Do I need all version of .NET Framework?

[Michael T.]

Environment: WinXP SP2

When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
programs:

Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1

It is my understanding that .NET Framework manages the execution of programs
written specifically for the framework. I also noticed version 1.1 is one of
the Administration Tools for the Control Panel.

But this doesn't answer my question.

Can any of these be deleted? I am not using my computer to develop software.

Versions 2.0 and 3.0 use over 185 MB.

 

[Jerry]

It's not that you're not using the computer to develop software; it's are
you running software on your computer developed with .NET Framework?

It's similar to having to have the Visaul Basic runtimes when running VB
created programs.

"Michael T." <anonymous@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eFX8j.5247$db7.5091@newsfe12.phx...
> Environment: WinXP SP2
>
> When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
> programs:
>
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1
>
> It is my understanding that .NET Framework manages the execution of
> programs written specifically for the framework. I also noticed version
> 1.1 is one of the Administration Tools for the Control Panel.
>
> But this doesn't answer my question.
>
> Can any of these be deleted? I am not using my computer to develop
> software.
>
> Versions 2.0 and 3.0 use over 185 MB.
>
>

 

[Michael T.]

"Jerry" <ChiefZekeNoSpam@MSN.com> wrote:
> It's not that you're not using the computer to develop software; it's are
> you running software on your computer developed with .NET Framework?
>
> It's similar to having to have the Visual Basic runtimes when running VB
> created programs.
>

This makes sense. Although when I used to develop Visual C++ applications,
the installer would install most (if not all) of the runtime files (e.g.
DLLs) that were needed.

So are these two assumptions correct:
1) Not all (or perhaps not any) programs using the framework install the
necessary runtime files when they are installed.
2) I need all three versions of .NET Framework - 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snip>

Michael T. wrote:
> This makes sense. Although when I used to develop Visual C++
> applications, the installer would install most (if not all) of the
> runtime files (e.g. DLLs) that were needed.
>
> So are these two assumptions correct:
> 1) Not all (or perhaps not any) programs using the framework
> install the necessary runtime files when they are installed.
> 2) I need all three versions of .NET Framework - 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0.

4 versions.

1) You cannot assume anything about any of the many many applications that
could be written to utilize any version of the .NET Framework and no one can
give you a comprehensive list of every program written that would need any
one of the 4 released versions of the .NET Framework - nor has any release
completely replaced (or can be substituted for) any prior release (in other
words - to be sure you have what you need for any given random application -
you may need all 4 at this point.)

2) 4 versions - and *need* is not something anyone can tell you - as we do
not know what you run now nor what you might run in the future or what those
who wrote said applications will require already be installed on your
system.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[TaurArian]

Benefits of the Microsoft .NET Framework
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/829019

--
====================================
TaurArian [MVP] 2005-2008 - Australia
====================================
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
http://taurarian.mvps.org/index.htm
Emails will not be acknowledged - please post to the newsgroup so all may benefit.


"Michael T." <anonymous@cox.net> wrote in message news:eFX8j.5247$db7.5091@newsfe12.phx...
| Environment: WinXP SP2
|
| When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
| programs:
|
| Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
| Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
| Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
| Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1
|
| It is my understanding that .NET Framework manages the execution of programs
| written specifically for the framework. I also noticed version 1.1 is one of
| the Administration Tools for the Control Panel.
|
| But this doesn't answer my question.
|
| Can any of these be deleted? I am not using my computer to develop software.
|
| Versions 2.0 and 3.0 use over 185 MB.
|
|

 

[Admiral Q]

"Michael T." <anonymous@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eFX8j.5247$db7.5091@newsfe12.phx...
> Environment: WinXP SP2
>
> When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
> programs:
>
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1
>
> It is my understanding that .NET Framework manages the execution of
> programs written specifically for the framework. I also noticed version
> 1.1 is one of the Administration Tools for the Control Panel.
>
> But this doesn't answer my question.
>
> Can any of these be deleted? I am not using my computer to develop
> software.
>
> Versions 2.0 and 3.0 use over 185 MB.
>
>

Hey you're missing the newest version 3.5

--
---
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
"Google is your Friend"
http://www.google.com

 

[Universe_JDJ]

Admiral Q wrote:
> "Michael T." <anonymous@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:eFX8j.5247$db7.5091@newsfe12.phx...
>> Environment: WinXP SP2
>>
>> When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
>> programs:
>>
>> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
>> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
>> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
>> Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1
>>
>> It is my understanding that .NET Framework manages the execution of
>> programs written specifically for the framework. I also noticed version
>> 1.1 is one of the Administration Tools for the Control Panel.
>>
>> But this doesn't answer my question.
>>
>> Can any of these be deleted? I am not using my computer to develop
>> software.
>>
>> Versions 2.0 and 3.0 use over 185 MB.
>>
>>
>
> Hey you're missing the newest version 3.5
>

What about 1.0 as well?

 

[Michael T.]

"Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote:
> Admiral Q wrote:
>> "Michael T." <anonymous@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> Environment: WinXP SP2
>>>
>>> When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
>>> programs:
>>>
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1
>>>
>>
>> Hey you're missing the newest version 3.5
>>
>
> What about 1.0 as well?

Versions 1.0 and 3.5 did not appear in Windows Updates after a clean install
of Windows XP SP2 (last year).

Or, if I uninstall all versions of .NET Framework (3.0 first) then the same
thing happens. Namely, when I then run Windows Update the only versions that
appear are 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0.

It seems one can reasonably infer that any programs requiring version 1.0
will run in 1.1. In fact, a Google search found someone who stated this is
the case. Of course this hearsay doesn't make it right.

But it certainly seems to be the case. Especially since I have been running
over a year without any framework-related problems.

Caveat: Your mileage may vary. For example, Windows Update may be smart
enough to detect the presence of applications that require version 1.0 or
3.5.

 

[VanguardLH]

"Michael T." wrote in message news:eFX8j.5247$db7.5091@newsfe12.phx...
>
> When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
> programs:
>
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
> Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1


These runtimes are not cumulative; i.e., a later version does not
encompass everything in a prior version. Since you don't know what
version was used by a developer, install them all. While you don't
develop code, you do run programs that others have written. You don't
need the SDK (software development kit) but you do need the runtimes
to execute those programs.

When developers write code, they use the functions available in
whatever version of the SDK that they are writing against. For some
runtimes, they are cumulative so the same functions are available in a
later version. That's not true of .Net Framework. By having multiple
versions installed and available, the DLL Hell is avoided because the
function called for the specific version will be there and work the
way expected.

Personally I'd like to have backward compatibility in later versions
so that only the latest runtime is required by me to run a program
written by someone else. The problem is not knowing when you no
longer have programs that require some ancient version of the runtime.
We could end up with dozens of versions of .NET over the next decade.

 

[pjp]

"VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:e4SIvN8PIHA.5140@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Michael T." wrote in message news:eFX8j.5247$db7.5091@newsfe12.phx...
> >
> > When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following unfamiliar
> > programs:
> >
> > Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
> > Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
> > Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
> > Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1
>
>
> These runtimes are not cumulative; i.e., a later version does not
> encompass everything in a prior version. Since you don't know what
> version was used by a developer, install them all. While you don't
> develop code, you do run programs that others have written. You don't
> need the SDK (software development kit) but you do need the runtimes
> to execute those programs.
>
> When developers write code, they use the functions available in
> whatever version of the SDK that they are writing against. For some
> runtimes, they are cumulative so the same functions are available in a
> later version. That's not true of .Net Framework. By having multiple
> versions installed and available, the DLL Hell is avoided because the
> function called for the specific version will be there and work the
> way expected.
>
> Personally I'd like to have backward compatibility in later versions
> so that only the latest runtime is required by me to run a program
> written by someone else. The problem is not knowing when you no
> longer have programs that require some ancient version of the runtime.
> We could end up with dozens of versions of .NET over the next decade.
>

And personally I'd like to see every app "come with" all the files it needs
to run properly, including a self-contained installation procedure. I HATE
runtime requirement, especially when for many apps it's only required
because of the way the app was compiled and linked.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

pjp wrote:
> And personally I'd like to see every app "come with" all the files
> it needs to run properly, including a self-contained installation
> procedure. I HATE runtime requirement, especially when for many
> apps it's only required because of the way the app was compiled and
> linked.

That would kill the point of the .NET Frameworks in one mannner - as they
were provided to give a base so that those writing programs could write
smaller code and distribute 'leaner' applications (with the requirement that
they run on Windows with the .NET Framework...)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:17:36 -0600, "Shenan Stanley"
<newshelper@gmail.com> wrote:

> pjp wrote:
> > And personally I'd like to see every app "come with" all the files
> > it needs to run properly, including a self-contained installation
> > procedure. I HATE runtime requirement, especially when for many
> > apps it's only required because of the way the app was compiled and
> > linked.
>
> That would kill the point of the .NET Frameworks in one mannner - as they
> were provided to give a base so that those writing programs could write
> smaller code and distribute 'leaner' applications (with the requirement that
> they run on Windows with the .NET Framework...)


Why? Why couldn't programs be distributed with the .net framework
files and an installation routine that looked for them and installed
them only if they weren't already there?

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Shenan wrote:
> That would kill the point of the .NET Frameworks in one mannner -
> as they were provided to give a base so that those writing
> programs could write smaller code and distribute 'leaner'
> applications (with the requirement that they run on Windows with
> the .NET Framework...)

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> Why? Why couldn't programs be distributed with the .net framework
> files and an installation routine that looked for them and installed
> them only if they weren't already there?

You have done exactly the opposite of the intention - as I stated it. My
statement focused on the 'leanness' of the code - smaller size.

If you distribute the .NET Framewwork components needed with your
application and install it only if necessary - then you have increased the
size of your distribution - which was opposed to my point - of making the
distribution software package as small as possible.

Although it is becoming a moot point with more and more people having
high-speed internet - some of the purpose of having the code needed
available (built in) to the OS already is so that the programmers could
distribute smaller code-base for their applications. a 300K download rather
than 3MB.

Admittedly - it does not much matter anymore - in my opinion - and the .NET
framework has become more of a pain than anything else. Code written for
1.1 won't work in some cases if you have 2.0/3.0/3.5 installed but not
1.1... Etc. I think the .NET Framework idea lost some of its purpose with
each release that came out that pretty much ignored the release before it.

I agree that it would be better for the end-user - especially now that more
people have methods of getting larger files - for the coders to include
everything necessary to run a program *with the program* and only install
what was necessary (if the person already has it - don't overwrite it.)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[pjp]

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:v3uam35f7h82j6facu7dmad9hinp1tgu3b@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:17:36 -0600, "Shenan Stanley"
> <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > pjp wrote:
> > > And personally I'd like to see every app "come with" all the files
> > > it needs to run properly, including a self-contained installation
> > > procedure. I HATE runtime requirement, especially when for many
> > > apps it's only required because of the way the app was compiled and
> > > linked.
> >
> > That would kill the point of the .NET Frameworks in one mannner - as
they
> > were provided to give a base so that those writing programs could write
> > smaller code and distribute 'leaner' applications (with the requirement
that
> > they run on Windows with the .NET Framework...)
>
>
> Why? Why couldn't programs be distributed with the .net framework
> files and an installation routine that looked for them and installed
> them only if they weren't already there?

They could but don't. The whole Windows Install procedure has been screwy
since Windows 3 as far as I'm concerned. Have always felt this way because
basically one is left with no reasonable clue what the hell the install
"just did". As far as I'm concerned every install should make a standard
text file explicitly recording exactly every single "thing" the install did,
e.g. files updated/overwritten/added, registry entries same thing etc. etc.

Just the fact one needs so complicated an installation support (e.g. Windows
Installer and/or InstallShield" tells me just how convoluted the basic
Windows design is in the first place and I for one don't believe it need be
but just is because of MS's propensity to keep so much hidden/secret. B;imy,
just this month alone I've had two apps wouldn't install on my main desktop
pc (XP-Pro-SP2) yet did on my laptop (XP-Home-SP2) and I was forced to
manually copy the install over the network, locate missing dll's etc. and
locate and export various registry entries. Afterwards, the apps ran fine so
problem is all in the install routine which gave no indication at all what
it didn't like.

And btw, if it demands .Net to run I look elsewhere, same with Borland's
runtime environment and also Visual Basic's. All you end up with is a mess
with all that "extra" crap.

Let's also not overlook MS's clear design goal is to have us all having a pc
that just has a stub of software on it. Just enough to allow get online and
download everything else as needed but only for as long as needed, e.g.
charge for every use. Having run-time package(s) facilitates this.

> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[VanguardLH]

"pjp" wrote in message news:ueQIrDAQIHA.6036@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "VanguardLH" wrote ...
>>
>> "Michael T." wrote ...
>>>
>>> When I go to "Add or Remove Programs" I see the following
>>> unfamiliar
>>> programs:
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB928366)
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
>>> Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1
>>
>> These runtimes are not cumulative; i.e., a later version does not
>> encompass everything in a prior version. Since you don't know what
>> version was used by a developer, install them all. While you don't
>> develop code, you do run programs that others have written. You
>> don't
>> need the SDK (software development kit) but you do need the
>> runtimes
>> to execute those programs.
>>
>> When developers write code, they use the functions available in
>> whatever version of the SDK that they are writing against. For
>> some
>> runtimes, they are cumulative so the same functions are available
>> in a
>> later version. That's not true of .Net Framework. By having
>> multiple
>> versions installed and available, the DLL Hell is avoided because
>> the
>> function called for the specific version will be there and work the
>> way expected.
>>
>> Personally I'd like to have backward compatibility in later
>> versions
>> so that only the latest runtime is required by me to run a program
>> written by someone else. The problem is not knowing when you no
>> longer have programs that require some ancient version of the
>> runtime.
>> We could end up with dozens of versions of .NET over the next
>> decade.
>
> And personally I'd like to see every app "come with" all the files
> it needs
> to run properly, including a self-contained installation procedure.
> I HATE
> runtime requirement, especially when for many apps it's only
> required
> because of the way the app was compiled and linked.

That could be done. Makes the executables quite huge, though.
Basically for every application, game, or other software you install,
you would be duplicating the runtime API. That is, unless it only
makes use of system calls to the Win32 API which I don't think any
program rolls up into its executables, DLLs, or other files. Wouldn't
be too long after installing new apps before you would realize your
really big hard drive is getting quickly eaten up. Also, some "apps"
are web-centric in that they are "executed" over the network and,
geez, you'd would need to have a fiber transport between every host to
get that to work if every API called in the program had to be
transferred over the network.

I was arguing that it might help if the .NET versions had rolled up
the prior version to be backward compatible (so you could also get rid
of the prior version) to reduce disk space consumption. You're
arguing for program distros to get bigger and each one to use up more
disk space.