Talk:Microsoft .NET

message: "Microsoft .Net" is not the same thing as the "Microsoft .Net Framework".  I am working on a rewrite of the framework article, and some related ones, and I am changing this page from a redirect to a topic.  See this article's content for further explanation.  Leotohill 01:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leotohill, as I stated on your talk page, I understand your philosophical reasons behind wanting to keep Microsoft .NET and .NET Framework seperate.  There are good arguments for keeping them seperate. However, this article currently does more to confuse the issue than to clarify it. Since .NET Passport was seperated from the ".NET Vision" as originally described by Bill Gates in June 2000 and made into "Windows Live ID", there isn't much to be considered under a philosophical "umbrella term" that couldn't be wrapped up in a history section within .NET Framework. //BankingBum 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For most readers, surely there would be a confusion, especially w/ the ambiguous lead at Microsoft .NET. I think a merge would be a good option. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'd be ok with the merge if the single article that remains is titled "Microsoft .NET" and if it breaks down the content to clearly differentiate the framework from the non-framework.  The introductory paragraph would be very much like the one on this article ("... an umbrella term...").  How does that sound? Leotohill 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sounds reasonable to me. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Actually, that doesn't work. There is no clear differenciation between Microsoft .NET and the .NET Framework. Currently the "umbrella term" is only referring to one technology -- the .NET Framework.  At most the "Microsoft .NET" term only deserves one mention. The ".NET Framework" is used everywhere in Microsoft's documentation. Microsoft rarely uses the term "Microsoft .NET" without following it up with "framework". This article needs to be the one that is deleted and the mention of the "Microsoft .NET" term can be added to .NET Framework. //BankingBum 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As a follow up, look at the current Microsoft .NET article. It points to .NET Framework and almost nothing else.  This article only exists to add the one paragraph about the so-called umbrella term that again, only refers to the .NET Framework.  As I said, if you want to put a historical Microsoft .NET section in the .NET Framework article and point to the initial meaning of .NET, that might be appropriate. Otherwise, this article is inaccurate and confusing. //BankingBum 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Microsoft .NET]] vs [[.NET Framework]] 

message: This article need to reference the .NET moniker history and its rise in fall in the names of many Microsoft's product names.
: ZacBowling, I don't think that your change is an improvement.  I'm inclined to revert it, but let's see if someone else will chime in, or if we can come to agreement. 
: Specifically, 1) how is "general name moniker" better than "umbrella term" and 2) you've removed the central phrase that, I believe, defines the commonality of .NET products.  3) :Then you say that .NET is "often confused with the Microsoft .NET framework" without explaining the difference.   Leotohill 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Main page states that you need the Microsoft.net framework to use all .net applications, but this doesn't appear true with .net passport with works with most operating systems online regardless, are plugins involved or am I getting my wires crossed?
* I would agree.  Microsoft .Net is more of a marketing idea encompassing many things.  You don't need the framework to use .Net Passport.  I was considering rewriting the section to not say that the .Net framework was required, but (since I'm new to wikipedia) I didn't want to mess up someone elses work to much (yet) until I reviewed it with people.  But if it was up to me, the two parts that say there is a dependence on the framework should be reworded. Jjegers 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Maybe my question would seem a truism but it's not necessary so clear.
:Do .NET in the name refers to the word network just like the TLD .net or is it a acronym which stands for something else? 16@r 13:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a marketing term. It means network. It should not be confused with .net, the top-level domain. -- Szvest 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, a marketing term.  But I think it's meant to invoke the notion of "Internet", especially since it has the "dot" prefix.  Leotohill 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The .NET Passport is not called the .NET Passport anymore. .NET stands now for the .NET framework, and nothing else. - Sikon 09:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have updated the article to make it clear that the meaning of the word have changed. Lennart.larsen 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I disagree with Sikon and Lennart.  See http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics.mspx .  It's a vague description there, but clearly they mean for .NET to mean more than the framework itself.  Also, referencing the example of passport in the opening paragraph makes the opening less concise. Leotohill 21:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft .NET is an umbrella term .. but the only things under the umbrella are Windows Live ID (.NET Passport) and .NET Framework. Furthermore Windows Live ID is not in its wikipedia article defined as part of .NET. So not much to support the umbrella definition! Most likely Microsoft did intent for .NET to mean more than the framework and they will claim that it is in marketing talk but in my experience when people say Microsoft .NET it is the framework they are referring to. I will suggest that this article redirect to the article about the framework. Lennart.larsen 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning

message: "Microsoft .NET Framework, a component of the Windows operating system." - I think this statement introduces the false impression that .NET is bound to Windows only while there are .NET Frameworks for other OSes as well. --mfx Q&A 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  technically true, but the non-Windows implementations are mentioned later in the article.  The current phrasing keeps the definition concise - can you think of another way that works as well but addresses your point? Leotohill 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, .NET Fx is Windows-only. It is the MS impl for Windows of the CLR (common language runtime) and associated BFCLs (base class libraries). Same for other impls like Mono and DotGNU. They are all implementing CLR (the ECMA standard) + BCL (or a which may be what is defined in the spec, or more/less than that); its not like Mono or DotGNU implements .NET Fx. Thay offer the same functionality because they implement the same standardized spec. --soum talk 12:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .NET Framework

message: I was expecting to find a strong mention of the .NET Mobile Profile here Mathiastck 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile