The framework are listed, or might I say hidden, as an optional component below the recomended updates section for windows xp.(running windows update that is)
So why isnt a desicion made to include the framework in the sp2? That way everyone not having the framework installed, wil get it.
-
Follow
Oops, something didn't work.
Sign In to be begin to follow this thread
What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in. You need to be signed in to Channel 9 to use this feature.Getting "follow" information
Start following this thread
What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in and view them all on your notifications page.Removing your "follow"
Setting up your "follow"
Did you know you can
sign up for email notifications?
-
-
Jaz
From the depths of Wales I come
3 word: Java, Sun, Lawsuit
-
sbc
GW R/Me
It would probably give too much an advantage of .NET over Java - why develop Java if every XP user has .NET? Also most users really have no need for .NET at all - it just takes up extra space. What good is .NET for the home user?
-
"3 word: Java, Sun, Lawsuit"
With that logic, what you make of Longhorn?
I am guessing here, but I believe half of the reason it is not in SP2 is technical. Wasn't there just a while ago article that .NET does not work with SP2 under AMD64? Also i think there is new version of framework coming "soon", but not "soon enough". -
Jaz
From the depths of Wales I come
whats wrong with the logic?
and anywho longhorn isn't even in beta yet -
Versatility. You may want to install SP2 without the framework. Or the framework without SP2. I think it's as simple as that.
-
ZippyV
Fired Up
Windows server 2003 has it already included.
-
Jeremy W
that blogging guy
SP2 is, by and large, a security update. Putting .NET inside doesn't help security, bring extra features, etc. Users need to go to Windows Update to get SP2 (or will). The Framework'll be there as well, and they'll have to choose whether or not to install it at that point.
Choice, choice and more choice would be my guess
-
If there really was some catch with Sun that prevented including .NET in SP2 and there would not be other obstacles, then I am quite sure MS could just offer Sun to include their latest Java runtime with the SP2 along with .NET. Wasn't the deal with Sun anyway that neither party would not sue (though I have no clue of the exact details)?
There's probably an array of technical reasons why not include it in SP2. I would not mind if some of the reasons would be just spelled out so we can end pondering it.. -
Jaz
From the depths of Wales I come
sun sued them to take the java VM out, then sued them to put it in. or something like that
-
Microsoft dropped a sack of money on Sun and everything is forgiven. Scott McNeily was put on a leash, so that puppy has stopped barking.
As far as I can remember the MSFT JVM was alot better than Suns back in the 1.1 days. And Visual J++ the best IDE. Then Sun stepped in and shot themselves in the foot.
Who needs their JVM today anyway.
/Lars.
-
So far .NET isn't a requirement for the average consumer so I can understand it not being including in SP2 .
-
It's in SP1
-
sbsummer
sbsummer
.Net FrameWork is included in SP1
-
lars wrote:
Microsoft dropped a sack of money on Sun and everything is forgiven. Scott McNeily was put on a leash, so that puppy has stopped barking.
As far as I can remember the MSFT JVM was alot better than Suns back in the 1.1 days. And Visual J++ the best IDE. Then Sun stepped in and shot themselves in the foot.
Who needs their JVM today anyway.
/Lars.
the java vm is currently far better than the ms one, java 1.5 is going to be a lot faster. Java 1.1 is so old, so so so old.
The problem was that microsoft included stuff that only worked on the windows platform, this conflicted with what sun wanted java to be, compile once run everywhere, also i think broke the sun java license.
It appeared that after the lawsuite microsoft dropped the java pluggin from windows xp.
-
sbc
GW R/Me
sbsummer wrote:
.Net FrameWork is included in SP1
How come when I installed SP1 (via Windows update), it wasn't installed then?
-
Jeremy W. wrote:SP2 is, by and large, a security update. Putting .NET inside doesn't help security, bring extra features, etc. Users need to go to Windows Update to get SP2 (or will).
I think that argument is counter-productive though. We're constantly told that developing applications in .Net will improve platform security, but until it is present on a large number of systems developers are going to stick to the old API methods. -
Jeremy W
that blogging guy
Well, it's already on more systems than Linux, so it's not exactly a small install base. I hear what you're saying, but I'd argue that SP2 had a single unifying purpose, and anything outside that scope is superfluous.
If it was in SP1, it should be in SP2 (all of the SP1 binaries were included in SP2).
I can't argue with the need to deploy the framework, but I honestly think Windows Update is the best way to do that, not a Service Pack.
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.