• I don't understand versioning schema. If FX3.0 is only assembly addon, why it is not FX2.5 and LINQ (C# 3.0) version is not 3.0?

  • although .NET 2.0 is supposed to run .NET 1.0/1.1 apps, not all apps run. Therefore, parallel installs of 1.1 and 2.0 are required. Now, will Vista include .NET Framework 1.1 too?

  • Why don't you rename the upcoming FX 3.0 to something a little less confusing, such as FX 2.5 or so? That way the next version, with LINQ, will be 3.0, and will line up with C# 3.0 langauge specifications.

Comments have been disabled for this content.