--=ddSHADOW=-- Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 (edited) Vice President S. Somasegar describes the decision to rename WinFX to the .NET Framework 3.0. Now the WinFX technology you know has a name that identifies it for exactly what it is—the next version of the Microsoft developer framework.for x86 http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/D...8/dotnetfx3.exefor x64 http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/3...tnetfx3_x64.exefixed the x84 :S Edited June 28, 2006 by --=ddSHADOW=-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitroshift Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 (edited) for x84shouldn't that be x86??? anyway, thanks for the info Edited June 25, 2006 by nitroshift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noguru Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 more info here:http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/sup...tp/default.aspxTakes up to 500MB diskspace....wtfDotnet2.0 is 116MB on my system and that was like a lot to me already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 .NET is one of the most bloated runtimes I've ever seen.I just stay away from anything that uses .NET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZcWorld Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 the .NET framework is unreal at how much space its use up and the time its takes to install Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Its memory usage isn't that small either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZcWorld Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 so its going to kill my test env thats i use thats only has got 192 to 256 mb of ram i take itor slow the OS down a lot?or wait and see whats happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i'm not ophiel Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 for some reason this is the thing that cracked me up most about it:in the requirements section:Display Minimum: 800 x 600, 256 colorsRecommended:1024 x 768 high color, 32-bitlol, why on earth would any kind of framework have a minimum resolution requirement? that doesn't make any kind of sense. not that i use anything under 1024x768, but still.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 I also noticed the following line:Mouse Not requiredMaybe M$ has the same template for system requirements, and someone forgot to remove the video portion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now