Why 3.5 sp1 instead of just 3.6?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealCat
  • Start date Start date
R

RealCat

The final .NET Framework 3.5 service pack 1 is out. It doesn't only
have fixes for existing features, but it also has bunch of new
features such as support for shader. Then, why not just name it 3.6,
instead of the long 3.5 service pack 1? It would be a lot shorter and
less confusing to tell someone "Hey, you need .net 3.6 to run my
application" than telling "No, .net 3.5 is not enough, you need .net
3.5 service pack 1 to run my application." Some users who are not so
familar with computers may be confused between 3.5 and 3.5 sp1.

This maybe a trivial question but, why didn't Microsoft just change
the version number?
 
Probably because 3.5 was a pretty big deal and the modifications included in
SP1 are based on the new technologies introduced in 3.5.
 
Scott said:
Probably because 3.5 was a pretty big deal and the modifications included in
SP1 are based on the new technologies introduced in 3.5.
Click to expand...

Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug fixes.

In my view Microsoft made big mistake starting with v3.0 of .NET (it
should have never been called that) and now this version stuff continues
with SP1 - what annoys me most is that CLR is still version 2.0!

I suppose we must be grateful that we don't get .NET 2008 releases!

regards,

Alex
 
You are exactly right on that note. Service packs don't contain new language
features at least until now. Windows security updates shouldn't update
unrelated .NET assemblies...etc. What we have now is that microsoft is
breaking all of the rules, or defining new ones. Time to adapt, adjust,
fight back...

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
Download OWC Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $15.00
Need a free copy of VSTS 2008 w/ MSDN Premium?
http://msmvps.com/blogs/alvin/Default.aspx
 
The final .NET Framework 3.5 service pack 1 is out. It doesn't only
have fixes for existing features, but it also has bunch of new
features such as support for shader. Then, why not just name it 3.6,
instead of the long 3.5 service pack 1? It would be a lot shorter and
less confusing to tell someone "Hey, you need .net 3.6 to run my
application" than telling "No, .net 3.5 is not enough, you need .net
3.5 service pack 1 to run my application." Some users who are not so
familar with computers may be confused between 3.5 and 3.5 sp1.

This maybe a trivial question but, why didn't Microsoft just change
the version number?
Click to expand...


MS only knows the correct answer!!!

-Cnu
 
Alex said:
Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug fixes.

In my view Microsoft made big mistake starting with v3.0 of .NET (it
should have never been called that) and now this version stuff continues
with SP1 - what annoys me most is that CLR is still version 2.0!
Click to expand...

In a sense you're right, though they did have a problem: the CLR which
had the same version and other libraries which aren't v2.0. So you could
do a couple of things:

1) release a new v2.1 where everything is versioned v2.1, even though
the CLR isn't updated
2) release a new version 3 where the new stuff is v3 and the existing
stuff is v2.

Both arent ideal, though indeed I'd have picked 1). After all: if
someone builds an app which uses WPF, the user using such an app has to
have .NET 3.0 installed, so if that .NET 3.0 install installs a new CLR
or not, the user doesn't know nor care.

Now about this service pack: when EF slipped, they had a problem: if
they would have placed it on a website to download it as an add-on,
no-one would ever download it, except a few consultants. So they
streamlined it into the service pack to get it onto everyone's machine
to save the project.

In my book, that's bundling similar like IE in windows of a free
competitor of commercial applications. However, what can I do about it?
I'm not going to go to trial with them and fight a long costly war which
will have no winners.

So the end result is that MS did a sneaky bundling and made the service
pack the launch vehicle of the EF. Together with the EF, they also
packed some features which were cut from VS.NET 2008 RTM for reasons
no-one knows.

I agree that with this much new features they could have named it v3.6,
but that might have given a lot of problems because all the docs out
there talk about .NET 3.5, not .NET 3.6.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Frans said:
So the end result is that MS did a sneaky bundling and made the
service pack the launch vehicle of the EF. Together with the EF, they
also packed some features which were cut from VS.NET 2008 RTM for
reasons no-one knows.
Click to expand...


I think that's really it - they simply had to cut down features they
planned originally for VS 2008 in order to ship it on time. That's fine
by me (though I'd prefer Microsoft to throw more resources at .NET -
it's strategic but does not seem to get sufficient attention in my view).

I suppose I am grateful to get SP1 with new good features rather than
having to wait a lot longer for them to be included into a bigger
update, however this certainly creates additional problems for
deployment - all this sudden version fragmentation is not healthy.

IMO in any case CLR version should have tracked declared .NET version -
if anything runtime should be able to quickly check what it runs on,
otherwise what's the bloody point in versioning!

regards,

Alex
 
Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug fixes.

That has not been historically true, looking at Microsoft's SP's for various
pieces of software over the years.

-Scott
 
Well, by now it should actually be .NET 2.3, because 3.0 was really 2.1, 3.5
was really 2.2, and 3.5SP1 is really 2.3. IMO anyway...
 
Which is ironic because one of the defining features of the framework when
it was first introduced was version independence, and MS all but rammed that
fact down our throats. Running a 1.0 app on a machine with 1.0 and 1.1
installed will work exactly the same way, target specific framework
versions, run on latest available, fallback to any available version, etc
etc.

I have a feeling it was more marketing motivated myself, probably based on
experiences of 1.0 and 1.1. 1.1 was actually quite a significant step
forward in terms of stability, a few language enhancements, complus
enrollment etc, but it was viewed by a lot of people as just a patch. 3.0
had brand new technologies like WPF, WCF, WF, WWF, WWE, Smackdown, Raw, The
Chronicles of Triple-H, and Hulk Hogan's comeback... wait, I got off topic
sorry, but anyway I think MS wanted to give the impression of it being so
significant as to be a new version.

I would've settled for 2.5 instead of 3.0 or 2.1 myself, but meh...
 
I have a feeling it was more marketing motivated myself, probably based on
experiences of 1.0 and 1.1.  1.1 was actually quite a significant step
forward in terms of stability, a few language enhancements
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity - what were the language enhancements in 1.1?
 
I'm a VB.NET coder, and tbh I can only remember a few subtle changes -
things like inline variable declaration in For..Next loops, and a few other
shortcuts. So I say "language enhancements" but in reality they were
probably more like compiler enhancements which didn't require any CLR
scaffolding to support them. I seem to recall there were some similar small
but useful enhancements to C# as well, but I can't remember what they
were...


I have a feeling it was more marketing motivated myself, probably based on
experiences of 1.0 and 1.1. 1.1 was actually quite a significant step
forward in terms of stability, a few language enhancements
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity - what were the language enhancements in 1.1?
 
You corrected me, I was simply grateful for the correction.

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
Download OWC Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $15.00
Need a free copy of VSTS 2008 w/ MSDN Premium?
http://msmvps.com/blogs/alvin/Default.aspx
-------------------------------------------------------


Scott M. said:
????


Alvin Bruney said:
That has not been historically true, looking at Microsoft's SP's for
various pieces of software over the years.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
Download OWC Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $15.00
Need a free copy of VSTS 2008 w/ MSDN Premium?
http://msmvps.com/blogs/alvin/Default.aspx
-------------------------------------------------------


Scott M. said:
Service Packs are not supposed to include new features - only bug
fixes.

That has not been historically true, looking at Microsoft's SP's for
various pieces of software over the years.

-Scott
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top