none
Which table is more reasonable?

    Question

  • Dear Microsoft,

    I've a question confused me too much for months, so I question it here!

    Please take a look at the tables below, which is more reasonable?

    The original topic I created on the microsoft community,

    http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1-windows_install/which-table-is-more-reasonable/bfc21d98-394d-43d8-bb1c-5d2b46f34a75

    Because I could not find anyone helping me to judge, so I create this topic. I wish people could help me! Millions thanks in advance!

    Yours sincerely,

    Janagewen

    Friday, December 12, 2014 10:59 PM

Answers

  • "which is more reasonable?"

    Do you mean accurate, easy to understand, or what?

    My personal preference is for the second one, because the "Replaces" column in the first table is not accurate (or, perhaps I should say misleading).

    I probably should elaborate on my objection to the "Replaces" column in the first table.

    The indication that 3.0 replaces 2.0 and that 3.5 replaces 2.0 and 3.0 is incorrect.

    With the versions above, 2.0 is the base, complete, framework. 3.0 and 3.5 are NOT complete frameworks. They are EXTENSIONS to 2.0.

    The same holds true for 4.0/4.5/4.5.1, etc. 4.5 is an IN PLACE UPDATE (per Microsoft) to 4.0. It is NOT a complete replacement.



    Saturday, December 13, 2014 4:29 AM

All replies

  • "which is more reasonable?"

    Do you mean accurate, easy to understand, or what?

    My personal preference is for the second one, because the "Replaces" column in the first table is not accurate (or, perhaps I should say misleading).

    I probably should elaborate on my objection to the "Replaces" column in the first table.

    The indication that 3.0 replaces 2.0 and that 3.5 replaces 2.0 and 3.0 is incorrect.

    With the versions above, 2.0 is the base, complete, framework. 3.0 and 3.5 are NOT complete frameworks. They are EXTENSIONS to 2.0.

    The same holds true for 4.0/4.5/4.5.1, etc. 4.5 is an IN PLACE UPDATE (per Microsoft) to 4.0. It is NOT a complete replacement.



    Saturday, December 13, 2014 4:29 AM
  • If you are a developer, the first one will be the best choice.
    Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:17 AM
  • Thank you very much for your explanation, through which I know 3.0 and 3.5 are the extensions to 2.0, then can we also say 3.5 is the superset of 3.0?

    And 4.5 is an in place update, then can we also say 4.5.1 is the superset of 4.5?

     

    Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
  • So which .net framework version is the most suitable to you now, .Net 4.0 or .Net 4.5.1 ?
    Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:30 AM
  • Thank you for your reply!

    I just want such a table clearly detail relationship among .net framework versions, that might assist both devloppers and administrators to programe or deploy the fundemental platform. I've been blocked from wiki there, could not realise my will, but if this table is provided by Microsoft offically, that might be the prefect thing to the fans all over the world.

    I am exhausted! But thank you both with my best wishes!

    Yours sincerely, Janagewen!


    Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:19 AM
  • @Janagewe,

    We don't need to concern on that table. It is generate by users and if you are confused about those version. You can just raise this question on MSDN forum.

    For example, .NET 3.5 is based .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.0 and it contains all features from .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.0. That is it, about .NET 3.5 itself.

    .NET 4.0 is a new version and .NET 4.5 is based on .NET 4.0.

    Best regards,



    Barry
    We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
    Click HERE to participate the survey.

    Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:01 AM
    Moderator
  • I remember the tables: They are from Wikipedia.

    Janagewen was in favor of the second version but could not convince his fellow editors because he was extremely rude with them. Now, I believe his reason for being here is to requisition the software giant's influence! ;)

    The problems with the second version is:

    1. It alleges that Windows Server 2003 R2 comes with .NET Framework 2.0 preinstalled but there is no reference to support this claim. (The existing MSDN citation does not back this up.)
    2. Second tables censors the mention of Expression Blend.
    3. Second table censors comments regarding inclusion of .NET Framework 3.5 on Windows 8.x media.
    4. Second table's implies that v4.0 and v4.5.2 can co-exist on a system. In fact, v4.5.2 replaces v4.0, v4.5 and v4.5.1.


    The greatest moment of everyone's life is the moment of positive thinking.

    • Edited by Fleet Command Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:12 AM Added an item #4.
    Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:04 AM
  • @Fleet Command

    Anyone could make mistakes, and correction of mistakes would always be welcome, but please do not fool the audience all over the world. Just because of making correction of that template on WP, I've been reported and blocked by you and your fellows, that is the thing of another forums without worthy even mentioned at all.

    @Audience and Microsoft

    Which of both is reasonable or more reasonable does take the matter! Because each time I search on something on computer science with BING, pages of Wikipedia would always appear. So in the fever of most beginners might be mislead there,  so I post it here. For all my struggles here and there, I just want to protect the reputation of WP and products from Microsoft. So let this topic aside, I just wish Microsoft would provide a more reasonable table or something else to the beginners of .net framework programming from all over the world.

    And I also wish people could show respect to each other before anything.


    Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:40 AM
  • Second table is has a lot of mistakes. Don't rely on it.

    Also, looks like the table is either from Wikia or Wikipedia. Red links there means broken likes. The second table is clearly vandalized.

    • Proposed as answer by Codename Lisa Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:17 AM
    Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:14 AM
  • @Janagewen,

    Thanks for your great idea here. I just rechecked a table and want to provide you this link:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb822049.aspx

    The table there is more reasonable for both you and anyone who are interested in .NET.

    Best regards,



    Barry
    We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
    Click HERE to participate the survey.

    Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:27 AM
    Moderator
  • @The Unique Elite

    I think I should say sorry to you, maybe to bring those two tables here might be improper. But I've done, the only reason is in the hope of making this confusion clear  rather than something else. So Sorry again! 

    @Barry

    Thank you very much for providing that table. But I've found something confusing me also,

    1. .net framework 2.0 is included in Windows Server 2003. Maybe this Windows Server 2003 also include 2003 R2 edition? Because through my experiences, there is only .net framework 1.1 preinstalled on x86 edition of Windows Server 2003. For Itanium and x64 counterpart, there is no .net framework preinstalled or available on installation media; only netfx2.0 found on R2 supplementary disc for them three mentioned above.

    2. .net framework 3.0 is included in Windows Server 2008 SP2. But I also found it on the Windows Server 2008 RTM, maybe this "SP2" means the latest release of Windows Server 2008, rather than saying that only 2008 SP2 includes this netfx 3.0?  Similar with netfx3.5 and 2008R2 SP1.

    3. I've also found .net framework 1.0 on Windows XP installation media since Service Pack 1 released. But I find nothing with Windows XP on this table, may the reason be Windows XP had already reached the end-of-support? Or the .netfx on Windows XP installation media is not the official release?

    For the above three questions might confuse me and someone like me. I think clear answers to them would help even more!

    Thank you Barry with my apologies.

    Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:20 AM
  • @Janagewen,

    Question 1:

    It seems Server R2 is different from Server.

    I'm not familar with Server 2003 and its R2 version so I'm not able to share you the specific .NET version pre-installed.

    Question 2:

    Server SP2 means the update to normal Server. Service Package. So yes 2008 SP2 also have the .NET 3.0

    Question 3:

    XP version seems do not have .NET embedded in the OS.

    Best regards,



    Barry
    We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
    Click HERE to participate the survey.

    Friday, January 2, 2015 7:23 AM
    Moderator
  • @Barry,

    Anyway, thank you very much!

    Monday, January 5, 2015 3:11 PM