RSSWinFX Becomes .NET Framework 3.0
By Nate Mook | Published June 12, 2006, 12:41 PM
Following through on plans reported during PDC 2005 last September, Microsoft at TechEd 2006 in Boston officially renamed WinFX to .NET Framework 3.0. The next-generation programming model extends version 2.0 with Vista-specific additions.
"The .NET Framework has always been at the core of WinFX, but the WinFX brand didn’t convey this," explained Soma Somasegar, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Developer Division. ".NET Framework 3.0 aptly identifies the technology for exactly what it is – the next version of our developer framework."
The change is simply a rebranding, meaning .NET Framework 3.0 will include the same components as WinFX.
New to 3.0 are the Windows Presentation Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation, Windows Workflow Foundation and CardSpace. CardSpace, formerly known as InfoCard, will provide a secure framework for managing identities on the Web.
ASP.NET, WinForms, ADO.NET and the CLR will remain part of the framework, which provides the basis for development on Windows Vista. .NET Framework 3.0 will be available for download on Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 as well.
".NET Framework 3.0 will be integrated into Windows Vista when it ships and the technology also will be available for Windows XP. When looked at from the perspective of development environments, such as Java and J2EE, I see Microsoft as leveraging quite a competitive move off its operating system," commented Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox.
"Competitors like Adobe, IBM, Oracle and Sun shouldn't ignore today's quiet .NET Framework 3.0 announcement, because it is potentially hugely significant to them or anyone else using other development environments, again, such as Java and J2EE."
Microsoft has established a new community site to help support version 3.0. There, developers can download sample code and share feedback about the framework. The former WinFX technologies are represented as "sub-sites" under the main netfx3.com page.
"We are confident that this change will go a long way towards reducing confusion people may have about our developer platform and the technologies in which they should invest," added Somasegar.
I wonder how some plp can say that .SLOW runs faster than C++ (or other optimized compilers).
Sorry folks but that's not true. .NET same as JAVA or other VM is slow, bloated and resource hungry.
Score: 0
Actually, .NET WinForms are slow.
Score: 0
Not only Winforms, everything is much slower than same code compiled by an optimized compiler such as C++.
Not to mention memory usage (...)
Score: 0
a .NET app is like any other app - it depends on the developer(s) when it comes to bloat and even to a large extent, the performance.
I can write a C++ app and a .NET app that both connect to a database and do all the CRUD operations you'd expect. I'd see the same performance.
.NET Windows apps are a little slower when loading the first time than a C++ counterpart, but thats about it. Of course if we're talking intense 3d graphics, C++ has an obvious advantage. However I've seen 2 3d engines that perform decently that were written in C#
It's just the same old thing, hardcore C++ developers feel they're superior in every respect to developers who actually use robust platforms to get things done more rapidly.
Score: 0
Windows 2000 not supported?
Score: 0
Get used to it, M$ are slowly trying to wean people off Win2000, which is a shame as it's much nicer to use than XP.
Score: 0
.NET just like Java shouldn't be used to replace core system components and features that should be programmed in C++ for maximum performance and minimum system resources/memory occupation.
This is the reason why Microsoft OSes keep getting bigger and bigger that's just bloated.
Score: 0
Did you notice that C# on .NET 2.0 run too much faster than C++
Quote:
----------------------------------------------
Raymond Chen (aka "fixed more Windows bugs than you've had hot dinners") and Rico Mariani (aka "Mr .NET Performance") have been running a great series of articles where they write and then optimize the same application in two different languages: native C++ and managed C#. The easiest starting point for the two sets of articles is "Performance Quiz #6 -- Chinese/English Dictionary reader".
There's a lot of good information in both the articles and the reader comments, and if you've got the time they're well worth studying for hints on how to write and benchmark high-performance code. The summary is a compelling argument for .NET:
A line-for-line translation of the original C++ code into C# ran 10 times faster than the C++ code.
It took five different optimizations (one of which introduced a bug) for the C++ code to match the speed of the unaltered C# code.
After Raymond's sixth optimization, his C++ code finally beat the C# code — because the runtime got down to where the 60ms startup overhead of the CLR made a difference!
To accomplish this, Raymond had to:
Write his own file/io stuff
Write his own string class
Write his own allocator
Write his own international mapping
So yes, C++ code can be faster than C# code — but when you look at all the work Raymond had to go through to achieve that, you have to ask yourself "is it worth it?"
----------------------------------------------
Score: 0
You are not completely wrong. But not completely right either.
1. .NET framework has a similar concept to Java, but it is much faster when it comes to desktop apps. Java can only compete when they employ SWT (eg. Azureus). Have you tried nLite or Paint.NET? These are both fast apps developed with .NET.
2. True, C++ apps tend to be lightweight and faster, and some apps are better off done in C++. But it is not always the case.
3. "Microsoft OSes keep getting bigger and bigger" - this isn't related to .NET at all. It's bigger because it has more features and enhancements. To put it another way, Microsoft OSes keep getting better and more robust.
Score: 0
Nice to see that it will be available for Windows XP as well--die-hard legacy Windows fanatics: looks like we have another reason to finally leave Windows 98se /Windows 2000.
Score: 0
NET Framework 3.0 will be integrated into Windows Vista when it ships
When Vista ships, or when .NET 3.0 ships?
It's a little misleading there. According to everything I have read, WinFX was *not* going to be included with the Vista RTM, but was scheduled as an update via SP.
Has this changed?
Score: 0
Vista will have .NET framework 3.0 included, so when it ships (take away Duke jokes) it will have it in vanilla installation.
But there isn't a reason why .NET 3.0 FX wouldn't be avaiable say a month sooner, as we witnessed this situation with .NET 2.0 and win2003 server R2.
Score: 0
I think you ment the new filesystem. WinFX is a GUI component. It changes how the GUI is programmed.
Score: 0
actually this *GUI component*(eh:-) is WPF (windows presentation foundation), just a part of what was called WinFX. The other 'parts' are mentioned in the article above, together with today's .NET 2.0 blocks (ADO.NET 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and WinForms 2.0) they will be called .NET 3.0.
WinFS is another story...
Score: 0
Yeah, I bet he was talking about WinFS which, supposedly, isn't going to be included in the final release of Vista. I was looking forward to that, too :-(.
Score: 0
No this hasn't changed. WinFX *was* going to be included with the Vista RTM.
Maybe you're thinking of WinFS.
Score: 0
sweetness, .NET 3.0? haha, who knew? im looking forward to using this.
Score: 0
Yah, so am I.
Score: 0
Oh, this will be sweet! OK, *NOW* I am interested in Vista...
Score: 0
Why?
...and the technology also will be available for Windows XP.
Score: 0
you would be surprised but there are a *LOT* of people interested in Vista just _only_ for .NET 3.0 FX integrated (not for marketing goodies for plebs like most of you). Mostly developers though :-)
really, today you can witness a hard situation say in adoption of .net winforms applications:
'this 250 kB file equire this huge behemont to run - no way!'
whereas in 'Vista age', not only we would get a nicer api on the winforms front (say we can forget winforms 2.0) but our applications wouldn't have one major flaw anymore -> missing framework from the OS itself, thus forcing users to download something *BIG*. Not to mention .NET 3.0 integration in Vista is much _MUCH_ better than on winXP, althought not so good as planned at PDC 2003(when both IE/explorer and Outlook were promised to be built in managed code).
Score: 0
OK, you are spoiling my reasons for upgrading, damnit!
I am trying to get a REASON to upgrade.. now that I found one, sure give me the old "yeah, but you can have it today!" routine..
-sigh-
Score: 0
Because if it didn't programmers would not code a UI in WinFX. They'd use a traditional UI implementation. Why would anybody code something that only works on Vista?
Score: 0
DirectX 10 will be available for Vista only. So if you plan on upgrading your graphic card to a DirectX 10 compliant one next year you'll need to upgrade the OS as well. Microsoft refuses to provide DirectX 10 to XP users, claiming that it couldn't be done. Yeah, sure... they just want more money from customers.
Score: 0
I'd be suprised if this stays the case as .NET 3.0 will be available for XP. DirectX 10 will likely require .NET 3.0.
Score: 0
lmao...
Like DX10?
Score: 0
Nope. Not in the foreseeable future. As far as I know, DirectX has always been first and foremost the native library for gaming & multimedia.
I don't think game companies are interested in .NET yet.
There's Managed DirectX, but that's different.
Score: 0
Aero is sooo... pretty. And the new Windows Explorer is so cool. I would upgrade because of these features. :)
Score: 0