Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

please, correct typo "supercedes" should read "supersedes" 139.165.127.49 (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 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

|- |4.5.2||4.5.51641||2014-05-05||Visual Studio 2013||data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, #2C2C2C); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | —||4.0, 4.5, 4.5.1 2.240.24.202 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

.NET 4.5.2 was announced and released.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2014/05/05/announcing-the-net-framework-4-5-2-release.aspx

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 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 195.65.52.7 (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 139.210.139.160 (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)

Why not just check the installer media for RTM, SP1, SP2, R2, Enterprise, Standard, and so on variations, and make a table? There's official checksums for the images MS supplied people. Heck, you can even still download a lot of them if you have the right accounts. Anyone got legal access to official media and not just unapproved pirated copies(granted, byte-for-byte copies of exact same disc images)? You don't even need a new PC, just install in a VM. BTW: Physical media is not really popular, anymore for those that wonder why I mention disc images. 73.95.135.127 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

References

What Does "DISTRIBUTED" Really Mean in This Template?

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...

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

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)

Problems:

• "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)