File Details |
|
| File Size | 2.4 MB |
|---|---|
| License | Freeware |
| Operating System | Windows Server 2003/Vista/XP |
| Date Added | November 20, 2007 |
| Total Downloads | 99,510 |
| Publisher | Microsoft Corp. |
| Homepage | Microsoft .NET |
Publisher's Description
Microsoft .NET is a free, cross-platform, open-source developer platform for building many different types of applications. With .NET, you can use multiple languages, editors, and libraries to build for web, mobile, desktop, games, and IoT. You can write .NET apps in C#, F#, or Visual Basic. Whether you're working in C#, F#, or Visual Basic, your code will run natively on any compatible OS. Different .NET implementations handle the heavy lifting for you.
Latest Reviews
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.
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