Scott Hanselman

ASP.NET 5 is dead - Introducing ASP.NET Core 1.0 and .NET Core 1.0

January 20, 2016 Comment on this post [308] Posted in ASP.NET | Open Source
Sponsored By

Naming is hard.

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. - Phil Karlton

It's very easy to armchair quarterback and say that "they should have named it Foo and it would be easy" but very often there's many players involved in naming things. ASP.NET is a good 'brand' that's been around for 15 years or so. ASP.NET 4.6 is a supported and released product that you can get and use now from

UPDATE NOTE: This blog post is announcing this change. It's not done or released yet. As of the date/time of this writing, this work is just starting. It will be ongoing over the next few months.

However, naming the new, completely written from scratch ASP.NET framework "ASP.NET 5" was a bad idea for a one major reason: 5 > 4.6 makes it seem like ASP.NET 5 is bigger, better, and replaces ASP.NET 4.6. Not so.

So we're changing the name and picking a better version number.

Reintroducing ASP.NET Core 1.0 and .NET Core 1.0

  • ASP.NET 5 is now ASP.NET Core 1.0.
  • .NET Core 5 is now .NET Core 1.0.
  • Entity Framework 7 is now Entity Framework Core 1.0 or EF Core 1.0 colloquially.

Why 1.0? Because these are new. The whole .NET Core concept is new. The .NET Core 1.0 CLI is very new. Not only that, but .NET Core isn't as complete as the full .NET Framework 4.6. We're still exploring server-side graphics libraries. We're still exploring gaps between ASP.NET 4.6 and ASP.NET Core 1.0.

ASP.NET Core 1.0

Which to choose?

To be clear, ASP.NET 4.6 is the more mature platform. It's battle-tested and released and available today. ASP.NET Core 1.0 is a 1.0 release that includes Web API and MVC but doesn't yet have SignalR or Web Pages. It doesn't yet support VB or F#. It will have these subsystems some day but not today.

We don't want anyone to think that ASP.NET Core 1.0 is the finish line. It's a new beginning and a fork in the road, but ASP.NET 4.6 continues on, released and fully supported. There's lots of great stuff coming, stay tuned!

Sponsor: Big thanks to Wiwet for sponsoring the feed this week. Build responsive ASP.NET web apps quickly and easily using C# or VB for any device in 1 minute. Wiwet ASP.Net templates are integrated into Visual Studio for ease of use. Get them now at

About Scott

Scott Hanselman is a former professor, former Chief Architect in finance, now speaker, consultant, father, diabetic, and Microsoft employee. He is a failed stand-up comic, a cornrower, and a book author.

facebook twitter subscribe
About   Newsletter
Hosting By
Hosted in an Azure App Service
January 20, 2016 4:04
This is great news. Much clearer now!
January 20, 2016 4:04
Thank you guys, this is MUCH better and easier to explain.
January 20, 2016 4:05
This is cool and makes total sense, but for class library owners what's the impact (if any) to framework monikers?

A year ago you needed to target dnxcore50 for ASP.NET Core 1.0. Currently it's dotnet, and this is going to change soon to netstandard. Is this going to change again now?
January 20, 2016 4:10
"netstandard" is the way forward, Damien.
January 20, 2016 4:11
I personally liked this change! One step closer to the perfect side.

However, it would have been nice to see it with a valid SemVer like 1.0.0. Not mucn different but it would make it easier to communicate I think.
January 20, 2016 4:11
I like the name scheme.

A small typo: "for a one major reasons" - fix to "reason".

Otherwise, great work!
January 20, 2016 4:13
Ofer, fixed, thanks!
January 20, 2016 4:14
I thought the saying was "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."
January 20, 2016 4:14
Really nice.. clears up and shows that .NET Core is a all new from the ground up
January 20, 2016 4:14
Great, thanks for clarifying Scott!

It really does make all of this a little more straightforward.
January 20, 2016 4:16
Why not call it .net core 0.5? Call it 1.0 when you are done with pending stuff!
I think you guys knew from beginning that this is ground up. Why were you calling theses things as 5 and 7?
January 20, 2016 4:19
Hemant - Because it IS 1.0 and it IS production ready. It's not at feature-parity with the 15 year old mature .NET "full" Framework, but it is NOT a 0.5 release.
January 20, 2016 4:20
This is great. Should make searching a lot clearer. Thanks!
January 20, 2016 4:20
It's a great opportunity to think in a logo / branding.
What you think about Scott?
January 20, 2016 4:23
Much cleaner than the previous name, more distinct, and will definitely help to reduce the confusion between the .NET Framework 4.6 and .NET Core.
January 20, 2016 4:23
The new name is much better; good thing you changed it before the final release, too ;)

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. - Phil Karlton

I'd argue there are a quite a few other hard things... multithreading is the first that comes to mind.
January 20, 2016 4:24
yum install dotnetcore? or yum install aspnetcore?
January 20, 2016 4:35
What a co-incidence that I was explaining ASP.NET 5 to my team, they ended up thinking its MVC 5 in new way.

Now see its all different name !! NO confusion with existing ASP.NET...

Its famously said "What's in the NAME?"
January 20, 2016 4:50
Great news! Much clear now.
January 20, 2016 4:52
"apt-get install dotnet" -> soon...
January 20, 2016 4:56
Thanks Scott. I'm very happy and excited with this new name. It's very clear now. Separations of the wording ".NET Framework" and ".NET Core" are now clear for ASP.NET Core 1.0.
January 20, 2016 5:06
Thank you for the clarification.

Should we thank Go ?
January 20, 2016 5:08
I thought version 1s were supposed to follow version 3.60 at Microsoft..... 😊
January 20, 2016 5:08
Does the new MVC still keep 6.0 versioning or does that roll up into the ASP.NET Core 1.0 naming/versioning? If it keeps the 6.0 versioning, is it correct to say that MVC6 can run on ASP.NET 4.6 or ASP.NET Core 1.0?
January 20, 2016 5:09
Good choice. I was struggling with trying to explain ASP.NET 4.6 vs 5 with my developers and that it wasn't the same as 3 to 4. This makes it clear.
January 20, 2016 5:13
this is the best news this year for my pathetic life!!!

people like signalr but you know what people like more? web pages!!!!! move that cheese
January 20, 2016 5:14
btw. thank you guys for all the effort. these stand ups, blog posts and more are so helpful
January 20, 2016 5:18
Great news. Much clean and clear.
January 20, 2016 5:24
How about brew install dotnet?
January 20, 2016 5:35
Thanks for posting this. I appreciate the explanation so we can all understand what's coming. Here's to the future of .Net!
January 20, 2016 5:41
It is probably great that you renumbered these things NOW rather than leave the reality out there that there are going to be reasons why ASP.NET 4.6 will be preferable to some developers for some products, and this is a re-build from the ground up.

If you were starting a major project now, how would you decide which to start on? Obviously people with mature ASP.NET codebases are likely to stick with 4.6. Who should be using core?

January 20, 2016 5:49
Finally you found the correct name/version. :)

But it seems that there are already some mess in ASP.Net. Owin, Katana, Asp.Net 5, Asp.Net Core 1.0.

Hope this time it's a sustaintable direction.

January 20, 2016 5:50
Why still ASP in name ? change that to Web Framework - WF
January 20, 2016 5:52
The way I heard it was that the two hard problems in Computer Science are:

  • Cache Invalidation

  • Naming Things

  • The "out by one" problem

January 20, 2016 5:56
Should you still use the default 5 web api or web application templates when creating an MVC 6 project then?
January 20, 2016 6:02
Is the version of MVC going to be affected, or is the new version still MVC 6?
January 20, 2016 6:06
Could we get an updated start to finish guide on Linux/Windows to a Hello World on Web API and MVC?

I'm lost with the new .Net Core stuff. I'm too deep in regular .Net to grok it right now.

Additionally, I'm interested what the web server story is for Linux? Do you have to run a background process and reverse proxy using nginx to the .Net web server? How is the performance doing that? It's pretty good with php-fpm and nginx using a reverse proxy to socket files or TCP sockets.

January 20, 2016 6:39
Doesn't seem like the sites are in sync with this name change announcement. You say 5 is dead and also "ASP.NET 4.6 is a supported and released product that you can get and use now from"

But still says 5 adding to a whole lot of confusion to the unwary.
January 20, 2016 6:57
Very happy to hear about apt-get install. I know that inside Microsoft there are people really want to move the company forward and shed the old legacy and sometimes their hands are tide and can't move as fast as they would like. I hope that this year .NET will go hand in glove with a Microsoft Linux Desktop Environment. Hopefully it will be done in a community engaged way and not in an "open source ivory tower" approach as is usual. I would love to see this on the nice new surface pros. It certainly would be nice to see a regular person choose a Microsoft technology due to it being the best choice (value, ethics, etc) instead of being forced by employer, Koolade, Stockholm or baby duck syndrome. I'd love to see Microsoft promote #projectrider as well. Something like that was needed for many many years.

Now, Scott, please unblock me from commenting on your posts on Facebook. :)
January 20, 2016 7:07
I stayed away from all this new stuff and I kept feeling guilty about it. Like I was missing out on something.

Now, not so much anymore.

I'm happy with my "15 years worth of experience". No issues with the current .NET Framework.
After the next version or two, I will jump into this brave new world.

P.S. I still don't understand the value in a project.json. Why? Haven't upgraded to VS2015 because of this. I'm sure it is still backwards compatible but I am a change adverse guy. Not a dinosaur by any means but I like to KNOW something before I jump into it.
January 20, 2016 7:12
Any new releases will only be in ASP.NET Core or the 4.6 could also get incremental upgrades and end up at 5 again?
January 20, 2016 7:25
Please do not support VB.
January 20, 2016 7:31
How about going all the way and dropling the ASP and calling it Web.Net Core or something without ASP.
January 20, 2016 7:33
I like the purple color...
January 20, 2016 7:42
Kill me now
January 20, 2016 7:44
Mohan - because the name change hasn't happened yet. We'll update the site in a while.
January 20, 2016 7:52
This is great news, and although there are some teething issues, it finally seems to be maturing and getting ready for the big release!
January 20, 2016 8:15
Thanks for the nice explanation, this is good news!
January 20, 2016 8:24
In my opinion using the term "Core" is terrible in this case for naming. Core means "the ​basic and most ​important ​part of something". That is not what these are. These are new options, new products. The 1.0 makes sense. The ASP part, needs to be dropped, ASP is an outdated term, so late 90's. I agree it shouldn't be ASP.NET 5 since it isn't a direct upgrade to 4.6, it's a new line of product.

I am sorry, Scott but I feel that Microsoft is not communicating very well the future of 4.6 and masking a new product line C0re 1.0 with marketing terms in naming giving the illusion of something better or needed in order to receive adoption.

Can Microsoft tell me which one I should invest in, 4.6 or 1.0. Is Microsoft planning on killing 4.6 when 1.0 receives the adoption that Microsoft needs?

Sorry, this is just so confusing, and it's Microsoft's fault. Damn, now someone needs to create a choose your own adventure book for ASP.NET now, so i can figure out which path to take. BTW, your diagram is to high level, it doesn't address MVC version, it should have pros and cons on both sides, kinda of like Microsoft explains for Web Forms vs. MVC. Thanks for listening to my opinion feedback.
January 20, 2016 8:24
I'm hoping for VB.NET support in .NET Core 1.0 soon™. We've got a push to get our server-side software to move over to Linux by 2019.
January 20, 2016 8:32
First off thanks for the 1.0 reset. Better semver.

Quick question though... since ASP.NET 5 was just a marketing term for the framework, it's renaming is less impactful.

However, EntityFramework7 is also the name of the nuget. Therefore, what’s the story/recommendation regarding EF providers like EntityFramework7.Npgsql will they be renamed to EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql and also reset to 1.0?
January 20, 2016 8:50
@Miguel Lira:

No one should have ever named their package with a version in it to begin with, as it is completely disregarding semver. EntityFramework 7's root package is already called EntityFramework.Core; third party libraries should probably have one nupkg for both versions of EF; just using different monikers for reference.


I also hate the marketing usage of ASP in the new name... .NET Web Core 1.0 (or something similar) would be even better, but, such is life.
January 20, 2016 8:55
I would like to see a name without "Core" in it. It doesn't make sense when you think about it, what is it the core of if it's a separate implementation of .NET 4.6? It's the core of nothing. I've worked with libraries with core in their name and eventually the core name just gets dropped and the code gets bundled into a library named for the parent project name. There's got to be some internal code name that sounds better.
January 20, 2016 9:58
Considering the significance, probably ASP.NET Core 1.0 is a better name. Although it makes me sweat thinking of the challenge explaining this to so many developers out there. Can do an UPDATE on blogs - but videos, PDFs, Cheat sheets. Makes me sweat more!
January 20, 2016 10:17
I love ASP.NET but Microsoft's name choices are bad most of the time. Frankly this Core 1.0 is not that much better than ASP.NET 5.0. Actually it might feel awkward because it doesn't convey the fact that it has been built after ASP.NET 4.6. Moreover, why do you think ASP.NET 5.0 is not better/stronger than ASP.NET 4.6 ? Being able to run on multiple OS doesn't mean stronger?!

Unfortunately Microsoft always confuses people by these names. It reminds me the name "Visual Studio Online" which was so confusing that after many months of complaints, they changed it to "Visual Studio Team Services".
January 20, 2016 10:23
@Alan: when they said naming stuff is hard in computer science they weren't kidding :)

@Scott: I tried moving my existing project in v4.5 to the core 1.0 and everything broke. I think I am going to have to redo the entire web api service end layer. I did not even attempt the MVC front end as I was short on time. The most trouble I had was with the way the claims based approach has changed. Plus everything feels fragile or like it will change multiple times during the execution of a project that I am working on if I keep up to all the updates. This alone pushes my adoption of 1.0 a year at the very least.

Also, when you say in the article - "To be clear, ASP.NET 4.6 is the more mature platform. It's battle-tested and released and available today." - and keep the headline of this article as - "ASP.NET 5 is dead", it kinda leaves me and I am sure most others wondering if this means, will ASPNET go beyond 4.6 as it is today, or will any support stop, and by when if it will stop? What are the reasons for killing a more mature platform and starting a new one. How does one compare with the other? In what situations should one continue to go with v4.6 or what compelling reasons should make one switch to v1.0? Could you throw some light on these points as well?

Right now as you rightly pointed out all that is known is that there is a fork in the road, where the new fork seems to have a brighter future for reasons unknown and the old fork's future is unknown.
January 20, 2016 10:29
It looks much better than ASP.NET 5. I kept answering Devs the relation/difference between ASP.NET 5 and ASP.NET 4.6 specifically 5 and 4.6.
January 20, 2016 10:53
No offense but, couldn't you guys take the decision earlier? Like much earlier.
As mentioned by others, there's so much information out there on internet which everyone can find talking about ASP.NET 5 which is going to be even more confusing now.

What about MVC versioning? Lots of other people have same question.
January 20, 2016 10:55
When I read "ASP.NET 5 is dead", I was shocked but then later in the statement I felt it's name change.

I see few are not happy with the word "Core" in it. I tried to think if it could have been like MS.NET 1 and .NET 1 or ASP.NET Web 1 and .NET 1 but it's okay.

Seeing the drastic change and major support, changing the version from ASP.NET 5 to ASP.NET Core 1 and .NET Core 1 looks to be good. By the name change, I feel a new era has begun in Microsoft .NET Platform.

Thanks Scott.

January 20, 2016 11:00
Really like the new naming as it is a new start and this sets the expectations right IMHO.
Plus it makes the difference between the two .Net stack worlds more obvious which is a good thing. Are there any timelines when F# and VB will be supported?

Looking forward to your near future post on apt-get dotnet :)
January 20, 2016 11:02
I feel this is not good decision at this juncture. Frequent version change, name change will ultimately impact the reliability of Microsoft.

It even discourage the professionals who are writing about the new ASP.NET release for last several months.

Even if this is for good reason seeing .NET has been written from scratch and now it supports open source OS, it should have been done long back.

Anyways, thanks Scott for sharing this.
January 20, 2016 11:18
I also think they should drop the ASP from the name. (and support for vb)
January 20, 2016 11:39
@issa project.json is framework dependant not vs2015. If you stick with 4.6 then you won't see project.json.

@Michael why not support vb? How will it impact you/c#/f# if vb is supported?
January 20, 2016 11:50
Microsoft should be more creative at naming stuff. It makes stuff interesting :)

For example, Microsoft calls its ALM tool "Team Foundation Services", so boring. Look at IBM, they call theirs "JAZZ".

BTW: I love Microsoft's Tech :)
January 20, 2016 11:52
Yes, dnxcore50 is very confusing.
January 20, 2016 11:58
So what will the version numbers be of future releases of Asp.Net 4.6? Are you going to skip v5 as it is already "contaminated"?
January 20, 2016 12:21
This is fantastic news! Could have happened sooner but better late than never! :)
January 20, 2016 12:22
Hi Scott:

Too bad that you didn't lend any ears to what we said during the MVP Summit last November, because this is EXACTLY what many of us told you back then, without appreciation on your part. Yeah, I know, we don't have any clue about naming and it's a marketing department issue.

However, this is the best news you could have delivered for stopping the leaking of developers to other frameworks.

January 20, 2016 12:41
I can't wait until the marketing department decide they want to drop the "core" bit and we end up with two things called .NET 3...
January 20, 2016 12:48
Maybe you want to fix a typo:

.NET Core 5 is now .NET Core 1.0.

should be

.NET Framework 5 is now .NET Core 1.0.
January 20, 2016 12:54
Great news !
January 20, 2016 12:56
think when it comes to time of 5 and core 5.0
January 20, 2016 13:05
Microsoft is the worst at naming. Looking forward to ASP.NET Core 1.5 followed by 1.6 and 1.6 Upgrade 1 and finally 1.6 Upgrade 1 SP1.

At least the product itself is looking nice...
January 20, 2016 13:08
[snark]Oooh, so one is RTM and the other is OSS. Makes total sense, Release to manufacturing is completely opposite from Open Source Software...[snark]
January 20, 2016 13:19
This is great in that it's better than ASP.NET 5, but there's still time to step away from "ASP" once and for all. There are more similarities between ASP.NET Core and Node's HTTP layer or Rack, and more similarities between ASP.NET Core MVC and Sinatra or Express than anything having to do with "Classic ASP".

As an ASP.NET developer who's built production sites in Web Forms and every version of ASP.NET MVC, I do associate ASP.NET with many positive things. Large parts of the world just plain don't. They think it's slower than many other frameworks, requires Microsoft tools and platforms and is hamstrung by backwards compatibility. For ASP.NET 4.6, they are largely right, which is why I think a reboot like this should be accompanied with a new name to reset expectations and free us from the mental legacy.

I still remember one of the early ASP.NET community standups where Damian Edwards' intent to start benchmarking was met by opposition from Scott more or less because "we're fine as it is", those other guys are just crazy efficient, we're good for what we are. Now those wins are being trumpeted and Scott is writing posts about memory usage because we should care about this stuff. This is not about pointing out things that Scott was right or wrong about, but that it's very easy to be captured in the current world view, wanting to conserve what you have and not make the effort to push beyond what's comfortable. Damian knew going in that the numbers were probably going to hurt and that's why he wanted to do it. Starting over from scratch with a new name is painful, but it will also dissolve tensions you didn't even know were there, and we'll all be better off in the end.

In addition: The mental Venn diagram of .NET Framework vs .NET Core makes sense - .NET Core is a chipped away core, with things added back in packages on top. In general, the only thing that's wrong is that you can't pick and choose what you use. But since it is the goal of ASP.NET Core to never become the full ASP.NET System.Web ball of wax (Web Forms will never rise again on top of it, and for good reason), it doesn't make sense except for the connotation of Core being the sane new stuff, which is a learned association if I ever heard one.
January 20, 2016 13:19
Why not just number things 1, 2, 3, 4, and if you need smaller steps too, 4.1, 4.2, etc... like any normal software package?

It seems a bit absurd when software packages pick goofy non-sequential naming conventions.
January 20, 2016 13:23
> "apt-get install dotnet" -> soon...

[snark]Sure, that takes away the confusion, because with that command you get .NET Core, and not .NET[snark]

Seriously, Microsoft?
January 20, 2016 13:23
Everybody knows never to use v1.0 ;-)
January 20, 2016 13:24
The "branding issue" is about the framework layer parts not ASPNET. The confusion around core, dnx, netstandard etc. ASPNETs role is still clear, it's where you develop web facing sites and services. It's a layer above the framework/execution layer. As your diagram shows, it fills exactly the same space as ASPNET4.6 it's just able to run on top of another framework.

Semver would say that ASPNET5 is the correct name. It's a major version change, some things are broken but it's essentially the same product/concept. ".Net Framework 5" would also have made sense. Absolutely, it's been rewritten from scratch, yes it's xplat and full of wonder. But when explaining to newcomers it's described as "the replacement for .Net Framework". Adding "Core" infers that it's become just the kernel of something.

So is the diagram missing a top layer for MVC, WebForms, SignalR etc?

Is MVC6 still a thing? Are we going to see "MVC Core 1.0"?!?
Just adding "Core" to the names of things in place of versioning is just adding to the problem.

The openness, the OSS approach, the engineering, the design are all truely great and a huge step forward for dotNet developers. I just can't wait :) "naming things" truly a hard problem.
January 20, 2016 13:26
What are the benefits (and negatives) of using .NET Core 1.0 instead ot .NET 4.6 more specifically for ASP.NET MVC applications?
January 20, 2016 13:34
Microsoft, you are amazing at making things confusing.
January 20, 2016 13:50
+1 for dropping the ASP(.NET) brand. Active Server Pages in 2016? Hmm. I think a lesson could be taken from the launch of Edge as to what a new brand can achieve. IE was a toxic brand, but Edge and Chakra aren't tainted and have actually created a buzz (or at least acceptance) outside of the Microsoft ecosystem (see node.js running on ChakraCore as an example).

I've build websites in classic ASP (with VBScript), ASP.NET Web Forms, I worked on one of the first production ASP.NET MVC sites, but I've never been more confused about the different parts of the .NET ecosystem (and I'm not even talking about what the best practices are for building NuGet packages) than I am now.

Having the word "core" in the product name is a mistake too - over the last 5 years, we've been harvesting all the IP we develop at endjin and everything was named endjin.core.*something* and when everything is core, nothing is actually core. Feels the same here, that the branding should actually be targeted at some meaningful notion such as being "cross platform", "universal" or "open" rather than core. If you also thinking about the branding changes happening with Microsoft R - it could be an opportunity to take another giant leap away from some of the ecosystem's legacy.
January 20, 2016 13:51
What is this "Web Pages" technology that Microsoft have yet to deliver!? It isn't a very easy term to search for!
January 20, 2016 13:53
The site still refers to the old name/branding.... Just saying. But I understand that things are moving fast
January 20, 2016 13:57
I thought I understood what was happening with .Net and ASP.Net development roadmap but now I find the whole thing is becoming really confused. I can see that most people commenting here are pleased with the name change, but I don't really think it works.

It seems to me that originally .Net 5 was going to be the next step from .net 4.5.x etc.

Now it appears that it is an entirely parallel framework. Sure there will be some cross-compatibility between the two, but from what I read here it sounds like the .Net framework and MVC framework will continue on its current form and trajectory, and this is now a new alternative cross platform framework.

if that is the case, it would have been better to give it a brand new, distinct, name. I know that marketing may want some of the shine from old to reflect across onto the new one, but sometimes you just need to go from Internet Explorer to Edge, y'know?
January 20, 2016 14:02
I found the answer to my own question...

It looks like Web Pages are the .NET equivalent of Classic ASP:

What's the difference between ASP.NET Web Pages, ASP.NET Web Forms, and ASP.NET MVC?
January 20, 2016 14:06
I think its better than to asp.Net 5, because there are many changes and its the better naming.
January 20, 2016 14:25
I thought the joke was:
"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off by one errors".
January 20, 2016 14:27
Way to go!
January 20, 2016 14:28
I should have read the comments, user error!
January 20, 2016 14:46
Completely agree with Dustin Moris Gorski:

"ASP.NET Core 1.0" does sound clunky, and, come on - it is NOT "active server pages" anymore, is it?

Should have named it "CORE" only, and be done with it.
January 20, 2016 14:53
What I haven't found with new .net this is deployment model.
Let's say I want to develop an web app which can be used by many clients on premise.
How I can deploy these dnx, dnu tools? How to package my application?

At this moment it is completely unclear for me.
Word is not ending with cloud model.
January 20, 2016 14:54
glad for change in Microsoft way of thinking

I bit that names are picked up by development team instead of branding specialist

I want to give my opinion for future effort

vb and web pages should be dropped from roadmap because they are used by minority
segment of developers and consuming microsoft
resources. those resources should be focused on other uses such as
-porting webforms controls to mvc
(competitor vendor built ajax controls on mvc stack- smart viewstate=hidden field) it is do able
this will bring more features to .net core development and will be appreciated by community

I hope my message will reach
January 20, 2016 15:05
Wouldn't now be a great opportunity to drop VB?
Some things really should be moved to the annals of technology.
January 20, 2016 15:07
@Andy Pook: I agree with your train of thought, but there's one problem: Microsoft doesn't want to position .NET core as the successor of .NET full, it's a different branch. So that would essentially make a v5 not correct as it's a fork, not a successor.
January 20, 2016 15:15
Microsoft is not following the Visual Studio concept : "Keep it simple". Why not call the new ASP.NET and .NET just only 5? .NET 5 and ASP.NET 5?. The main new features now is that they are multi-platform and open source. Naming like this will only make things more complicated for new and the old developers. Which one is which? Core is the full or just only the core of the new framework? Same for ASP.NET?. I'm enjoying the new .NET world like then never before with all this changes to make more developers love .NET but this naming will not attract more.
January 20, 2016 15:33
Why does this reminds me of "The curse of version 6"?

Dr. Dobbs editorial: Curse of Version 6

January 20, 2016 15:37
I am assuming Web.NET was taken?
January 20, 2016 15:59
This is good for various reason. But can't we have same name at the time of starting of project. Because lots of people who don't know details are getting confused.
January 20, 2016 16:06
Instead of wasting time on renaming, fix buggy toolset stuff with wwwroot, pain local deployment, there is even almost no libraries that you can use with this core CLR how about that.
January 20, 2016 16:19
After reading other's comments, I would like to correct my comments: the ASP.Net Core 1.0 will also be a bad name. Please answer me: Can ASP.Net Core 1.0 be used in ASP.Net 4.6? Sounds yes because of the name "Core".
January 20, 2016 16:34
This is good news but like a previous comment, I too agree that the asp part should be replaced by Web or something. Wasn't it originally going to be Asp+ then later I get why, to make it easier for those coming from what became "classic" asp. But 15 years on, ASP doesn't make sense to me. The whole ActiveX obsession has gone now. If this is a different beast to ASP.NET 4.6 then start with a completely new name. For me, core 1 sounds like something ASP.NET 4.6 probably uses under the covers. If I understand correctly, that is not the case. Will it ever be? If not then 2 product lines with ASP.NET as the main part of the name seems silly. Sorry...
January 20, 2016 16:41
Will RC 2 have F# or not? Found this on twitter saying it will:

Looks like it is from a presentation, my guess is NDC London.
January 20, 2016 16:41
One thing is clear: they are not RE-renaming it. It's gonna be "ASP.NET Core" for the foreseeable future, and there's nothing we can do about it.

It's a small thing that doesn't really matter to the dedicated developer, but you know... You'll STILL be seen as "the ASP guy". And that's not a positive thing.

January 20, 2016 16:49
You should also resign from ASP.NET name. Maybe Web.NET? "Active server pages" name should be gone for a long time.
January 20, 2016 16:59
Seriously anything with .NET or ASP or a combination is just crap. It a different thing, a side by side product to ASP.NET 4.6 and the only thing it has in common with the .NET framework or ASP.NET is that you can write your web application in C#.

The name should be something which is easy to understand, which makes it clear that it is new and different and which makes it easy to refer to! That is the most important part. If I google "ASP.NET Core 1.0" I get a shit ton of things back which have nothing to do with it. The name is just fugly!

You should name it something new and simple.

- Go
- Node
- Python
- Java
- Ruby

Why can Microsoft not just pick a sensible name like this?

Silverlight was a good name but a shit technology. "ASP.NET 5 vNext Core 1.0" is a good technology but a really shit name.

It is the same as how Microsoft fucked up the "Edge" brand. Its a new name, but the bloody logo looks the same as the Internet Explorer logo. Now everyone calls it "Internet Explorer Edge". Are you surprised???
January 20, 2016 17:05
I understand that there is a lot of recognition/value for Microsoft in the names "ASP" and ".Net", but it seems like re-using them in this way (and adding such a generic word as "core" for a new version) doesn't help people very much when they are trying to think of search terms for a problem or a title for their blog post, conference session, book, etc...
January 20, 2016 17:05
Fully agree that the term ASP should be retired! This new product deserves a new brand which makes clear that this is not the old asp shit from the past!
Please give this a fresh new unique name which cannot be confused with the old stack. Especially when googling for issues/etc. core will be a nightmare.

Furthermore, the naming of "entityframework core" is also super confusing. What is "core" about EF? EF7/Core also runs on the desktop framework and will replace EF6 in the foreseeable future (Just look at the commit history of EF6, its already dead).
January 20, 2016 17:08
I'm happy about the name change personally. I'm curious will 4.6 be the end of the road or will it continue on? Will we see 4.7, 4.8, etc? I've said in other places, there are gaps in the core framework still feature wise compared to 4.6.
January 20, 2016 17:16
What a failure.
This is like "metro apps", "modern app", "UWP app", "windows 10 app", "universal app".

You have huge problems at MS.

One side of the company pushes for "one windows" "one core" "one MS" "one store" (Apple-copy-pasterino), the other side pushes for open source, whatever you want, services, linux, apt-get.

MS is also 5 years late in every enviroinment.
5 years late on mobile (and practically bankrupt on the windows phone OS story)
5 years late on desktop (windows 10 epic fail, worse than mac os x)
5 years late on web (javascript full stack framework will own you)
January 20, 2016 17:22
I also think they should have dropped the "ASP" part. Call it "Core" or some new better name. If they communicated that it is a new development stack built on top of .NET it would be easier for people to differentiate between the current framework (e.g. .NET Framework 4.6) and the new path.

People would then be opting in to using the new framework and would probably support the effort better if there was a clean separation. The key thing is for new people to find it easy to adopt - see a clear path and not be confused. It's how Rails, Node.js and Go all took off.

Appreciate it's not an easy problem with so much history and investment in .NET to date.

January 20, 2016 17:28
Did Java change to JavaSuper , Did cobol change the name . Already considerable investment has gone in ASP.NET brand name and Microsoft should continue with the same name.

One thing i do not understand and please do correct me. Why would i ever run ASP.NET on Linux. Please do not give cost excuse it does not matter for corporates. Till today JSP people never run on IIS even if its supported. IIS is like a mother for ASP.NET and i do not see why they are testing Core framework first with ASP.NET product they should have tested with WPF or winforms which is a more probable candidate.
January 20, 2016 17:29
This is good news! I think you may also have to explain the DNX of the .NET Core.
January 20, 2016 17:42
So when is the next ASP.NET website release with doc changes for this change? The documentation and roadmap still has 1.0 releasing Q1, and that's cool. I'm eagerly waiting with my fetch request. Until 1.0 is released, this blog post is just another tease. I like what I've seen so far and have not given up trying to use it. I will keep reporting bugs and doc updates regardless of branding and names.
January 20, 2016 17:54
Personally I've liked dnx, but pronounced like ".NET-X" :)
DNX 1.0
dnx restore
dnx compile --native -cpp
dnx run
January 20, 2016 18:05
So it seems many of us want you to drop the ASP from the name. Think about it. It really makes sense. If core is a completely different product then core is a bad choice to stick on to asp. To me at least, it suggest new 4.6+ would be built on it. I get the impression that isnt the plan. Same with EF core. Core suggest something other things are built on. But when products are many versions old already, then core has nothing to do with previous. Like when they added system.core.dll. It was a refactoring of existing. Now things DO use that. But I get the impression my choice is 4.6 (possibly higher) OR core. 4.6 should be the superset of core. Not unrelated! So please please pick a better name. Its bad enough I still to this day get job emails about classic asp because I have on my cv (resume). As others said, searching will be impossible. Come on Scott, you can get it changed right, we have total faith in you! Well I do anyway...
January 20, 2016 18:11
I also like the DNX but that sounds like .net next. As in next version. Or just another name for vnext. Agree with other post on Edge. That logo looks like IE logo. So obviously done so users know that clicking it gets them a browser. But yeah agreed, dont be surprised when it gets called Internet Explore Edge.
January 20, 2016 18:12
Will this be reflected in the IDE when you select a project type as ASP.NET 1.0 Core? Will this be an auto update?
January 20, 2016 18:13
Renaming of label is good, but renaming of id is very bad.

I'm afraid, it will come avalanche of renaming of packages (NuGet packages) after the changing of the name (the label) of the products. It could be a real problem to fix existing ASP.NET RC1/beta projects after renaming of the package names. I posted the issue with the suggestion of redirection by NuGet server after such renaming, but the suggestion was discarded. Too bad, for developers!
January 20, 2016 18:32
Developers, and people in general, are usually too afraid of refactor names. This is a very good move, thanks! If only the aspnet guys would have been in charge for naming in the Windows OS... System32 anyone?
January 20, 2016 18:36
Naming is hard, but it doesn't have to be utterly stupid!

Why cling on to "ASP" moniker? And great job on SEO front as well!
January 20, 2016 18:42
Can we drop the .NET while we are at it? Never made any sense.
January 20, 2016 18:46
This Kings is dead. Long live the King!
January 20, 2016 18:56
That makes sense -- I guess Windows 10 is really Windows Core 1.0 :-)
January 20, 2016 19:00
It actually makes sense changing the name. Lately, Microsoft seems to be doing things right.
January 20, 2016 19:01
Looks like I am the only one that doesn't like this name. You now CORE like in coredump, I would rather like name ".net light" or ".net x", core is long and unimpressive.

Fortunately like with Metro it maybe be changed to something more shiny and catchy...
January 20, 2016 19:12
I am also curious about the version number for MVC6. It would be great to know if its version number will be changed or not. Thanks! :)
January 20, 2016 19:26
What about MVC? I assume it is still version 6? And it runs on Asp.Net 4.6 and Asp.Net Core 1.0?
January 20, 2016 19:36
Any plans to support any parts of WebForms in the new ASP.NET Core? There's still irreplaceable components from that era in use today (e.g. Reporting Services Viewer). For projects that need SSRS they'll stuck with old ASP.NET forever.
January 20, 2016 19:40
The name is still confusing. Will there be a .Net 5 that is based on 4.6? Is everything going Core? As a developer that maintains a couple libraries, will I need to target both? Will they diverge? Will Core at one point absorb all the 4.6 namespaces? What's the plan for the two? How do they relate other than one is OSS and one is RTM? These are all things that the junior devs that I work with have asked since this post went up. They were confused before, they are confused now.

I've been playing with it, listening to podcasts, etc. enough to know what's going on. But anyone that picks it up now is going to be confused all to hell unless you guys come up with some heavy documentation on the .Net Core side. Because sticking with .Net means searching the web is difficult. I will say that the MVC guys are doing OK. I can at least get a test app off the ground with what is out there. But the .Net Core is just... Not great at the moment... New devs shouldn't have to keep open the corefx github repo just to figure out where a class is located, search through the thousands of open issues to find out that a feature that they need is being cut (binary serialization for instance is one that I ran into), or not implemented yet (half of the Assembly class is a good example), etc.
January 20, 2016 19:48
.NET 1.0, Silverlight 1.0, ASP.NET 1.0, ASP.NET MVC 1.0, WinJS 1.0 (and 2.0, and 3.0, and 4.0), all memorable versions...

I'll wait for ASP.NET Core 2.0, if I don't switch job for Nodejs in the meantime.
January 20, 2016 19:52
Honestly, when will you announce that ASP.NET (not core) is dead ?
January 20, 2016 19:54
Great news!! Maybe its time also to change the name of Visual Studio to VS.NET Core instead of the 2013 and 2015 __etc. Keep it up Microsoft.
January 20, 2016 20:47
That's great Scott! It's a good news.
January 20, 2016 20:54
Thanks for a great article, but I am a bit unsure here, does that mean that signalR won't run in a MVC 6 project? No version of it? This is upgrade critical for me...
January 20, 2016 21:42
Do you know what the update is with the RyuJIT issue?
January 20, 2016 22:09
Microsoft is terrible when it comes to naming or versioning a software / tablet / phone (lumia), you guys need to learn lot of lesson from Apple on how they increment version for whatever it is, My 93 year old grandma who studied up to 5th grade can clearly understand Apple's version & products, but even with a PhD people get confused with Microsoft's thought process when it comes to naming or versioning.

Sorry to rub you guys the wrong way, but that is the hard truth. Hope @satyanadella reads it.
January 20, 2016 22:17
Seems like a reasonable change to me, but only if the Core remains Core and things get broken out into their own packages. I would like to know what will happen with MVC 6.0, will that run on ASP.NET 4.6.x as well as ASP.NET Core 1.0?
January 20, 2016 22:48
Will there be Asp.Net 4.7 ?
January 20, 2016 23:09
Bravo to the name change. Now, as noted above, we will need clear documentation outlining what is, and isn't, included in the .net core 1.0.
January 20, 2016 23:10
My two cents..
Stop releasing .Net for next 2 years, fix all the screw ups, and release it in a clean slate in 2018, we are happy with what we have now.
January 20, 2016 23:25
So when does Asp.Net die the death? I've now lost count of the number of new technologies that have come and gone since I started back in 1993.
January 20, 2016 23:25
Ok, so I'm confused, is this just announcing the eventual name change, or this a sort of RTM release of the core framework?

Also, with this name change, what exactly would the moniker(s) be if running an ASP.NET 5 site on the 4.5.1 stack instead of the core?
January 20, 2016 23:31 5 is awesome. I think it's time to release it to manufacturing.
January 20, 2016 23:45
Great. I still think I'll be choosing 4.6 for production though!
January 20, 2016 23:48
I'm holding out for ASP.NET Ex Plus Alpha Special Edition :)
January 20, 2016 23:56
"Core"?! Really? Why? Are you now trying to change the meaning of the word "core" at MS?
January 21, 2016 0:01
It appears like Branding did not do a stellar job here: the meaning of Core seems ambiguous.

.NET Core is understandable: the new lean core of .NET in a new coat - Core has a meaning. Does Core in ASP.NET Core have the same meaning as Core in .NET Core?One could argue about whether Core in ASP.NET actually refers to ASP.NET or to .NET Core ('Is Core' versus 'Requires Core'). In latter case Core becomes ambiguous.
What about MVC 7, the unified implementation of MVC and Web API?
Why no mentioning of MVC Core 1.0 (MVC 'for ASP.NET Core')? Are MVC and Web API always included? In that case it's not just a matter of 'core' anymore.

In the case of Entity Framework Core: Entity Framework Core runs on .NET Core, requires .NET Core. While EF Core is probably more lean and also wears a new coat, Core here seems to refer less to EF and more to .NET Core which then makes Core ambiguous.

.NET Core would have been fine if Core was not used for everything else. Using Core as a generic moniker makes names unnecessary long and anti-snappy.
Reminds me of WPF/E (brief for Windows Presentation Foundation Everywhere) which when released was renamed Silverlight, luckily.

When used as a generic moniker, 'Core' (ambiguous or not) becomes meaningless. In which case 'Neo' would be just as appropriate.
If intended as generic 'NextGen .NET' moniker the platform and frameworks definitely deserve more snappy and more attractive names.
Some examples (not pretending these are better): .NET Core 1.0 could be .NEXT 1.0, ASP.NET ASP.NEXT etc. or in a classic Apple like style: iNet, iASP, iMVC :)
January 21, 2016 0:07
I'm already having difficulty with Windows IoT Core. Windows IoT is so much easier.
January 21, 2016 0:23
The new ASP.NET naming has been developing like a shyamalan movie. And not the good one.
January 21, 2016 0:30
Hi, is this the official page?

I'm sort of assuming it's not because everything including your blog page point at the old RC1 page.

January 21, 2016 0:55 is now technical debt to me.

Many of the same questions and much of the same confusion will exist a year from now. So no more endless justifications not to rewrite in non-Microsoft front-end technologies. Yeah, I'm stuck lots of c# backend code but it doesn't change as much.

But I simply won't let Microsoft tooling consume so much of my attention this year.
January 21, 2016 0:59
And you rewrote it why?

For my money, ASP.NET NG 1.0 lets you then have NG2 in another 15 years time!

(NG = Next Generation).
January 21, 2016 1:00
As of now "CLI" stands for "Common language Infrastructure" & .Net's new "Command Line Interface", could you please give a different name for the later.

January 21, 2016 1:00

And I was so looking forward to .NET 4.7, .NET 4.8, .NET 4.9, .NET 4.99, .NET 4.999. ...
January 21, 2016 1:14
Just finished explaining to non technical people that Microsoft Edge is not Microsoft Internet explorer, these are two different browsers, best part is no-one believed it.

Now i got another one.
January 21, 2016 1:25
Don't want to diss, but version 1.0 usually sucks.
January 21, 2016 1:50
If it's production ready I assume that .NET Core could send email? If not, it means that it's not ready and as usual in MS let's wait SP
January 21, 2016 2:17
It will become very confusing if ASP.Net Core's versioning goes faster than ASP.Net and their version numbers start to match. This seems to say that a) ASP.Net is going away or b) ASP.Net Core's release cycle will be slowed to avoid version # conflicts. Neither option is good.
January 21, 2016 3:29
You get a pass on the SemVer issue today. Let's make sure SemVer is addressed sometime in 2016 and all will be well in the community at large. 2017 is going to be seriously awesome.
January 21, 2016 3:33
Perhaps you postpone dealing with the what is by naming it.
January 21, 2016 3:45
OK, Scott believe or not this is creating even bigger confusion: What is the future of ASP.NET 4.6 line going forward? Several people have asked this and you have not answered it. Is this the end of line for 4.6 or going forward or it and the Core stuff will evolve in parallel? I'm guessing at some point they'll merge but it would help for the enterprises to understand what's on the mind of ASP.NET team so they can make the right decisions and investments. Please respond. Thanks!
January 21, 2016 4:57
(Agree with @Dustin) some Microsoft brand names are not good.
You should name it something new and simple. Look:
- Go
- Node
- Python
- Java
- Ruby
ASP, ASPX are clear names. .Net, C#, F# are not search engine friendly, or file name friendly.
dnx(should be short for Dot Net Cross-platform) is good name, but you don't use in release.
January 21, 2016 5:04
MS said Edge was "rewritten from scratch" and it is not. At this point when MS says something is completely rewritten I assume it means exactly the same.
January 21, 2016 5:04
The title is really misleading. Due to your huge influence, this post has been translated into many Chinese IT forums literally saying (in Chinese) " 5 is dead ...".
January 21, 2016 5:23
It took me a year to realize that it is time to switch to the new tech, ASP.NET 5, MVC 6 and the CORE. All very exciting stuff as it seems. Just tonight I started to "dive" into it and felt like I'm digging this shi..stuff. Now I feel like I'm going to check how you're doing next year. Also I really don't like the new name for ASP.NET Core 1.0. It sounds confusing, not solid, from 5.. back to 1... and has ASP... Feels like this too is a temporary naming suggestion and it will change.

Please consider changing it to something like "Dynamic Web .Net", "NetEngine", "ServerSide.Net" or something in this fashion. Maybe "ServerCore.Net", if you like the word core so much :)

God bless you guys for this fantastic work!
January 21, 2016 6:46
Calling it Core is a lie, or everything will eventually be core which will be a lie. It seems lik a marketing ploy to get people to switch. "What version of the framework should I use? Oh, Core looks like a good start." If anything the existing framework is core and the new framework is Lite or Slim or XPlatform. This is going to cause just as much confusion. Never give your product a name that collides with terms that will be used with it. "Where is type X? It's in the core. No, not .NET core, the core framework." Yeah, those conversations will be great.
January 21, 2016 7:12
168 comments in one day! This is a living proof that naming something is hard in computer science.
January 21, 2016 7:23
Better late than never. Great change. However you should have give us - the developer community - a chance to participate in this name change.
January 21, 2016 7:46
I also believe that, though there have been significant amount of investments in creating ASP.NET brand, the new release is not exactly inline with it. Especially the name (Active Server Pages) is not matching the philosophy of new development. Name should be more like Web Framework 1.0 or likewise.

Apart from that, I will be looking forward to what does MS brings in it and how it takes shape going further.

Thanks for all the details.
January 21, 2016 7:48
@Carson @Jim The '...and off-by-1 errors' bit was added by @secretGeek in 2010. See
January 21, 2016 12:47
It is actually a core problem at Microsoft. Also seen in naming Internet Explorer. First it was Windows Internet Explorer, now it is MS IE. Windows SharePoint Services, Windows Azure anyone? They replaced Windows with Microsoft. Same with SQL Azure. They keep renaming stuff.
January 21, 2016 15:16
I have to agree with what others have said regarding the name change being a step in the right direction, however using a name that contains ASP, Core or .NET should be avoided as it's just confusing. Please find something a bit more original. That would make it clear that it is something new. As a suggestion, maybe Microsoft should reach out to the community to help with the name.
January 21, 2016 17:19
I'll echo the sentiment here. Yes it needed a new name. But the new name is too long and complicated. DNX is kind of cool. But it needs to be pronounceable and catchy and different enough that we can actually search on it. Web API is a good example of a hard to find search term while Entity Framework is a good one.

I'm glad the name change hasn't made it to the site yet so you have time to change it again. Maybe make this a bigger conversation. Or crowd source the name somehow. Let the community vote.

I'm very excited about the new technology. So I'll be OK with whatever the name ends up being. Just please try to make it cool.
January 21, 2016 18:04
In the context of this version being a complete reset from scratch this makes more sense. This post doesn't quite go deep enough after watching the latest Community standup it makes a lot more sense.

In terms of semver you could consider the "Core" designation as a number _before_ the Major element. It's such a big change it needs something bigger than just a Major number increment.

"Naming things" the hardest problem... apart from the other two.
January 21, 2016 18:13
Great news, but why without Web Pages?

I think that Web Pages is one of the best products Microsoft ever created. I hope they will add Web Pages to .NET Core soon
January 21, 2016 19:11
It's greate... i had this problem today
January 21, 2016 20:09
Honestly, .NET Core 1 is actually Silverlight but fatter (which is great). SL out-of-browser was also running awesome on the MAC without any troubles. What do we gain? SL + webforms + mvc + Linux?

January 21, 2016 20:27
I wonder if there will be any confusion with aspnet 1.0
January 21, 2016 21:10
I'm confused. Is Microsoft naming a cluster or is a group of servers a cluster?
January 21, 2016 21:35
I too would like to know about the status of ASP.NET MVC 6. Will it still be MVC 6, or is it changing too?
January 21, 2016 21:43
So I am using rc1-final of ASP.Net 5 and you didn't to rename the entire framework, this doesn't sound like an RC1-Final decision this is a decions that should have been made in the alpha stages, this is a poor decision I understand users were confused "somehow" however if they are software developers they would have eventually figure it out (it's their job) I have been using .Net since v1 so I am a long time user and I wans't put off by ASP.Net 5 by any means it was a new version new features new support...a no brainer, but now I am very put off.

I have vested much time into learning and writing code around ASP.Net 5 aka ASP.Net "Core v1" <-- how original.

So now when people ask what version of ASP.Net are you running...oh I am using ASP.Net v1 oh wow that's an old version...oh I am sorry I mean ASP.Net Core v1. Yeah I don't think this helps the confusion.

Anyway very frustrated with this decision at this stage in your product.
January 21, 2016 22:20
As someone who has lived on the sysadmin/server side of things for the past 10 years, and just now diving into the whole .NET, C#, ASP.NET development world...this is confusing the hell out of me. Does anyone have good links to a current state diagram for the pieces one someone would use for a basic .NET web app vs what the same thing would look like in the .NET Core world?

I like what I'm seeing with .NET Core with the pieces I do understand, but the more I look at ASP.NET I'm tending to agree with some of the folks that the ASP name maybe doesn't belong in the ASP.NET Core piece. Why not Web Core or something else? What is the ASP relation that necessitates keeping ASP in the name?
January 21, 2016 22:41
Agree that I don't think the "new" name is much better. People will get confused either way. Try explaining to someone green right out of college where the name came from. First you need to explain ASP. Then ASP .NET. Then ASP .NET Core. It's a mess. No one should need a 20 year history lesson to understand what a product's name means.

If it's a totally new framework, name it something totally new. I've already seen endless confusion out there about what .NET Core is vs .NET Framework.

The flip side of the argument against dropping the version number to 1.0 and using a totally different name is that it implies .NET Framework and ASP .NET 4.6 will continue to be developed. We all know that's not true and the writing is on the wall for these frameworks.

The real cause of that problem is more of the consistently horrible messaging from Microsoft than the name change. Other companies tell you straight away that a technology is dead and you should migrate away- Microsoft instead peddles half-truths about how its still "supported" even though its not being actively "developed" at the moment that give developers a false sense of security (and entitlement) about the lifespan of their code. Just look at how many people are still outraged about VB6 support ending after all these years.
January 21, 2016 23:09
I have been working with MVC 4, 5, 6, for over two years now, I like MVC, and I am running away from ASP.NET Web Forms as fast as I can. However, the management at my present job feels that ASP.NET Web Forms is fine, and why do I keep talking about MVC?

The latest that I heard was that Visual Studio 2015 is the last version of Visual Studio to support Web Forms. Is this still true? How can I convince the management at my job to start doing new projects in MVC, and to get ready to dump Web Forms?

Thank you.
January 22, 2016 0:05
The comment about version 6.0s is great! I think everyone agrees that it should probably be called something other than xxx '5'. Core 1.0 sounds OK. However, since the main driver is cross platform capability, why not just call it .Net 'CP' 1.0? (for 'cross-Platform')? I'll bet many at Microsoft already suggested that? .Net 'Core' rolls off the tongue better though...

Definitely looking forward to taking it out for a drive when it arrives!
January 22, 2016 0:23
A friend of a friend told me that somewhere deep inside Microsoft's Headquarter is a top secret ‎room. They call it "Universal Renaming and Confusion Center Enterprise Edition for Business". But he was unsure about the edition as they rename that room from time to time to make sure it is secret enough. The only thing he could say for sure was, that the door number is 42.
January 22, 2016 1:47
Hi Scott,

Great post, I had been thinking a while and was thanking that

Asp.Net should be named going forward

X.Net (Asp.Net 5.0+)
.X (.Net 5.0+)

So X.Net 1.0 instead of the long name (ASP.NET Core 1.0)
January 22, 2016 1:55
Dropping the "5" and adopting a more accurate "1.0" is a good first step but as others have said, I feel it is a mistake to even keep "ASP.NET" in there at all!

For one thing, the hardest part of trying to get to grips with "ASP.NET 5 / Core 1.0" is that any searches in an attempt to find solutions to common problems are polluted with references to older ASP.NET solutions (3, 4 etc).

In many cases the new framework is close enough to the old that at first it appears that these solutions may be applicable and it is only when you get a good way into trying to apply the solution that it becomes frustratingly apparent that it does not apply to the new framework. Even more frustrating is that the "oh so clever clever" language gymnastics needlessly (imho) employed in some of the aspects of the new framework means that solutions are not discoverable and rely on foreknowledge of the necessary incantations (and which particular pentangle you need to be stood in when uttering them).

Too late to change that latter aspect, but the name needs a solid rethink, not just a tinker with the version #.

imho. ymmv.
January 22, 2016 2:27
Is this software design with community involvement? I assume yes because the source code was opened to the community. Why not then get community input on a name change? Why did Microsoft figure out a name of ASP.NET Core 1.0 without us involves? Instead of getting community input you get community backlash. Would it not have been better to avoid this negative PR and include the community? Too bad that getting all this (negative) input after the fact, the name will not change. Too bad. Can I submit a Pull Request to change the name?
January 22, 2016 2:35
Name suggestions for new .Net : Avatar, Ninja, Rocky, Pluto, Chai, Arrow , Snow, DejaVu, Brinjal, F11
January 22, 2016 2:39
For those saying vb. Net should be dropped. Go shoot your self with a bracket in the head guys and finally accept that the c syntax is harder and stupid. -

Now about the naming yeah its way better than before and clear now

Time to do the same with windows universal apps and wua or what ever you call them.
January 22, 2016 2:40
"apt-get install dotnet" -> soon...

This does us no good if dotnet core 1.0, dotnet cli, etc do not support the latest versions of ubuntu desktop because that is what the majority of people run for their desktop. LTS is nice for servers, etc but too far and few between for what your typical desktop user wants.
January 22, 2016 9:06
Long live VB.NET!
January 22, 2016 9:25
Congratulations for ReName Work Group
January 22, 2016 12:55
Totally off topic, but not often a developer starts from version 1.0 of a language/platform and after 15 years he gets back to 1.0 again, and accepts it with much joy :)

.NET needed some shaving and what better way to do that than through open source.

Exciting times.
January 22, 2016 13:57
I'm happy with the name change - if nothing else it's been a chore searching for documentation, a search for " 5 {$ISSUE}" will yield a lot of MVC 5 results.

This does underline how ridiculous it is to have the "RC1" label attached to the current release though. It is really a release candidate in name only, with swaths of breaking changes and now even a new name, I assume before RC2 sometime in February? That said, I'm happy to have the go-live license and I'd much rather have the breaking changes now than *after* RTM.
January 22, 2016 18:00
Dammit man...another name change?

Seriously though, are you really, really sure this will be the last one? I'm asking because "Core" sounds like a dependency for some useful library. It might give some people the wrong idea about what ASP.NET Core is.

I know the features are pretty much frozen, so when is the name freeze going to be put in place?

And while you're at it, you might want to come up with a name that doesn't confuse Google when searching for solutions to common problems. Right now the "aspnet5" keyword seems to do the trick but I don't think that will last very long.
January 22, 2016 19:27
ASP.Net Core 1 ?!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are U Serious Man??
OMG. Its Very Very Bad Name
January 22, 2016 19:27
I think "" and ".net" acronyms are showing their age. How about calling it something completely off the wall similar to a "ruby" or "python", "swift" etc.
January 22, 2016 20:04
The new name is not Google friendly
January 22, 2016 20:46
ASP.NET 4.5, ASP.NET 4.6, ASP.NET Core 1.0, MVC 5.0, MVC 6.0, Web Api 1, Web Api 2, SignalR 1, SignalR 2, SignalR 3, Entity framework 6, Entity framework 7, Entity framework Core 1.0,....

Do you realize our difficulty when searching ressources ... ?

Could you make a poll about naming ? Or it's too late ?

ASP should be removed
Core should be removed

Should not use generic name, but proper and short name (like Toto, Tata) and having a identity. I know that MS naming culture is generic (call a internet browser(explorer) as Internet Explorer, a SQL server as MS SQL Server, a product to do web service api as Web Api. But MS has changed now, make .Net open source, make cross-platform, make office on other OS,....

Be brave to make a NEW THING, NEW NAME. ASP.NET vNext merit it.

January 22, 2016 21:05
I'm ok with the new name and enjoyed the standup explaining how hard these things are. But I do wish the community was involved and I do feel a new name would have been better.

Wasp, Vasp, Aspen, Clasp, Grasp, see a pattern here? :)
January 22, 2016 21:30
Thanks, this is great. Now I have less confusion than before.

Not zero confusion, mind you. Just a basic understanding of what's happening and why you did it.

Count me in on a searchable name. I hardly write any code without searching for examples, etc. If I can't search, that's a problem.

I have done zero research, but if it doesn't do Web Pages, how do I host a site with it? Or is this for api stuff only? I know this must make me look like an idiot, but if I'm asking it, plenty of other newbies will be, too.

Cool stuff, heady days, some bumps. I'm still in (but a little behind).

January 22, 2016 22:01
@bill "Web Pages" refers to the framework formerly known as ASP.NET WebForms. The Framework Formerly Known As ASP.NET vNext can still render web pages. Hey, TFFKAAv sounds like a good name candidate. Hey, at least there won't be any google confusion!
January 22, 2016 22:01
Just checked out the docs, etc.

I'm an idiot.

That is all.
January 22, 2016 22:21
First, I commend you for at least *trying* to rename it. I realize there are higher forces at work that have a stake in branding etc. That said, I have read many of these posts and it seems the central themes are:

A handful of people, or likely less, is not an ideal number for bouncing ideas around to come up with what should be a permanent awesome identity for a very awesome idea. You'd be better served to *listen* to dozens or hundreds of ideas but then have that small group filter them down and decide on the *identity*. Second, "core" def is: "the central or most important part of something" and that just seems wrong, esp. if your livelihood is in full framework, windows-only, world. You get really nervous about such a def as it implies yours is *less* important. The term "ASP.NET", is so legacy, it's like Java! Active-server-pages? There are no pages! It was hard enough to break ASP.NET away from classic ASP even though they are worlds apart, that damn "ASP" word lingered. This is an opportunity to establish a *new* identity for something so exciting to so many and quite frankly it's awesome feature-set (cross-plat, open source, high perf, lean, composable, etc.). Most new, revolutionary products in the open source world do not have technical names, they are catchy, succinct while still conveying some meaning (think node web-framework 'Koa', 'Angular', etc). Also you should be thinking "search"! Everyone has had a horrible experience separating search results form 15 years of ASP.NET and using the dozen names given over past year (from vnext to dnx, dotnet, aspnet x, core, etc.), it's a nightmare.

On the other hand, I think we all realize too that once you're past the idea of hosting an app on Linux (cross-plat runtime + kestrel) and past being able to contribute to all it open source-ness and finally beyond a new project file and bootstrap file, 99% of code in a given web API/UI will be *virtually identical* to an app using .NET4.6 (full) + MVC6 + EF7 (since both new MVC and EF are compat with full fw). This seems to be what is making it hard to *justify* a new name, when the "new-ness" is very low level. Also, "ASP.NET" seems to be less of what it was originally meant to mean and more about simply being a substitute word for "web". But the reality is that a .NET Core (console) app becomes "web" when you simply add WebApplicationBuilder (bootstrap) + MVC (building blocks for API/UI).

And although it's hard for MS to swallow, this gives them the chance to really allow this to "break away" from all it's closed products. Don't forget, ASP.NET 4.6 > will live on for many years so it's not like they're losing it, just "extending" it to OSS/cross-plat world.

Please consider a new name, we CAN DO better than [1997 classic ASP] + [2000 .NET framework] + [2016 'web app running on OSS/cross-plat coreclr/fx'] = "ASP.NET Core"!!
January 22, 2016 22:53
@Radu - Thanks!
January 23, 2016 0:15
In ASP.NET Core 1.0 what would the recommended html templating engine, just use Razor or something like Angular(server side vs client side)I assume since I would want to use some server side validation that Razor would be a better choice.
January 23, 2016 1:29
ASP.NET Core 1 is much better than ASP.NET 5 for sure. However, I do think ASP.NET should be removed. Even CORE feels word. This should be a new product, "whatever" 1.0. You want to attract new people to this new open source framework, you do not want it tied to a past that has nothing to do with it.
January 23, 2016 1:51
thanks - but where can we start to learn about it
January 23, 2016 2:06
So much better... thanks! But I agree with others here that a completely new name would be even better.

@Hawari - See for the latest documentation.
January 23, 2016 7:30
The ASP.NET 5/Core v1 is a huge improvement, I like it, very much. I was going to leave .NET and it's ASP.NET 5/Core v1 brought me back.

Basically I agree that ASP.NET 5 is not a good name, and ASP.NET Core 1 is not either. ASP is not a valuable brand any longer and even a burden now. Many people have prejudice and will give up as soon as they hear "ASP" or "ASP.NET". I won't blame them because I have prejudice to JAVA too.

The branch new stack has such huge improvements that it deserve a brand new name, without "ASP" in it as I said it's a burden, without ".NET" in it, because there is already a ".NET Core" where it's built on top of.

ASP.NET Core 1 --> .NET Core 1, two ".NET", it's duplicated. and ASP.NET Core 1 -> .NET Framework 4.6, the "Framework 4.6" and "Core 1", it's a conflict.

Renaming things in RC 1 stage? That's ok for me even I have already had a project build on top of it. it's more important to make things right, I like the whole new stack.

January 23, 2016 13:46
Very Interesting Move from Microsoft.

When the Microsoft named ASP.NET Core as ASP.NET 5, it was assumption that That .NET Core will became as mainstream line of .NET Framework and Full .NET Framework 4.6 retain as it is.

Not Microsoft decided to named it .NET Core 1.0.
it means that we will see .NET Framework 5.0 (instead of .NET 4.7), and full .net will continue as mainstream line. and Core 1.0 will be as second class citizen in Microsoft product portfolio.

I'm afraid of .NET Core 1.0 will follow Silverlight path.

Please Microsoft team, please clarify your decision of changing names of product.

Thank you in Advance.
January 23, 2016 20:35
All those years of people complaining that Microsoft's stack wasn't cross-platform and that the development process was too closed. Now that the kimono is open and people can see (and participate in) how the sausage is made, we hear complaints that it's too confusing. Damned if you do, indeed.

For anyone paying attention to the trend toward refactoring these technologies to separate out the "core" functionality and then and layering on orthogonal concerns through things like package management (which has the added benefit of decoupling their potential release cadence from the slower-changing core components), the adoption of the core moniker makes sense. And so much butt hurt about the name ASP...honestly folks, the gift horse's mouth is just fine...
January 23, 2016 23:48
What will be the future? It will remain as a "CORE"? why?!
Thy EF 7 is "CORE"?
January 24, 2016 0:01
I agree with one of the previous posters; I like DNX 1.0. Easy to remember and different that the previous naming.

January 24, 2016 1:52
I thought Web Pages was not moving forward. Are you now saying that you plan on moving it forward?
January 24, 2016 10:32
Oh boy, we can run on Linux now! Something you could do with Java 20 years ago. And we can run MVC there. Microsoft's copy of Ruby On Rails. What about Web Forms? MVC is a fail for apps that have complex UI requirements. EF 7, has a long way to go too. Basically, doesn't work at this point. Hibernate had the same functionality 15 years ago (minus LINQ), but, worked. I'm looking forward to the next great thing after MVC. Not having a concept of UI components is a fail IMHO. Microsoft is going overboard trying to be cool now and copying everyone else. If the other commenter was right about dropping support for Web Forms after VS 2015 (which I find hard to believe (I'm pretty sure Microsoft still even supports Visual FoxPro)), that would be an epic fail. I think Microsoft should spend some time developing something that combines the benefits of MVC and Web Forms to replace both of them. Maybe they can just copy JavaServer Faces. Probably the only reason they are pushing people towards Linux is so they can rent them VMs on Azure.
January 24, 2016 10:39
@Hemant has a point. Don't call it 1.0 until it's 1.0. EF 7 RC is nowhere near release candidate. It's just called that to fit in with what was formally known as ASP.NET 5. 0.5 may be right.
January 24, 2016 10:43
Can you rename ADO.NET while you are at it? The name ActiveX Data Objects needs to die if anything does. And please kill off COM while you're at it. Another abomination.
January 24, 2016 18:13
RE: ASP.Net 5 is dead - Introducing Asp.Net Core 1.0 and .Net Core 1.0...

[2001 Space Odyssey theme soundtrack playing in background...]

...and then they saw a big black monolith appear before them...😉
January 24, 2016 20:15
Thanks Scott. It's clearer than 5 but seem more words to remember from now :)
January 24, 2016 23:06
The name change is good, a break with the old was needed, but I still feel that the name isn't right(he said while admitting that naming is very, VERY hard).

However, I do have another question: I really miss the ability to dynamically compile in the old webforms! Prototyping, debugging, everything was easier with App_Code because I could make changes and the system would compile automagically!

I deployed a site in VS2015, changed some code, and NOTHING! Now if I restart the server, dnx.exe as I remember, it does re-compile and the changes take effect, but only after a restart.

Is that the new world and I'm just going to have to get used to it, or will there ever be a dynamically compiled directory?
January 24, 2016 23:39
This is awesome, not because it is number 5 or 1, that really doesn't matter. If I understand correctly, this is a new - compact - version of the framework that will also run on Linux and iOS, besides Windows of course. Funnily MS also promised that .net 1.0 would run on Linux, maybe now they are selling linux Vm's things will turn out different, not that I ever missed that. Exciting times :-)
January 24, 2016 23:57
Microsoft FTEs, you are absolutely fabulous in confusing developers since COM/DCOM stuff. You haven't learned anything and history is repeating. Only confusing devs and than MVPs are called to fix your faults. The naming is confusing and I had to answer and explain many previous changes made by Microsoft to dev community. What do you expect? The devs will spend their time with studying your new product paths and understand your naming? Your licensing policy is so confusing, unable to understand by a mortal and you do the same with your product lines. Why? Do you want us to give it up and move to other technology as even MVPs are tired by your craziness?
January 25, 2016 6:37
The naming gurus could have used some hot branding and call it ASPNET One.
January 25, 2016 6:52
Totally agree. All are changes. I started to build a RESTful Web services from ASP.Net Core 1.0 that works as back-end with Angular 2 is front-end.
January 25, 2016 11:00
Other than renaming, what does it mean to us (developers)?
January 25, 2016 11:09
The problem is that Microsoft is moving way too fast thereby exposing its own vulnerabilities. They should give their products a real life and that way patches will be fewer and naming easier.
January 25, 2016 18:29
No not again the ever increasing and confusing ASP .net names.
January 25, 2016 18:32
Feels strange reading all this "Nice!" & "Thanks!" posts.
MS guys only fixed something they screwed up first!
So, "Finally!" would be appropriate here.

Apart from that...
The whole .NET universe is confusing & untidy and and i´m afraid renaming won´t help.
January 25, 2016 23:11
@Dewey2000 As far as I know, Web Forms isn't going to be supported at all on the new system.
January 26, 2016 6:06
Lets get the names correct:

ASP.NET 5.0==MVC 6==ASP vNext==ASP.NET Core 1.0.

Is this correct? Is Microsoft now happy with the name ASP.NET CORE ?
January 26, 2016 13:44
Hi Scott, so much clearer with that naming scheme. Quick newbie question though. Does the fact that ASP.NET Core 1.0 overlaps on the chart with .NET 4.6 mean that it still has dependencies on elements of the full framework. Ones that are not included in .NET Core 1.0?
January 26, 2016 16:51
Name/version of a product means heritage and tradition. We already saw a lot of similar things happening in Microsoft. I couldn't say all of them are bad.

I would like to agree rename/re-version if rename/re-version a product can solve all problems Microsoft are facing.
Rename/re-version product means some significant improvement.
One of the reason is .Net already 15 years, too old, which doesn't make any sense.

An example is Windows Mobile was renamed to Windows Phone App. But still couldn't catch up with market. But at least the version was kept from 6.5 to Windows Phone 7.

.Net is an excellent platform, together with Asp.Net Web Form and Asp.Net Mvc and Wpf. .Net is always ahead of market. I love it from day one of .Net vesion 1.0 alpha version.
There is no need to rename it.
But now it is renamed to .Net Core. I totally don't agree rename. Rename means Microsoft is losing heritage and tradition.

Can you image someday someone want to change Windows to Windows.Core?

The decision makers should re-think their strategies and go back .Net 5.0.
Or at least use .Net version: .Net Core 5.0

One more thing is the Title "Asp.Net 5 is Dead". Maybe the author wanted to catch eyeballs. Yes, he did it. !!!!But together with my fear and nervous.!!!! He can title as - Asp.Net 5 is "Dead" or Rebirth of Asp.Net 5.
Does this presage? Let's pray.
January 26, 2016 18:42
Reading between the lines everybody should be making plans to move to Core 1.0 at some point if they can. The .NET FW 4.6 is 15 years old, it make no sense for Microsoft to keep investing in such an old framework, especially since the Core FW will eventually be close to feature parity. The .NET FW will go the way of Webforms.
January 26, 2016 19:47
The volume of comments suggest that even more thought is needed around the name. Dead simple!

If needed, be bold to drop the decade old name, "Active Server Page", that is a misfit for a technology "completely written from scratch".
January 26, 2016 19:58
I concur with the others who wish to can the "ASP".

ASP.NET Core 1.0 should be something like: Web.NET 1.0
Then, .NET Core 1.0 can remain as is. Retaining "ASP" in the name is the confusing part.
January 26, 2016 20:05

I just submitted a suggestion to the ASP.NET vNext User Voice to "Fix The Name - Remove ASP(Active Server Pages)

Vote here if you agree.
January 26, 2016 21:00
How Microsoft plan to support both in parallel?
It is the end for me. Moving to other technologies from now on after 23 years developing with microsoft products for microsoft platforms.
Microsoft going full retard again (win10?, Vs 2015, ...), in less than a spin around the sun.
January 26, 2016 21:03
BTW Scott. I would expect that your site/blog would accept UTF in email address and not throw that error message almost:
An error has been encountered while processing the page. We have logged the error condition and are working to correct the problem. We apologize for any inconvenience.
January 26, 2016 21:06
January 26, 2016 23:17
Hi Scott, thanks for clearing this? One question: Will there be a UI layer in the future for .Net Core? (like WPF or ...)
January 27, 2016 0:04
Hi Scott, I've always wondered why ".NET" packages seem to be related to things that aren't .NET, and certainly not ASP. Like third party software that adds a ".NET" packages to my installed Programs List.

I've always felt they should of called those something else, perhaps even something meaningful like "Common redistributable library for ___"

Do you think this will be a trend away from the strange lump sum ".NET" naming of distro libs?
January 27, 2016 0:19
Reading all that M$ stuff shows how big mess .NET is and how M$ is confusing people and linux community is happy to be away from this. This is sooo funny to see you guys arguing about meaningful nothing while our Android/Linux machines dominate the world! Play with your names guys we build Linux empire in between when you confuse rest of the M$ folks
January 27, 2016 1:29
.NET Core == The new Silverlight. How long before they drop it?
January 27, 2016 2:46
Will ASP.NET 4.6 ever progress to 5 (or higher) or is it envisaged that Core will supersede 4.xx before a 5 version is needed?
January 27, 2016 23:24
Apparently the hardest of computer science problems is figuring out Skylake power management in Surface Pro 4...

Not that it's on topic but now I don't have a reliable machine to test .NET Core on :(
January 28, 2016 2:54
@Marcus - You mean like being able to build apps for Mac's that have a UI?

Sounds like WPF Everywhere, aka Silverlight...
January 28, 2016 3:31
@Fallon - Well Silverlight was a Browser Plugin... I would like to see .Net Apps with real (native) UI on every Platform - like it was the idea from the beginning of .Net (at least I thought this in 2002). Mono / Xamarin is going a good way.

And - what's the point of building Apps without a cool UI?
January 28, 2016 13:35
Great!! Starting of brand new morning.
January 28, 2016 19:11
Even though I've been following all new developments and understood what everything was..

For some reason this post has made it possible to think about it in a simplistic way that doesn't need me to exercise my grey matter.

Well done on this decision! (even if I'm a bit saddened that it wasn't called "Magic Unicorn Version").
January 28, 2016 20:33
Where are those cool Silverlight creators. Please Make me JavaScript.Net framework with typescript and Linq and mvvm and I'll be the happiest guy out there.
January 29, 2016 5:43
only upon the introduction of a unikernal for dot-net core will we have parity for virtualizing the application tier.

JVM (java virtual machine)
CLR (comman language runtime)

the OS is a commodity.. businesses only care about the application...

Azure / Azure Services - should provide a unikernal for the dotnet core...

Bring about change, don't settle...
January 29, 2016 10:54
Insane, absolutely insane, creating and trying to build a "ASP.Net 5 Template" application because that is what is says in VS 2015 is a nightmare and now I am hitting proxy server issues using Visual Studio for the first time in like EVER, congratulations Microsoft are you actually trying to push people away from Visual Studio and .Net because if so you are doing a REALLY good job!
January 30, 2016 0:06
"However, this is the best news you could have delivered for stopping the leaking of developers to other frameworks."

- This attitude is the most Microsoft thing ever, or maybe it harkens back to the legacy pre-open source Microsoft to be fair

"It isn't the product, it was the marketing that was wrong"
"People aren't leaving our dev ecosystem because of what we are or have built, but because we name things wrong"

If people are leaving your product or tools, then you aren't building what they want, not that they 'don't get it'.

The only thing I lament about the name change is that googling is going to be a pita now.

Keep up the good work Scott
January 30, 2016 0:23
If that poster was being sarcastic, I am sorry.
January 30, 2016 2:29
Personally, I think it's a step in the right direction. No, not saying it's perfect, but I can't see why anyone would say ASP.NET Core 1.0 is the new Silverlight... Seriously, they are just RENAMING it.
I would have preferred vNext; just "vNext". But hey, it's more Google friendly than ASP.NET 5, which would constantly give you MVC 5 stuff. Keep up the good work, I'll switch to Core 1.0 as soon as SignalR is fully supported.
January 31, 2016 4:32
What about MVC 6 it's still MVC 6 or will be rebranded to MVC core 1.0?
February 01, 2016 2:10
I like the new framework much better than previous ones and renaming is a good idea. BUT if you HAD to rename it why are we still using ASP ? It is not even remotely similar to Active Server Pages.

I would have liked to see a totally different name.
February 01, 2016 5:16
Really? Another name/version change?
I personally think that MS should employ someone from ex borland management, just to remind them how not to run company and how NOT to ruin best product in the current market...
February 01, 2016 21:31
It was all making sense to me, except according to the graphic ASP.NET Core 1.0 can sit on top .NET Core 1.0 AND on top .NET Framework 4.6.

1. What is the relationship between ASP.NET Core 1.0 and .NET Framework 4.6?

2. Is MVC 6 now MVC Core?

3. Is MVC 6 > MVC 5?
February 02, 2016 0:01
What's the strange naming... I always felt in love with DNX (di-en-ex) and thought about it as about future name of "ASP.NET 5". "ASP.NET Core" is really disappointing.
Just think a bit about tons of educational materials about core of .NET (yes, .NET Core) and about core of ASP.NET (you are right, ASP.NET Core).
This naming is awful and totally unreasoned. Sad.
February 03, 2016 1:27
Hi Scott,

When you say "doesn't yet have SignalR", do you mean it doesn't support SignalR yet or it is just not included in the project by default? Thanks!
February 03, 2016 2:48
Great, makes sense now.
February 03, 2016 8:53
I guess Microsoft should rename it completely like: O.Net 1.0 (O-Open Source)
February 03, 2016 21:24
@Marcus - Let me add a few more facts to your response, and help you and others that likely never used Silverlight!

1. Silverlight wasn't only a browser plugin, it ran out of browser as a desktop app on Mac & Windows!
2. Silverlight is the reason we're talking cross platform .Net in the first place
3. The XAML team from Silverlight had a big influence on where WinRT Xaml went!

So if we had a desktop cross platform capability, dumping it was a bit odd in light of the fact that people like you are looking for that EXACT thing, and apparently not knowing that it already existed with the full power of XAML!

Short answer, dumping Silverlight was dumb, evolving it would have been smarter. but it is what it is!
February 03, 2016 21:35
Bottom line on naming: You only get one chance to make a first impression!

MS really should have asked the community about this before making a final decision, simply because if the change it again, the pain would be even worse, so now it's set in stone.

There is rarely a perfect name, so the angst over this is likely wasted energy, there are bigger fish to fry! The real questions are,

1. What can we do with this new platform
2. When will it be ready, because it's really raw right now
3. Can/Will MS support 4.x & Core both in parallel, and this is a BIG question
4. When will there be Apps for any MS Device, Phone/Tablet/Laptop/Desktop/IoT

Business decisions need to be made! The failings of the past has allowed a lot more choices to emerge, and developers may be forced to make decisions we don't like, but that have to be made.

I'm rooting for MS to get this right!
February 04, 2016 11:35
Scott! Remember that .NET is in the bad state in free lancing community. almost dead. The only way we could revive is to provide something working soon. All the documents are "under progress" All things are with promises. No tangible work done yet. No good guide for how we can make production ready or high end apps using dotnet core.

We are holding for you guys. otherwise its easy to move on.

counting on you.

February 04, 2016 15:37
Great news, MS has been stepping into Shared code.
Core: Libraries are designed for shared access like we can run over Linux, Max, of course windows too.
ASP.Net 4.6 added some new cool feature's.
February 06, 2016 6:45
The new naming convention makes a lot of sense and avoids any further confusion!
Better to have a new name for new technology built from ground up.
February 08, 2016 3:33
Will Microsoft in turn change the ASP.NET framwork for its enterprise products like SharePoint and Dynamics CRM?
February 08, 2016 10:47
Re-post from here:

Naming is hard. But did you consider just .NET Core and .NET Web? I'm young enough that I don't actually know exactly what an Active Server Page is, and I'm pretty sure it's not relevant for modern development. Are the "ASP" brand and near-term SEO so valuable, that the re-alignment couldn't have been simpler? Seems like the SEO should work itself out over time...though, cache invalidation is hard, too...
February 08, 2016 16:22
It's a great news.

Maybe you notice that without Visual Basic and webform just a few of new projects will start with this new framework.

In the mean time a lot of old programmer will be angry and will start to plan to migrate to other technologies where companies do not abandon a language like Visual Basic in just few months.

Dear Microsoft, think about your programmers ! We tolerate to pay license for the server and the database, but we can switch if you kill our language and technology.
February 08, 2016 16:22
It's a great news.

Maybe you notice that without Visual Basic and webform just a few of new projects will start with this new framework.

In the mean time a lot of old programmer will be angry and will start to plan to migrate to other technologies where companies do not abandon a language like Visual Basic in just few months.

Dear Microsoft, think about your programmers ! We tolerate to pay license for the server and the database, but we can switch if you kill our language and technology.
February 09, 2016 13:10
NO NO NO, "Core" is not a good name, it just means something essential, something basic, nothing special. Why not "vNext"?? Assume some years laters you would call it Asp.Net Core 6.0 ??? Microsoft, please!
February 10, 2016 9:09
Hi Scott,
It is also time to migrate to the latest version of ASP.NET Core 1.0 with WebApi/Angular and what ever is the latest as against non-seo friendly!
February 10, 2016 13:41 core 1.0 is not good for google search result, and the new name " core" is too long and not cool enough to attract new programmers for .net technologies.

There ars some new cool names suggestion for core:

1 nxt (pronounce next, meaning .net vNext, and good for seach engine)
2 (meaning .net cross platform)
3 alice (cool name and Alice means the next programming platform in Azure)

Please vote for the new cool names:
February 10, 2016 16:07
Hi Scott,

So what's the future roadmap for both products?

After ASP.NET 4.6 will we get ASP.NET 5.x, ASP.NET 6.x etc.
While ASP.NET Core 2.0, ASP.NET Core 3.0 etc. will follow ASP.NET Core 1.0 in parallel?
February 10, 2016 19:29
A month later, the official ASP.NET website still uses the old name...
February 10, 2016 23:32
hi Scott,

I would like to know if you are implementing ADO.NET (DataSet, DataView, DataReader, etc) some day in Core 1.0. We have data layers for SQL, Oracle, etc. that rely on those objects.

February 11, 2016 16:10
I also stumbled upon the html source site when reading about IoT, still uses traditional webforms - with heavy "__VIEWSTATE" value="/wEPDwUKMTY5NzgwMjIzMg9kFg...." almost 300 KB+ - - Time to migrate this site as well to mvc or orchard cms!
February 12, 2016 14:59

Can you please give us a reference where we can see complete list of missing features of Dotnet Core as compared to Dotnet Framework?

February 12, 2016 23:44
This is really exciting stuff. Thanks for the update, Scott.

@Deavon M. McCaffery Web Core would mean it will only ever apply to Web. .NET Core will include non-web features. If they decided to create a .NET Win Core then they would have to run separate release cycles and may not be able to share code. Then you need a .NET Core, .NET Web Core, and .NET Win Core, and now you've got all sorts of fragmentation.
February 14, 2016 4:28
Cant wait till Linux + NET.Core becomes mainstream.
We actually use only very BCL in our project and have been running our stuff on Mono,
for a number of years, however Mono did have some problems with GC performance and stability
February 14, 2016 10:58
The Most important thing is make Android/iOS Development support, Please make .Net Core for them ASAP.
MS's Windows Phone is losting market share, if fails on mobile operating system, MS will be a marginal Company after 10 years, While there's a chance (probably the last one) that build a cross-platform framework supports all Desktop/Server/Mobile(WinPhone/Android/iOS) operating systems to save MS.
February 16, 2016 6:18
@Aaron H, it already is...
February 17, 2016 16:54
@Bob Yep, Xamarin....but you have to pay for it and in case you want to develop for iOS you need an additional license (pay again) and an iOS installed.

They will never learn...

February 17, 2016 22:33
Great post as usual Scott. I'm a seasoned .NET developer and have to say, I'm not impressed with the direction Core has taken. Every iteration of ASP.NET has been fairly straight forward and easy to follow from version to version. I created a new project (as a test) in 2015 and was lost from the moment I saw all the new folders, files, and configuration, to the project itself not working. I understand this is not the final product, but if Microsoft is going to release RC's and install them by the default when you install 2015, they should at least work.
February 19, 2016 0:58
So essentially, you are just refactoring the .Net framework (including the name).

I'm still trying to figure out what new stuff this new branch of .net will have that I can't already do (and that I need). Yawn.

Wake me up in 2-5 years when this garbage has gone the route of Microsoft DNA, Active X, DCOM, .Net Remoting, etc... and been deprecated. ASP.Net 5.0 or Core 1.0 or whatever is a solution chasing a problem that doesn't exist.

I'll stick with .Net 4.5. Tested. Tons of documentation. Tons of samples. Massive third party tool support. Works.

February 19, 2016 2:30
I find it ironic that Microsoft has kept the "ASP.NET" in the new name "ASP.NET Core 1.0". Prior to that, Microsoft called their MVC product "ASP.NET MVC". I have thought about this quite a bit and have some thoughts on the subject.

In the beginning, Microsoft created classic ASP and it was (compared to the other technologies of the time) good. It was also immensely popular. Instead of old CGI applications, web development became easy.

Over the course of a few years, however, the spaghetti-code nature of classic ASP proved difficult to scale. Microsoft realized this and took their tremendously successful Visual Basic windows development paradigm and extended it to the web with ASP.Net. This solved many of the spaghetti code issues of by separating the presentation (HTML) from code (Codebehind). Did junior developers still put application code in form events? Yes. Did experienced developers use this to separate their UI from their application logic? Yes.

This happy state of affairs started 14 years ago and continues to this day for those who develop using web forms. The platform matured, robust 3rd party tool development took place, and there was much rejoicing.

Alas, during this time, the religious purists noted that some inexperienced programmers put business logic in their codebehind. This was an affront against the separation of concerns which could not be permitted to stand. Over the course of years, they created the Microsoft version of MVC. No more would programmers put any business logic in their presentation tier (unless it is embedded in the Razor pages making them look suspiciously like classic ASP spaghetti).

Now, if the purists simply referred to MVC as Microsoft MVC, they knew it wouldn't be adopted. They knew history, and saw the fate of Microsoft DNA, DCOM, Active X, .Net Remoting, etc...all technologies that were the "new way of doing things" that eventually were discarded as failed experiments. How to avoid this fate for MVC if it didn't prove to be popular?

The easy solution is to tag it to probably their most popular development product (ASP.Net) and call it Microsoft ASP.Net MVC. By blurring the lines, they would increase adoption and funnel people into this technology whether they like it or not. Developers would think "if I don't go this route, I'll get left behind." At the same time, they would kill the evil web forms and the unclean codebehind. A two-for-one.

A funny thing happened, though. People didn't abandon web forms as the purists intended. The technology split people into two camps. The MVC camp and the webforms camp. The reason for this twofold. The first reason is that for most projects in a business environment, the people paying the bills don't care what the technology is so long as it works and is stable. Like it or not, web forms are mature and tested. The second reason is that the MVC architecture requires a learning curve for limited benefit (other than pleasing the purists).

Here's where it gets really funny. Now we are moving to the new version of ASP.Net. It is not only the "next new thing," but it is a "complete rewrite from the ground up." They are pushing this even to the point of calling it Core 1.0. However, like the push to MVC they realize that many developers would prefer to work on a mature and tested platform unless the new platform provides significant advantages (like classic ASP provided over CGI or ASP.Net provided over classic ASP).

Whatever shall we do? Of course! The new name is not Microsoft Core 1.0. It is Microsoft ASP.Net Core 1.0. Tag the .Net name to it because, let's face it, developers like .Net. But at the same time, let's strip it to the bone (and still not get it done on time). Let's rip out web forms, VB.Net, etc...Wrap it in the ASP.Net wrapper and maybe we will fool those gullible developers again.

Come on, Microsoft....Just call it ASP.Net for web forms development and Microsoft MVC for MVC development. Good developers will have skills in both, but not be forced into either.

I'm glad that they are completely branching things even though they are keeping the misleading ASP.Net name. My prediction is that this branch will grow and end at the same dead-end as Active X, Microsoft DNA, etc.. in about 3-5 years. Some variation of web forms will be brought back and touted as a new feature...and the wheel continues to turn.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've been doing this a long time. Time will tell.
February 20, 2016 1:04
I think the renaming and the direction for .NET Core is a good thing. The .NET Framework has always been in the shadow of Java that runs on multiple platforms without needing a 3rd party library like Mono or Xamarin. The native compilation aspect on other platforms is also cool. What Microsoft needs on this one is follow through. Keep pressing on until .NET Core has so many compelling reasons to migrate for developers and businesses that no-one considers the full .NET Framework any longer. Personally I would like to see:

I want the power of my desktop computer in my pocket.

Plugging in any Android, iPhone, Windows Phone to a Microsoft Continuum for a Monitor or TV.

Running all my applications on any device, with my applications synced up to all my devices.

Using Visual Code on any device and publishing to Azure, NuGet, Chocolatey, any app store.

I think it is a New Microsoft
February 20, 2016 10:49
@Paul Thiel Good post. I feel the same way. I'm not optimistic about Microsoft bringing Web Forms back though. Personally, I don't know why it has to be one way or the other. JavaServer Faces has UI components like Web Forms and uses MVC. Lack of UI components in MVC is a fail in my book. I'm using Telerik's UI controls and don't really see a compelling reason to switch to MVC, or even Linux for that matter. I'm able to work productively using Web Forms and build apps quickly and reliably. It suites my needs better than MVC does. I guess I'm just uncool. I'm amazed there is someone else out there who still likes Web Forms. I thought everyone died and I was the only one left.
February 22, 2016 15:05
Was also going to suggest Web.Net and I see it already came up in these comments.

Like others, I think the ASP name should long be buried and forgotten since it no longer validly describes what the new "Thing.NET Core" will offer. Why not take the name change opportunity and go all the way?
February 22, 2016 18:59

I agree, they won't bring back web forms as they are today. They've spent too much time and energy demonizing it, and would need to save face.

That being said, I could see them creating a lightweight framework that brings back the intuitive development that MVC takes away. I've done projects in MVC, and I don't think you can argue with a straight face that models, views, and controllers with the assumptions that go along with them is more intuitive than a web page with code behind.

Like everything else, there is a bell curve with developers, and it's possible to write great code in any language, and possible to write garbage too. The more you complicate the fundamentals, the more likely you will have trash in the end.

You and I might be "uncool," but if we construct solutions rather than theoretically pure technical towers, we will make more money in the end :)
February 24, 2016 3:49
should be named XNet or UNet, that means Cross-platform .net, or Universal .net.
I agree .net core is not search engine friendly.
February 24, 2016 15:41
If I have a project build with core so would there be any change in future release as naming seems to be changing and there might change in namespace as well?

We already have go live.

So how would you manage these?
March 01, 2016 4:01
Too many changes too fast. Is OData supported. And what about webforms. Why would you remove webforms, also global.asax and App_Data. All this just to support OSS and the cloud. I don't feel confident moving forward with Visual studio. I think I will drop VS and use more tried and tested cross-platform dev tools with C++.
March 01, 2016 4:07
15 years ago I was writing code in C++ and Delphi. Changed to ASP, ATL/MFC. Then .NET came along and I drop all that work on ATL/COM. So worked with C# ASP.NET webforms, MVC and Web API of late. Now you want merge everything into MVC and change the VS project templates totally. Enough is enough!!! There are better cross-platorm tools and frameworks for building all kinds of apps for devices and the web than this latest version of Visual studio and .NET Core 1.0. Good bye MS.
March 02, 2016 22:17
You could have changed the name to something new, the same way as IE was abandoned in favour of Edge. With ASP.NET CORE it'll be a massive confusion as google will mix and core results....
March 03, 2016 7:40
The Best Game... MU Angels SS8.3 Free RESET, Open today

I do not know this post violates or not, but if it violets, I would like to have admin and mods
deteted them for me, please do not ban my account, I highly appreciate it.

Assert the level of gamers. Worthy hero!

EXP: 999
The rate of drop items:: 10%
Antihack: New

Premier version

- Easy auto play, Easy Auto AFK

- Reaffirming that this is the reputable, lasting and stable
online playground.

- The classes in game are equal.

- No lag in sever, especially using anti-hack which is proprietary hack fix.

- Strictly management for gamers hack, violence, breaking sever

- Taking place so many large and small events:



•MU FREE 100%, Rare items, UPDATE WING EX SS8 – “Castle
Siege” EVERY WEEKS. Long time in playing also awarded credits, each
reset is also offered credits. Inheriting and promoting what's already MUSS2 have, along with changing the process
to be suitable for the needs and aspirations of the gamers, after the
long time we have an upgrade MUSS2 Up to MUSS8. 3.

It brought up the mu online in general, mu season 8.3 in particular a
completely new version, which was promising to give an premier playground for those who loves MU Online.

In order to create a fairest and healthy playground, today
Mu Angels launched the MUAngels server, which opened the series of attractive events, continuous top racing
event ... With an admin system who support member with all their heart, giving free intermediate, many events organized by the GM in the game for
you, so many gifts, jade rabbit army, ... and many other novelty
events, especially you can pick up value items that you can not train every day at these events.

We are pleased to launch the server MU Angels
- Please hurry to participate version at now for a chance to
get incentives.

1. Anti-Hack system completely new

2. Especially: Server with no Webshop - Item Excellent Full.

- The sale of the item full, EXL on the webshop are losing the excitement of gamers participating
in any online game as well as losing the balance in the game.

- Furthermore, it will make gamers boring quickly because the finding of a vip suit is too simple.

- Coming to MU Season 8.3 special edition, you will always feel the true value of the game.
All the items you earn in the game are very valuable.

- Webshop will only sell items such as Jade Spirituality, Chaos, Creative ....

- Do not sell the wishing jewel and feathers and fish having rolated wings.

3. Cashop system is new and unique:

For MU Season 8.3, you will enjoy the new item and the item box system is optimal expanded

4. Conditions for Resets Table:

- Function Reset: Applying function Reset by material finded in game help
is always valuable.

- You will have the experience again with the feeling of
joy and thrill at the sound of jade drops.

- In addition, we also fully support the other functions to help
you have more choices in the game.

5. Stable Server. Online 24/24:

- With high-speed line and only 1 sub (can be increased) 24/24 stable operation, you can
completely assured when participating in MU Season 8.3

- Moreover, Season 8 version is lightweight (approximately 100MB for
the no sound version) so it will be compatible
with all operating systems and runs smoothly even on machines with low-profile computer.

6. So many attractive events:

+ Racing TOP 48h + Racing TOP 7 days + Racing as weekly TOP + Racing as monthly TOP + Racing TOP Class + Racing TOP Guild

+Racing TOP rolated items + Event Duel Version + Hunting boss event + Hunting assassin + “Castle Siege” every 8PM on Sunday.

Generalizing Server

Inheriting and promoting what's already MUSS8.3 have, along with changing the process to be suitable for the needs and aspirations of the gamers, once again MUSS8.3
give mu online in general, mu season 8.3 in particular a completely new version, which was promising to give an premier playground for those
who loves MU Online.

In particular, you will be taking an attractive, special and completely new MU Online, an whole – hearted admin system, the customer care support
system 24/7 ensures high benefits for gamers, good security antihack help stabilize the game, and a special experience of
Server game in version Season 8.3 Unique – a hottest version on MU Online market.

7. The new version of website system:

By using interface management web version, which is
completely new and has many attractive new features
such as: Training, Parallel training, Account Protection by IP, Point Master Reset, Online currency transfers, Complete new ranking which
is more adequate ... and so many attractive events programmed.

8. Event Time
- Event Arca Battle
Time 0h, 2h, 4h, 6h, 8h, 12h, 14h, 16h

- Event Blood Castle
Time 0h25, 2h25, 4h25, 6h25, 8h25, 10h25, 12h25, 14h25, 16h25, 18h25, 20h25, 22h25

- Event Castle Deep Event
Time 4h, 12h, 20h25

-Event ChaosCastle
Time 0h15, 1h55, 3h55, 5h55, 7h55, 9h55, 11h55, 13h55, 15h55, 17h55, 19h55, 21h55

- Event Devil Square
Time 1h, 3h, 5h, 7h , 9h, 11h, 13h, 15h, 17h, 19h,
21h, 23h

- Event IllusionTemple
Time 1h, 5h, 9h, 13h, 17h, 21h

- Event Lunar Rabbit
continuity 24h on tow map lorencia and kantru 3

mu season 8 private server

mu online season 10

mu online agartha

mu online season 8

mu online season 9

mu online season 9 private server

muangels free download

Event Continuum - the most attractive
Mu Open today
, ​
MU New Opening
, ​
Mu Coming soon
, ​
Mu Free
, ​
Mu ResetFree
, ​
Mu Open
, ​
Mu Open Beta
, ​
Mu New Opening 2016
, ​
Mu Open month 1 2 3 4 5 6
March 14, 2016 21:59
Hi Scott,
Is it possible to run classic ASP (the legacy .asp) pages under the newest version of 5 (or core 1.0)? Do we need a middleware for that to be handled, or will it run by default if the page is under wwwroot folder?

March 28, 2016 11:01
Good articles best of luck.
April 08, 2016 23:56
Thanks this is helpful. Just one comment:

".NET Core 5 is now .NET Core 1.0."
Should it say:
.NET Framework 5 is now .NET Core 1.0
April 12, 2016 15:24
This is good news! I think you may also have to explain the DNX of the .NET Core...
April 13, 2016 21:17
Bring it on MicroSoft! I am still standing strong to tolerate few changes. Thanks Hansel.
April 15, 2016 1:08
Then how come Visual Studio vNext Preview installs ".NET Core SDK 5.0" instead of ".NET Core SDK 1.0"? See

Comments are closed.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in any way.