Re: .Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

30 Mar 2007 2:49 PM

Chris Dunaway

On Mar 29, 6:21 pm, "Susie DBA [MSFT]" <susie***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> hey I thought that 3.0 was installed on Vista machines!
>
> Is there somewhere IN WRITING that says that M$ _GUARANTEES_ 2.0 stuff
> to work for 3.0 and vice versa?
>

..Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
same.

30 Mar 2007 3:06 PM

Andy

On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <dunaw***@gmail.com> wrote:
> .Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
> WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
> same.

Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
to be a known troll.

30 Mar 2007 6:45 PM

Chris Dunaway

On Mar 30, 10:06 am, "Andy" <a***@med-associates.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <dunaw***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > .Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
> > WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
> > same.
>
> Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
> to be a known troll.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I optimistically tend to give people the
benefit of the doubt. In this case, I didn't want Susie's post to
confuse anyone else.

Chris

31 Mar 2007 1:30 AM

RobinS

Show quote

"Chris Dunaway" <dunaw***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175280333.453875.211660@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 10:06 am, "Andy" <a***@med-associates.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <dunaw***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > .Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
>> > WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
>> > same.
>>
>> Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
>> to be a known troll.
>
> Yes, I am aware of that, but I optimistically tend to give people the
> benefit of the doubt. In this case, I didn't want Susie's post to
> confuse anyone else.
>
> Chris
>

That's a good reason to respond to the troll. About the only reason I can
think of, too.

Robin S.