> rolf.matresk***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >  rm> 50 MB, over 22 MB for 2.0.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe WCF, WPF, WWF ...
> >
> > Vadym, of course, but I was looking for a bit more technical
> > detail here...  Who's the hog ? Why ? It seems quite a large
> > increase for features which were already part, in other forms,
> > of a framework that contains much more than just those.
> >
> > Cheers
>
> To save you the minute of effort of opening the \Framework\v3.0
> directory, right clicking on each subdirectory, bringing up properties
> and looking at the sizes...
>
> WCF is 18MB on disk
> WF is ~3MB on disk
> WPF is 20MB on disk
>
> To be honest, I'm surprised at how small WF is.
>
> And to describe them as features that were already part of the
> framework is erroneous. They're new, and shiny, and one day I might get
> to use them. Still on 1.1 for active development here :-(
>
> Damien

"rolf.matresk***@hotmail.com" wrote:

>
> Damien, the features may be new and shiny, and I agree they are,
> but nonetheless there is a lot of overlap for example between
> WinForms and WPF. The class hierarchies have many similarities
> and in many instances achieve the same features (WPF does it
> in a neater way).  The Microsoft story regarding where to use WPF
> versus WinForms is everything but clear, not to mention whether
> they are going to stick with this "interoperability" workaround or
> whether they have a consistent strategy moving forward.  What
> about WCF versus .NET remoting, do they share implementation ?
> Overlap in features means overlap in implementation means code
> bloat ?
>
> Now regarding the framework size and to respond to Chris, 50MB
> may be fine in an Enterprise environment, or in places where
> high-bandwidth Internet is available, but I have been trying for
> the last couple of years to convince my clients in Asia to agree to
> download the .NET 2.0 framework, and they are reluctant for
> a number of reasons, framework size being one them.  In lots
> of places in Asia 20Mb download is huge as bandwidth is not
> what you know about in western cities, so now that MS gives
> us a 50Mb FW I will have to wait for everyone to move to
> Vista (years !), which is tremendously annoying, even more
> annoying than the fact that MS did not include .NET in XP.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think .NET 3.0 is great, but frankly
> the 'more than double' increase in size feels like it was
> rushed to the market without taking this issue into account.
> And that may be deliberate...  But what next:: 100 MB for
> ..NET 4.0 ?...
>
>
> Damien wrote:
> > rolf.matresk***@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > >  rm> 50 MB, over 22 MB for 2.0.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe WCF, WPF, WWF ...
> > >
> > > Vadym, of course, but I was looking for a bit more technical
> > > detail here...  Who's the hog ? Why ? It seems quite a large
> > > increase for features which were already part, in other forms,
> > > of a framework that contains much more than just those.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> >
> > To save you the minute of effort of opening the \Framework\v3.0
> > directory, right clicking on each subdirectory, bringing up properties
> > and looking at the sizes...
> >
> > WCF is 18MB on disk
> > WF is ~3MB on disk
> > WPF is 20MB on disk
> >
> > To be honest, I'm surprised at how small WF is.
> >
> > And to describe them as features that were already part of the
> > framework is erroneous. They're new, and shiny, and one day I might get
> > to use them. Still on 1.1 for active development here :-(
> >
> > Damien
>
>

news:1163073021.452776.251650@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> 50 MB, over 22 MB for 2.0.
>
> This is NOT going to help distributing the package to XP SP2
> computers...
>
> Gosh, what accounts for this >100% increase ?
>