Making a WPF/NET 3.x Project

[Jim in Arizona]

I installed the .NET 3.0 and 3.5 frameworks on my computer and on the web
server I'm working with. I'm using VS 2005 Pro.

I was going over some instructional video from MS Elearning on WPF. They had
a video that showed how to make a WPF XAML document. In VS, you go to File,
New and Project and then chose NET Framework 3.0 as the project type.

I do not see NET Framework 3.0 as an option anywhere. Is there some
installation method that I missed when installing the 3.0/3.5 framework?

TIA,
Jim

 

[Norman Yuan]

1. VS2005 can only work with .NET3.0 if necessary add-ons added.

..NET3.0 added WPF, WCF and WFF on top of .NET2.0 after VS2005's release.
When .NET3.0 released, MS also release WFF (Workflow Foundation) add-on to
VS2005. So, you can use VS2005 to do workflow development. However, Add-ons
to VS2005 to work with WPF and WCF is only in Community Preview status and
never being release as final (would never be). So, if you need to use VS2005
for WPF and WCF, you need to download and install that Community Preview
version and MS is excused for possible issues if you use it for production.

Without these add-ons, your VS2005 cannot take advantage of .NET3.0.

2. .NET3.5 is something added on tops .NET2.0 and .NET3.0. You need VS2008
to work with full .NET3.5 features.

3. ASP.NET application still run as .NET2.0 app, even you incorporated it
with some .NET3.x feature, such as WFF, because .NET3.x is just main .NET2.0
plus some extra whistles and bells.

 

[Jim in Arizona]

The MS E-Learning clinic that I was going through today has been marked as
'retired' so I guess that should have raised some alarms huh?

I was hoping to avoid moving to VS2008 since I have the pro version of 2005
and don't have a copy of 2008. I didn't want to have to use the express
editions but I see that If I want to use the newer technologies, I may not
have a choice.

I was aware that the 3.0 framework was just the 2.0 framework with the added
'foundations' so I was thinking that VS2005 would have worked fine. <sigh>

Thanks for the info, Norman.