What's wrong with dotNET framework and Windows XP? Every few months, I
get the inevitable message that a dotNET patch is available from Windows
Update, and inevitably it fails to install! The usual solution to this
is to completely uninstall all versions of dotNET, and reinstall it.
I've been down this path, over and over again, so often that I've lost
count. I'm going through it over again right now on an old XP laptop I
keep around for emergencies. It takes hours to do these procedures,
fortunately it's Sunday today. I don't have these problems under Windows 7.

Before, I'd just dutifully reinstall all of the versions of dotNET that
were on the laptop before. But now I'm thinking I'm not going to bother
and only put the most useful versions in. I'm not going to bother with
1.0 and 1.1, as I think there is nothing left that still uses it, that
can't already use 2.0+. I'm thinking of installing only 3.5 SP1, as that
also installs 2.0 and 3.0 automatically. I'm thinking of skipping over
4.0 and 4.5. Are there any Windows-supplied components that need 4.0 or
above?

Yousuf Khan

On 22/07/2012 3:43 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
> There are bound to be some newer apps coming along that will require 4.0 or
> 4.5 as I see it, but if you don't need them now, why bother.

I guess, they will let you know they need those versions when they come
out, and might even offer to install them for you in that case?

> I think you're right on (on what you wrote). (I'd skip all those updates
> for the reasons you've mentioned, but I'm probably alone in this crowd to
> actually state that). :-)
>
> Oh, and I thought NET 4.5 required a newer OS (and not WindowsXP), anyways,
> but I may be misremembering and having a senior moment.

You may be right, I think I only ever had upto 4.0 installed on XP. I
just mentioned 4.5 for completeness in case I find something that needs it.

> One other note - are you sure that there isn't anything on your computer
> that depends on .NET 1.1, and that will still work fine if you skip
> installing it, and just start with 2.0? (I don't know, but someone else
> here might).

If I see an error message from a program that used to work, then I'll
know I still have such old programs. Until then, I think I'll skip the
1.x versions. Here's a blog that seems to indicate that 1.0 and 1.1 is
not really needed in most cases:

Mailbag: Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my
system after installing .NET Framework 3.5 SP1? - Aaron Stebner's WebLog
- Site Home - MSDN Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/arc...0/9557946.aspx

> I'm still thinking about installing .NET 3.5 SP1 too, like you. But I'm not
> going to uninstall what I've already got on here in .NET (1.1 and 2.0).

My Windows 7 laptop only has dotNET Framework 4 Client Profile
installed, and it seems to be working well with everything so far.

Yousuf Khan

Bill in Co wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> What's wrong with dotNET framework and Windows XP? Every few months, I
>> get the inevitable message that a dotNET patch is available from Windows
>> Update, and inevitably it fails to install! The usual solution to this
>> is to completely uninstall all versions of dotNET, and reinstall it.
>> I've been down this path, over and over again, so often that I've lost
>> count. I'm going through it over again right now on an old XP laptop I
>> keep around for emergencies. It takes hours to do these procedures,
>> fortunately it's Sunday today. I don't have these problems under Windows
>> 7.
>>
>> Before, I'd just dutifully reinstall all of the versions of dotNET that
>> were on the laptop before. But now I'm thinking I'm not going to bother
>> and only put the most useful versions in. I'm not going to bother with
>> 1.0 and 1.1, as I think there is nothing left that still uses it, that
>> can't already use 2.0+. I'm thinking of installing only 3.5 SP1, as that
>> also installs 2.0 and 3.0 automatically. I'm thinking of skipping over
>> 4.0 and 4.5. Are there any Windows-supplied components that need 4.0 or
>> above?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> There are bound to be some newer apps coming along that will require 4.0 or
> 4.5 as I see it, but if you don't need them now, why bother.
>
> I think you're right on (on what you wrote). (I'd skip all those updates
> for the reasons you've mentioned, but I'm probably alone in this crowd to
> actually state that). :-)
>
> Oh, and I thought NET 4.5 required a newer OS (and not WindowsXP), anyways,
> but I may be misremembering and having a senior moment.
>
> One other note - are you sure that there isn't anything on your computer
> that depends on .NET 1.1, and that will still work fine if you skip
> installing it, and just start with 2.0? (I don't know, but someone else
> here might).
>
> I'm still thinking about installing .NET 3.5 SP1 too, like you. But I'm not
> going to uninstall what I've already got on here in .NET (1.1 and 2.0).
>
>

..NET 1.0 and 1.1, are considered to be a separate software stream. You
keep them installed, if you know some ancient software is coded to only
use them.

Anything above 2.0 is part of the "layer cake".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...DotNet.svg.png

Mayamaya made a tool for scanning for .NET programs, and telling
you what version they required. Which is one way to determine how
many layers of the cake should be present, if you want those
programs to work.

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/scripts.php5#peops

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/linkpics/dncheck.gif

That concept, of scanning the executable, relies on the CLR
(Common Language Runtime) number stored in the file. It's supposed
to be an indicator of the minimum runtime that the program can use.

There is a so-called complete list of CLR numbers here, but this
level of detail is unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ework_versions

The table here should be adequate for a quick check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

I tried my hand at scanning my own disk here, with my own approach,
but I wasn't happy with the results. I wasn't sure my scanner was
"catching everything". I had problems with 64 bit programs for example.

I would much prefer that Microsoft write programs like that.
Maybe we could get Mark Russinovich (Sysinternals) to write one :-)

Paul

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> What's wrong with dotNET framework and Windows XP? Every few months, I
> get the inevitable message that a dotNET patch is available from Windows
> Update, and inevitably it fails to install! The usual solution to this
> is to completely uninstall all versions of dotNET, and reinstall it.
> I've been down this path, over and over again, so often that I've lost
> count. I'm going through it over again right now on an old XP laptop I
> keep around for emergencies. It takes hours to do these procedures,
> fortunately it's Sunday today. I don't have these problems under Windows 7.
>
> Before, I'd just dutifully reinstall all of the versions of dotNET that
> were on the laptop before. But now I'm thinking I'm not going to bother
> and only put the most useful versions in. I'm not going to bother with
> 1.0 and 1.1, as I think there is nothing left that still uses it, that
> can't already use 2.0+. I'm thinking of installing only 3.5 SP1, as that
> also installs 2.0 and 3.0 automatically. I'm thinking of skipping over
> 4.0 and 4.5. Are there any Windows-supplied components that need 4.0 or
> above?
>
> Yousuf Khan

I use several programs to scan the web for serial devices
monitored by my company. Those programs use 3.5.
Other than that, I have not had a use for any dot nets.
Dot2 is required as a base for 3.5.
I have not upped to 4x and don't plan on it.

On 22/07/2012 6:28 PM, Paul wrote:
> Mayamaya made a tool for scanning for .NET programs, and telling
> you what version they required. Which is one way to determine how
> many layers of the cake should be present, if you want those
> programs to work.
>
> http://www.jsware.net/jsware/scripts.php5#peops
>
> http://www.jsware.net/jsware/linkpics/dncheck.gif

Cool program. Just ran it over the 32-bit executables, and that was
enough to show that the vast majority of dotNET executables only need to
use 2.0 and higher.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:500c5425$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What's wrong with dotNET framework and Windows XP? Every few months, I
> get the inevitable message that a dotNET patch is available from
> Windows Update, and inevitably it fails to install! The usual solution
> to this is to completely uninstall all versions of dotNET, and
> reinstall it. I've been down this path, over and over again, so often
> that I've lost count. I'm going through it over again right now on an
> old XP laptop I keep around for emergencies. It takes hours to do
> these procedures, fortunately it's Sunday today. I don't have these
> problems under Windows 7.
>
> Before, I'd just dutifully reinstall all of the versions of dotNET
> that were on the laptop before. But now I'm thinking I'm not going to
> bother and only put the most useful versions in. I'm not going to
> bother with 1.0 and 1.1, as I think there is nothing left that still
> uses it, that can't already use 2.0+. I'm thinking of installing only
> 3.5 SP1, as that also installs 2.0 and 3.0 automatically. I'm thinking
> of skipping over 4.0 and 4.5. Are there any Windows-supplied
> components that need 4.0 or above?

You're best course is to follow the guidelines of Aaron Stebner's blog.
I would not install 1.0 or 1.1 unless it is specifically needed and
"asked" for by an installed program. Install 3.5 SP1 and it will cover
the apps using 2.0 and 3.0 as well, then install updates to it as
needed. No need to install v.4 unless you install a program that asks
for it, as with v1.0 and 1.1.

Be sure to use Stebner's .NET Removal Tool prior to installing again. I
have used it many times... in fact, due to the frequency of failures
using the ,NET uninstall routine in Add or Remove Programs, I no longer
bother doing the "formal" uninstall and just use Stebner's removal tool
to remove all at once.

I don't use hardly any apps that run on .NET. Some of my clients use
TurboTax, which does, as well as some other financial software (Quicken
or QuickBooks? I forget which). Despite the recent release of .NET 4.x,
I still think .NET will have a limited lifespan and eventually be left
behind.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

On 23/07/2012 12:33 PM, glee wrote:
> You're best course is to follow the guidelines of Aaron Stebner's blog.
> I would not install 1.0 or 1.1 unless it is specifically needed and
> "asked" for by an installed program. Install 3.5 SP1 and it will cover
> the apps using 2.0 and 3.0 as well, then install updates to it as
> needed. No need to install v.4 unless you install a program that asks
> for it, as with v1.0 and 1.1.

Yes, initially I was coming to the decision to go with 3.5SP1 only. As
you said, that also installs 2.0 and 3.0 by default. But then I looked
at a couple of my Windows 7 machines, and found out that they only
install 4.0, and that by itself seems to cover everything too. So I've
decided to skip everything before 4.0 and just install 4.0.

It's interesting watching Microsoft's varying design decisions over the
years. With 1.0 and 1.1, they were standalone, and each one seemed to
cover different programs entirely. Then with the 2.0-3.5 era, they went
to a modular model, where each version added another layer to the
previous version, and made use of the previous version. And now in 4.0,
it looks like they've re-entered the monolithic model, but this time the
one version, 4.0, emulates all previous versions by itself without
making use of the previous versions.

> Be sure to use Stebner's .NET Removal Tool prior to installing again. I
> have used it many times... in fact, due to the frequency of failures
> using the ,NET uninstall routine in Add or Remove Programs, I no longer
> bother doing the "formal" uninstall and just use Stebner's removal tool
> to remove all at once.

Yeah, I have that removal tool saved in my downloaded software
directory, permanently. I have used it more often than the standard
removal procedures too.

> I don't use hardly any apps that run on .NET. Some of my clients use
> TurboTax, which does, as well as some other financial software (Quicken
> or QuickBooks? I forget which). Despite the recent release of .NET 4.x,
> I still think .NET will have a limited lifespan and eventually be left
> behind.

I've got a few apps that do use it. It's hard to tell which ones use
dotNET or not, until you remove the API, and then all of a sudden
programs stop working. Then you ask yourself, "THAT uses dotNET too?
Hmm.".

Yousuf Khan

On 22/07/2012 9:56 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> I use several programs to scan the web for serial devices
> monitored by my company. Those programs use 3.5.
> Other than that, I have not had a use for any dot nets.
> Dot2 is required as a base for 3.5.
> I have not upped to 4x and don't plan on it.

I've now found that dotNET 4.0 seems to be sufficient for all software
written for previous versions of it. Using 4.0, I was able to remove all
prior versions of dotNET. So that by itself would be a good reason to
upgrade to it: simply to simplify your machine setup.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:500ec37c$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 23/07/2012 12:33 PM, glee wrote:
>> You're best course is to follow the guidelines of Aaron Stebner's
>> blog.
>> I would not install 1.0 or 1.1 unless it is specifically needed and
>> "asked" for by an installed program. Install 3.5 SP1 and it will
>> cover
>> the apps using 2.0 and 3.0 as well, then install updates to it as
>> needed. No need to install v.4 unless you install a program that asks
>> for it, as with v1.0 and 1.1.
>
> Yes, initially I was coming to the decision to go with 3.5SP1 only. As
> you said, that also installs 2.0 and 3.0 by default. But then I looked
> at a couple of my Windows 7 machines, and found out that they only
> install 4.0, and that by itself seems to cover everything too. So I've
> decided to skip everything before 4.0 and just install 4.0.
>
> It's interesting watching Microsoft's varying design decisions over
> the years. With 1.0 and 1.1, they were standalone, and each one seemed
> to cover different programs entirely. Then with the 2.0-3.5 era, they
> went to a modular model, where each version added another layer to the
> previous version, and made use of the previous version. And now in
> 4.0, it looks like they've re-entered the monolithic model, but this
> time the one version, 4.0, emulates all previous versions by itself
> without making use of the previous versions.
>
>> Be sure to use Stebner's .NET Removal Tool prior to installing again.
>> I
>> have used it many times... in fact, due to the frequency of failures
>> using the ,NET uninstall routine in Add or Remove Programs, I no
>> longer
>> bother doing the "formal" uninstall and just use Stebner's removal
>> tool
>> to remove all at once.
>
> Yeah, I have that removal tool saved in my downloaded software
> directory, permanently. I have used it more often than the standard
> removal procedures too.
>
>> I don't use hardly any apps that run on .NET. Some of my clients use
>> TurboTax, which does, as well as some other financial software
>> (Quicken
>> or QuickBooks? I forget which). Despite the recent release of .NET
>> 4.x,
>> I still think .NET will have a limited lifespan and eventually be
>> left
>> behind.
>
> I've got a few apps that do use it. It's hard to tell which ones use
> dotNET or not, until you remove the API, and then all of a sudden
> programs stop working. Then you ask yourself, "THAT uses dotNET too?
> Hmm.".

Thanks for the feedback, Yousuf.... good to know.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 22/07/2012 9:56 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>> I use several programs to scan the web for serial devices
>> monitored by my company. Those programs use 3.5.
>> Other than that, I have not had a use for any dot nets.
>> Dot2 is required as a base for 3.5.
>> I have not upped to 4x and don't plan on it.
>
> I've now found that dotNET 4.0 seems to be sufficient for all software
> written for previous versions of it. Using 4.0, I was able to remove all
> prior versions of dotNET. So that by itself would be a good reason to
> upgrade to it: simply to simplify your machine setup.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Interesting! Thanks Yousuf.
I'll add up and compare the file sizes.