Template talk:.NET Framework version history

What kinda release of Windows Server 2003 distribute .net framework 2.0?

I just wish this is Wikipedia.org not Microsoft Official website! Fact is just Fact, should never be modified. Windows Server 2003 was released in year 2003, when .net framework 2.0 was not about releasing at all. For the ever Windows .net Server, the .net framework 1.1 was the default .net framework included in the Windows Server 2003 installation media, also the dot net framework 1.0 was included on the Windows XP Service Pack 1 media. They might be just the partial, runtime or demonstration but they were there, and that is the fact. This is the section to tell the history, why should be affected by anything that is meaningless at all?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janagewen (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Janagewen

Do you have proof in the form of reliable secondary source? If yes, then all your problems are solved.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed what I posted here because of your behaviours, and I got a warning about being blocked here! That is for what? I think you, Codename List, had better show respect to yourself before anything. You could do anything to my account without needing telling me again and again. I don't want to have any biz with you, Codename Lisa! Janagewen (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

According to MS FAQ in the 10th question "What is the Support Lifecycle policy for the different versions of .NET Framework?", ".NET Framework 1.1 SP1 will continue to be supported until end of support of Windows Server 2003 SP2 (with 32-bit only, not 64-bit)." That's confirm 1.1 SP1 to have been delivered within the SP2 of Windows Server 2003. And if .NET 2.0 is new in 2003 R2 (6th note in the template), it means it is NOT part of 2003, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.65.52.7 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I am so glad that you paid attention to this topic. Definitely, .net framework 2.0 is not part of Windows Server 2003, but an integrated part of Windows Server 2003 R2. I should have to make clear another thing, .net framework 1.1 SP1 is not delivered by SP2 of Windows Server 2003, but an integrated part too. Sorry to reply late, but late is better than never come. -- Aaron Janagewen 139.210.139.160 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"That's confirm 1.1 SP1 to have been delivered within the SP2 of Windows Server 2003."

Bzzzt! Wrong. That only proves the support policy is aligned for the convenience of the supporter.

"And if .NET 2.0 is new in 2003 R2 [...]"

Says who? The source says it isn't. It says it was included in 2003. Why don't you guys level that with Microsoft? Wikipedia is a downstream publisher anyway.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not just check the installer media for RTM, SP1, SP2, R2, Enterprise, Standard, and so on variations, and make a table? There's official checksums for the images MS supplied people. Heck, you can even still download a lot of them if you have the right accounts. Anyone got legal access to official media and not just unapproved pirated copies(granted, byte-for-byte copies of exact same disc images)? You don't even need a new PC, just install in a VM. BTW: Physical media is not really popular, anymore for those that wonder why I mention disc images. 73.95.135.127 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Before reverting or changing...

Leave your reasons or proofs to reverting or modifying the main article! This is Wikipedia.org, we should maintain the right of everyone to work together... Janagewen (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And you are violating the right of everyone to edit. Per WP:BRD, if you are reverted, you are not allowed to counter-revert. This is exactly what you are doing and it is called edit warring. Fleet Command (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For you, Fleet Command, do learn self-respect! OK? Janagewen (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative revision

Overview of .NET Framework release history

Version	CLR	Release date	Shipped With Visual Studio	Preinstalled with Windows		Embraces
				Client	Server
1.0	1.0	February 13, 2002	.NET 2002	—	—	—
1.1	1.1	April 24, 2003	.NET 2003	—	2003	—
2.0	2.0	November 7, 2005	2005	—	2003 R2	—
3.0	2.0	November 6, 2006	—	Vista	2008	2.0
3.5	2.0	November 19, 2007	2008	7	2008 R2	3.0
4.0	4	April 12, 2010	2010	—	—	—
4.5	4	August 15, 2012	2012	8	2012	4.0
4.5.1	4	October 17, 2013	2013	8.1	2012 R2	4.5
4.5.2	4	May 5, 2014	—	—	—	4.5.1
4.5.3	4	TBA	—	10	2015	4.5.2

About date format, because .net framework is a product of Microsoft, a North American international corporation. In order to avoiding the confusion, using American Standard Date format to state its precise release date.

This revision is provided for kind and nice editors from all over the world who want to improve the template in the main article. Any critic is welcome, but modifications to it for improving its qualities are much more welcome. But I do anti-"Nazi"! Janagewen (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For involving modifying this template I have experienced being blocked twice, and I try to replace it with my revision, it was reverted for more than 3 times. If you, any reader, not a stupid or woodenhead, you would find it is the most ridiculous template stating information on .net framework. All the seemed-reasonable references attached to that template is the just the confusion for its original writer about .net framework. Guys, here, Jeh, Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand are worse. I just wish there would be someone would balance the balance, not to mislead readers too much. Janagewen (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you start labeling people "woodenhead" (whatever that means) instead of listening to them, you end up in world full of woodenheads that has no "reader" in it. Your table is horribly vague and your English language is awful. You should have gotten the hint when you were blocked the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.62.182.2 (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

::: I am so respectful for your reply. But have we ever both chatted on wiki? Why omitted your name here? If you are English-native speaker, then I am sorry. If not, why you use awful to describe my English skill? That takes nonsense, I think I was treated as shit for each my modification on this template has been reverted in minutes without reason. Can I call it discrimination? I was treated in this way like a shit, so no matter my English skill is awful or excellent, does it take sense? The template in main article is obviously a mass, and misleads readers, especially on the description about the relationship among versions and inclusion. That is wrong! I know people passed it by and ignored, or without passion to modify it, but not say that it is correct. Yeah, I apologize for using the words "woodenhead" and "stupid", but these two words are the most suitable for people who ignore my revision and reverted my modification without consideration at all. Guy, if you are interested in this template too, I just wish you devote to making it better rather than arguing some a shit like me. Janagewen (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should I always give a shit? Janagewen (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)  Done

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/145e8605-899e-4014-934a-0d1f877410b0/which-table-is-more-reasonable?forum=netfxsetup The above link might be the only proof worth mentioning here. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A good suggestion! I love it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.236.156.206 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

End of support column

I thought I would suggest adding a new column specifying end of support dates based on something like "Microsoft .NET Framework Support Lifecycle Policy FAQ". The reason is that specifies a complex end of support schedule based on different versions having been released differently (either independent product or component of something else like an OS release, etc.). 15.203.233.84 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hello! I have three reasons for opposing:

1. As the source you gave says, .NET Framework support follows the support lifecycle policy of the parent operating system. We already have three templates in Wikipedia showing that. There is already too much emphasis on Windows support in Wikipedia.
2. The underlying article does not discuss the support status in a meaningful manner. Without such an elucidation, WP:IINFO comes into play; Wikipedia is not a collection of dates for the sake of collecting dates.
3. Most importantly, there is nothing encyclopedic to be said about the support for individual versions of .NET Framework. And that's exactly why Microsoft considers the framework a component. I'll keep an open mind, however, in case you can show me an example.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Pro argument: The FAQ does say that the support depends on the underlying OS, but on the same time states that "support will end for .NET Framework 4, 4.5, and 4.5.1 on January 12, 2016.". The support for version 4.5.1 is thus shorter as the one of 8.1 and 2012 R2: 4.5.2 is considered as a fix of previous 4.x version. As of August 2016, 4.5.2 is thus the oldest version still supported and probably therefore the default version in Visual Studio 2015 update3! EDIT: 3.5 is still supported as part of Windows 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.65.52.7 (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Importance of .NET Standard

The importance of .NET Standard is that it a unifying concept between .NET Core and .NET Standard. This will be clear when .NET Standard 2.0 will be released because it the first version that will be compatible with both of: a version of .NET Framework (v 4.6.1) and a version of .NET Core ( v 2.0) Its release date is Q3 2017. Saying that, I would ask for not reverting [my edit] of this template that added a column containing .NET Standard read (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, اقرأ

Did you study our WP:IINFO policy?

What you say is the importance of the standard itself, not the significance of the values you wrote in the table. Those values communicate zero meaning to the ordinary reader because they are not put in context. Without context, they have zero meaning for the reader.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References