Someone reviewed v on Jul 5, 2022

Pros: 555

Cons: 555

Bottom Line: 555

lydiain reviewed v3.0 Service Pack 1 on Aug 18, 2011

I've no problem with it, but it's not a miracle.

PatrynXX reviewed v3.0 Service Pack 1 on Aug 11, 2008

Tried to install this 3.0 SP1. Says 3.0 SP1 is incompatible with Vista. So I assume thats an XP only release. 3.5 is installing though.

newmote reviewed v3.0 Service Pack 1 on Nov 22, 2007

Looks like you've got a TuFF crowd here mr Gates. Everybody seems to hate dot NET's clr guts even more than your's.

BILL -> Ahh .. I know I know. Even I don't install these new frameworks at home. I've still got 1.1 running on my Gateway and it works almost as good as Windows 95, dos even.

Morale of the story .. like one poster posted ..

"How portable is PORTABLE when with every new release every human on planet Earth has to re-download 2 million byte then re-install it all?"

BILL -> I know I know. The bright side is, 4.0's going to be a whole heck of a lot smaller. Assuming we're still in business by the time it's pre-released.

horsecharles reviewed v3.0 Service Pack 1 on Nov 22, 2007

Thank you dkratter.

I just updated all my xp & vista systems with 3.5.

This update did not take on xp.... wish i'd applied it before 3.5.... OR:

I hope 3.5 overwrote & became only version on pre-Vista versions, rather than having 1, 2, 3, 3.5 co-existing.

Brian49 reviewed v3.0 Service Pack 1 on Nov 22, 2007

My main beef about these service packs (this one and the one for v.2) is the amount of additional hard drive space they gobble up - about 200Mb on my system. A service pack should simply update existing files.

My main beef about the .NET Framework in general is that, for anybody other than developers, it's way too cumbersome in relation to its benefit, which as far as I can see is just the ability to run a small number of applications which won't work without it.

dkratter reviewed v3.0 Service Pack 1 on Nov 21, 2007

This is listed here as supporting Vista, which it does not do.

Vista users should install .NET Framework 3.5 from http://www.microsoft.com...32a6&DisplayLang=en

jaredjames reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

Hate the way Microsoft so freakin shy about committing bugs to a release.

Apparantly if they patch bugs it breaks everybodys computer.

Stupid by design. Five stars :)

panic82 reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

The .net framework is one of the greatest development frameworks i've worked with. Some of the people reviewing this are just ignorant, they're the same people who hate Microsoft simply because they're Microsoft. From a development stand-point you can't get any better... it's easy, you can write powerful robust applications in a fraction of the time you would with C++, and deploy them to a network of thousands of people with the click of a mouse. Although I'm not too stoked on how Microsoft is calling this .NET 3.0 (when in reality it should probably be an extension to 2.0), it will provide some great features for XP and Vista (mainly UI). Of course every language has it's time and place...

constust, why don't you try it before talking smack...

cricri_pingouin reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

Prior to the Windows days, I've always been fond of the Borland IDEs. Well built and efficient, they remain a benchmark in my opinion.
When I first needed to build Windows applications, I wanted to use Delphi, but was forced to use Visual Studio 6. I really liked how quickly I was able to do RAD with Visual Basic.
Then came up .Net. With my colleagues, we got a final beta (7 CDs) from Microsoft, and never managed to install it properly on any of our machines. Its tendency to be plagued by what I'd call the "Norton syndrom" (i.e. trying to attach itself to every possible part of a software configuration, including system files and registry) probably didn't help. Inefficiency is especially visible on PPC platforms where .Net apps are consistently slow to launch (at least, on WM2003 or above, you don't have to worry about the framework installation). So I stuck to VS6, but was curious about trying .Net 1.0 apps and installed the framework. Shortly after came 1.1, and I was annoyed that 1.0 and 1.1 needed to be installed conccurently (i.e. 1.1 is not a simple update). Then came 2.0, and when I realised that I still needed to have 1.0 AND 1.1 on top of 2.0 to ensure a compatibility with all .Net applications I started pulling away. Nowadays, I do not install this framework anymore, especially since I need my applications to run with standard non-WinXP machines (which is still what they use at work). If an app is developped with .Net, I simply discard it. Some apps might be good (e.g. Paint .Net), but as I just said, even if I did install .Net at home, I couldn't use these apps at work anyway, hence I'd still need to own/learn an alternative.
And now 3.0 is out. Please, don't tell me that you STILL require 1.0 AND 1.1 AND 2.0 in addition to 3.0 to be safe in running the whole .Net library.
Either way, I'm not interested anymore. In fact, if .Net could be wiped out the surface of the earth tomorrow, the only words that would spring to my mind would be "good riddance".
That's my personal opinion. If anyone is happy with .Net, good for them, I respect that. For me and many people around me, .Net is automatically discarded.
*UPDATE* After all this time, I was FORCED to install .Net 3.0. I did so on someone else's machine not to ruin mine. And yep, this machine now has 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 as three seperate installation packages. And I see 3.5 beta released. Let me guess, to be safe, I'll still need the 3 aforementionned in addition of 3.5.

smarterthanyou reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

Looks like Betanews screwed up and posted a link to version 2.0 of the .Net Framework.

Paradise-FH- reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

feels like 2.0 was just released yesterday.

and i guess yesterday would be a year ago (http://www.betanews.com/...nal_Released/1130438027) ... still seems like a really short lifecycle for 2.0.

tangentlin reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

If .NET is evil, you shall try your luck with Java. For those who whine about disk space, .NET 1.1 accounts 70MB of space, .NET 2.0 120MB, if you don't have a big enough hard drive these days when 100GB is worth nothing, you need a rich daddy. .NET is a comprehensive framework that covers many features developer would need to write applications without having to install additional 3rd party -- in an essence, it benefits both end users and developers.

constust reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

lol

lets write a 30kb application that needs a 10,000 registry entries, services running, dozens of folders and a gazzilion files to function

net framework is evil

WRFan reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

the problem with the framework is that every new version installs without removing previous versions. I already have v.1 and 2 and now 3? How much space does this thing actually need? One has to install the framework, though, cause many programmes won't even install if it's not installed, even if the user does not require the respective programme features that need the framework to function. But I am kind of tired of losing my harddisk space over and over again

HurricaneGame reviewed v3.0.4506.30 on Nov 7, 2006

Really, purush ?

I'm using 2.0 ^^

The MAZZTer reviewed v3.0.04506.03 September CTP on Oct 11, 2006

photon: The latest version of Windows PowerShell uses this.

Rated 5/5 for sexy scalable vector graphics.

purush reviewed v3.0.04506.03 September CTP on Sep 25, 2006

Photonboy for your info, ATI graphic card drivers with CCC must have this installed to update the drivers.

photonboy reviewed v3.0.04506.03 September CTP on Sep 25, 2006

Are there even any XP apps that use this yet?

Howell reviewed v3.0.04324.17 Release Candidate on Sep 13, 2006

This is just the former WinFx package wich has been renamed...

djtf reviewed v3.0.04324.17 Release Candidate on Sep 5, 2006

The cardspace feature may only get usefull, once it´s final! Yet another login-crap will be then offered from more websites! Programs needed to use the new build in features! We´ll see! But it´s a good step forward!

Ramhound reviewed v3.0.04324.17 Release Candidate on Sep 5, 2006

doesn't seem like the number of new features justifies a leap to 3.0 i mean from its own description it just adds a bunch of stuff to 2.0

You clearly don't understand why they decided to do this.

They added an entire another Framework to the .NET Framework , somebody else quoted what they added exactly.

Don't rate something poor because you don't understand something.

the artist reviewed v3.0.04324.17 Release Candidate on Sep 5, 2006

@nilst2006: you know how the game plays, you are the misplaced one here for havin' win2k. plan on discarding win2k soon man.

nilst2006 reviewed vJuly 2006 CTP on Jul 18, 2006

Poor that this crap doesn't work in Win2K !

KayNine reviewed vJuly 2006 CTP on Jul 18, 2006

@ds0934: yes and no: .net 3.0 includes the .net 2.0 framework, there are no changes to the basic framework itself. BUT: .net 3.0 includes a bunch of really extensions. I quote from the MS site:

"The Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 (formerly known as WinFX), is the new managed code programming model for Windows. It combines the power of the .NET Framework 2.0 with new technologies for building applications that have visually compelling user experiences, seamless communication across technology boundaries, and the ability to support a wide range of business processes. These new technologies are Windows Presentation Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation, Windows Workflow Foundation, and Windows CardSpace (formerly code named "Infocard")."

Clear now?

ds0934 reviewed vJuly 2006 CTP on Jul 17, 2006

I'm rating it low because I still haven't finished deploying .NET 2.0 to all my remote sites. Now 3.0 is coming down the pipe. Geez. What ever happened to 2.1, 2.2... Is this really THAT radically different to be full release up?

zridling reviewed vJuly 2006 CTP on Jul 17, 2006

Thanks for cautionary reminder, Banquo!

Paul Skinner reviewed vJuly 2006 CTP on Jul 17, 2006

The July CTP homepage is:
http://www.microsoft.com...88f0&DisplayLang=en

Banquo reviewed vJuly 2006 CTP on Jul 17, 2006

I've had no problems with it, but it should be noted for those who aren't aware that CTP means Community Technology Preview, this is not the final version so don't install it on your primary machine. I figure most people here know that since this is a site about Beta software, but I just thought it bore repeating.

benyahuda reviewed vJune 2006 CTP on Jun 27, 2006

mastergeese, there is a readme text that discusses this issue and tells you how to get around it.

KayNine reviewed vJune 2006 CTP on Jun 26, 2006

Link to homepage is wrong (directs to 2.0), here's the correct one:

http://www.microsoft.com...542D&displaylang=en

+Kay

mastergeese reviewed vJune 2006 CTP on Jun 26, 2006

28/37 megs download : "setup has encountered an error..." HUM.
Stick with framework 2.0, waiting for 3.0 beta 2 fixed.