I supposed you're only joking, Fabio, aren't you? :D I think it's sensible enough to me. The 50% (.NET 4) is the subset of 90% (.NET 3.5) since a user can have either .NET 3.5 only, .NET 4 only, or both installed. I presume the first and the third options would be the cases in Patrick's circumstance.
-- Regards, Maximilian Haru Raditya On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > interesting... 90% + 50% = 140% > you have more visitors than you can LOL!!! > amazing > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In our random sampling of our website visitors, we have about 90% with >> .NET 3.5 and about 50% with .NET 4. >> >> It doesn't seem like the time is right to force the transition to .NET >> 4. The only significant benefit I'm personally aware of is the use of >> ISet. >> >> Patrick Earl >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: >> > NH (even now) will of course *run* under .NET 4 but I think Fabio's >> comment >> > was more about taking a *required* dependency on .NET 4. Doing so is a >> > non-trivial choice whose benefits (any new NH features that would be >> > possible under .NET 4 but not under .NET 3.5) have to outweigh its costs >> > (restricting the pool of potential adopters to only those able to >> deploy/run >> > .NET 4). >> > >> > Steve Bohlen >> > [email protected] >> > http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com >> > http://twitter.com/sbohlen >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Michael DELVA <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Why wouldn't you be able to go to .NET4? >> > >> > > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
