server.net) does not distribute .net framework too, only existed on x86 installation media. So if XP has been removed from this template, and its cousin (Windows Server 2003) should obtain the same treatment. Windows 7 does not distribute .net framework too, only .net framework plays the role of part of it... I mentioned "Occurrence since", not "Occurrence with". The noun form might not be accepted by some people, but "bundle" has the similar meaning as "distribute", so if people love to use verbs, I think phrase "Found in" is much better. Janagewen (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"Found in"? It is not a discovery; it is software. "Included with" or "Included in" are both alright. The source itself says "included in". And Codename Lisa, if you start second-guessing every word, soon even your own shadow looks wrong to you. Fleet Command (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... You are right.
But as for Windows XP, we need a source. Without source, we can do nothing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This template is totally a mess and one possibly misleading guide. Keep the first half of this table, removing anything with Windows is just ok. I could help myself saying that it is a shit! Janagewen (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this template is a total mess. The other day I cleaned it up, removed unsourced material and misleading information but Codename Lisa undid my edit. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@S.Örvarr.S: You removed {{N/A}}, development tools which are discussed in the affixed article and the footnote that was perfectly sourced. And you did all this without an edit summary. I am afraid I find the factual accuracy of your message extremely lacking. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't remove them as much as I replaced them with dashes, because I thought they'd be less confusing and Microsoft also used them in the main source. I didn't remove the development tools, just those that weren't sourced and I shortened the names. I did remove the footnote as I considered it a duplicate seeing as all its information is contained in the main source but perhaps I shouldn't have done that. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@S.Örvarr.S: If you had said any of this in the edit summary, I wouldn't have even dreamed of reverting. (What seemed to me as an act of execution at the time is now looking totally plausible. As I've said before, edit summaries do magic.) I am extracting sources from the main article as we speak and adding them along. But if you wish to go ahead and delete "Superseded" column, I agree with that. As for {{N/A}}, I don't feel strongly towards it, but I do feel that it is Wikipedia's style and we have no obligation about sticking to Microsoft's haphazard style.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this template should make readers clear rather than confusion, so I replace "Included in" with "AS COMPANION or AS PART". So for that, I also put Windows XP with Service Pack 1 onto the list too. Windows XP Tablet Edition and Windows XP Media Center use .net framework 1.0 as part of them, and they are both the products happened after Service Pack 1 released. I change the "Replace" to "Overtake", because that is the more exact word to describe the relationship among them, and correct the Windows Server 2003 R2 as the first OS to put it on the installation media. I don't want to incur meaningless argument but just want to make readers clear about the fact about .net framework and Windows. People who will revert my change should provide enough and strong proofs ahead of ahead! Janagewen (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
My last revision is this. For this modification I remove some unnecessary denotations such as "SP2" following with "Windows Server 2008" and "SP1" with "Windows Server 2008 R2". They possibly mislead the readers about the fact of .net framework with them, and wrong to tell the fact. I also add a comment to Windows XP with Service Pack 1, and that is true. People who are eager about adding reference, please find the information to prove it and improving this template... Janagewen (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The source says they are necessary. And do learn some English please. Fleet Command (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Before reverting or changing...[edit]

Leave your reasons or proofs to reverting or modifying the main article! This is Wikipedia.org, we should maintain the right of everyone to work together... Janagewen (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And you are violating the right of everyone to edit. Per WP:BRD, if you are reverted, you are not allowed to counter-revert. This is exactly what you are doing and it is called edit warring. Fleet Command (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
For you, Fleet Command, do learn self-respect! OK? Janagewen (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of column Supersedes[edit]

Is there a consensus that the column Supersedes, which has been renamed Overtakes and Replaces in the recent edit war, be removed. It doesn't add anything to the table. It's like saying, before I was 25 I was 24 and before I was 24 I was 23 etc. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam, I do compromise to this edition of this template. You see, I've no right to modify at all. For that I've been blocked for 24 hours. Eventually I reverted it to that guy's modification. My revision is gone, and I don't want to argue or be blocked again. So you could ignore this word "Overtakes". Sorry! Janagewen (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, Stefán
Although I don't disagree with the removal, I do disagree with your rationale. .NET Framework 1.1, 3.5 SP1 and 4.5 can be installed side-by-side on a system; neither bothers the other. But 2.0 and 3.0 cannot be installed simultaneously; 3.0 overwrites 2.0. In other words, if you have 3.0, you automatically have 2.0 too but if you have 4.5, you don't have 3.5 SP1 or 1.1 and programs that need the latter do no operate in the presence of the former.
Also, "overtakes" is wrong. It means "to pass another vehicle" or "to catch up with in traveling or pursuit".
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that some versions can be installed simultaneously is not conveyed in the template in any meaningful way. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In the template, no. In the article, yes. (At least if someone hasn't removed it. But we can always cover it in the article, can't we?)
As I said, I won't contest its removal. And if you have another idea too, I'm listening...
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Greeting, Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson,
I've made another revision in my own (talk page), if you are free, please make suggestions there.
P.S. I don't want to argue or make any edit on this article on Wikipedia.org English, I would improve it to fit for other languages Wikipedia.org. Janagewen (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Architecture" column needs source.
  • Claims v1.0 is included in "XP SP1" without source.
  • Claims v4.0 is included in Windows 7 without source.
  • Claims v2.0 is included "Server 2003 R2" in violation of the source. (Existing source says "2003" only.)
  • Many of the items have lost their service pack identifier, in violation of the source.
  • "Expression Blend" is censored.
Regrettably, ignoring these is exactly the reasons for which you were blocked for 24 hours. It is unwise to ignore them again.
Best regards,
01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (possibly Codename Lisa)
I do appreciate your suggestion and explanation. But do please sign your name next time you reply. OK, people find my revision interesting could provide suggestions in my own talk page, I won't plan to make any edit to this article. Thank you! Janagewen (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The "Architecture" column would be great if sourced. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson, yeah, that's it! I eventually split it into two tables on my talk page and adding OS support information too, offered as an sample to be evaluated and sourced! Thank you! Janagewen (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative revision[edit]

Overview of .NET Framework release history
Version CLR Release
Shipped With
Visual Studio
Preinstalled with Windows Embraces
Client Server
1.0 1.0 February 13, 2002 .NET 2002 N/A N/A N/A
1.1 1.1 April 24, 2003 .NET 2003 N/A 2003 N/A
2.0 2.0 November 7, 2005 2005 N/A 2003 R2 N/A
3.0 2.0 November 6, 2006 N/A Vista 2008 2.0
3.5 2.0 November 19, 2007 2008 7 2008 R2 3.0
4.0 4 April 12, 2010 2010 N/A N/A N/A
4.5 4 August 15, 2012 2012 8 2012 4.0
4.5.1 4 October 17, 2013 2013 8.1 2012 R2 4.5
4.5.2 4 May 5, 2014 N/A N/A N/A 4.5.1
4.5.3 4 TBA N/A 10 2015 4.5.2

About date format, because .net framework is a product of Microsoft, a North American international corporation. In order to avoiding the confusion, using American Standard Date format to state its precise release date.

This revision is provided for kind and nice editors from all over the world who want to improve the template in the main article. Any critic is welcome, but modifications to it for improving its qualities are much more welcome. But I do anti-"Nazi"! Janagewen (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For involving modifying this template I have experienced being blocked twice, and I try to replace it with my revision, it was reverted for more than 3 times. If you, any reader, not a stupid or woodenhead, you would find it is the most ridiculous template stating information on .net framework. All the seemed-reasonable references attached to that template is the just the confusion for its original writer about .net framework. Guys, here, Jeh, Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand are worse. I just wish there would be someone would balance the balance, not to mislead readers too much. Janagewen (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you start labeling people "woodenhead" (whatever that means) instead of listening to them, you end up in world full of woodenheads that has no "reader" in it. Your table is horribly vague and your English language is awful. You should have gotten the hint when you were blocked the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

::: I am so respectful for your reply. But have we ever both chatted on wiki? Why omitted your name here? If you are English-native speaker, then I am sorry. If not, why you use awful to describe my English skill? That takes nonsense, I think I was treated as shit for each my modification on this template has been reverted in minutes without reason. Can I call it discrimination? I was treated in this way like a shit, so no matter my English skill is awful or excellent, does it take sense? The template in main article is obviously a mass, and misleads readers, especially on the description about the relationship among versions and inclusion. That is wrong! I know people passed it by and ignored, or without passion to modify it, but not say that it is correct. Yeah, I apologize for using the words "woodenhead" and "stupid", but these two words are the most suitable for people who ignore my revision and reverted my modification without consideration at all. Guy, if you are interested in this template too, I just wish you devote to making it better rather than arguing some a shit like me. Janagewen (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should I always give a shit? Janagewen (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/145e8605-899e-4014-934a-0d1f877410b0/which-table-is-more-reasonable?forum=netfxsetup The above link might be the only proof worth mentioning here. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A good suggestion! I love it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

End of support column[edit]

I thought I would suggest adding a new column specifying end of support dates based on something like "Microsoft .NET Framework Support Lifecycle Policy FAQ". The reason is that specifies a complex end of support schedule based on different versions having been released differently (either independent product or component of something else like an OS release, etc.). (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Hello! I have three reasons for opposing:
  1. As the source you gave says, .NET Framework support follows the support lifecycle policy of the parent operating system. We already have three templates in Wikipedia showing that. There is already too much emphasis on Windows support in Wikipedia.
  2. The underlying article does not discuss the support status in a meaningful manner. Without such an elucidation, WP:IINFO comes into play; Wikipedia is not a collection of dates for the sake of collecting dates.
  3. Most importantly, there is nothing encyclopedic to be said about the support for individual versions of .NET Framework. And that's exactly why Microsoft considers the framework a component. I'll keep an open mind, however, in case you can show me an example.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Pro argument: The FAQ does say that the support depends on the underlying OS, but on the same time states that "support will end for .NET Framework 4, 4.5, and 4.5.1 on January 12, 2016.". The support for version 4.5.1 is thus shorter as the one of 8.1 and 2012 R2: 4.5.2 is considered as a fix of previous 4.x version. As of August 2016, 4.5.2 is thus the oldest version still supported and probably therefore the default version in Visual Studio 2015 update3!

EDIT: 3.5 is still supported as part of Windows 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/17455/lifecycle-support-policy-faq-net-framework