.NET 2.0 or .NET 3.5

[Jon]

I've just re-installed XP Pro on a low performance laptop (256M RAM, Pentium III around 700MHz).
I've also installed XP SP3.

Before re-installing, the laptop had .NET 2.0 installed so that it could run a C#.NET programme that
targetted .NET 2.0.

After XP Pro re-installation I did a Microsoft Update, and expected to find the .NET 2.0 download
under the optional category. However, I only found 1.1 and 3.5.

If I understand correctly, .NET 2.0 targetted programmes will run on .NET 3.5 - is this correct?

Also, since the laptop is low performance, would it be better to install .NET 2.0 instead of .NET
3.5?

 

[PvdG42]

I've just re-installed XP Pro on a low performance laptop (256M RAM,
Pentium III around 700MHz).
I've also installed XP SP3.

Before re-installing, the laptop had .NET 2.0 installed so that it could
run a C#.NET programme that
targetted .NET 2.0.

After XP Pro re-installation I did a Microsoft Update, and expected to
find the .NET 2.0 download
under the optional category. However, I only found 1.1 and 3.5.

If I understand correctly, .NET 2.0 targetted programmes will run on .NET
3.5 - is this correct?

Also, since the laptop is low performance, would it be better to install
.NET 2.0 instead of .NET
3.5?

..NET 3.0 and 3.5 are add-ons to 2.0. When you install 3.5, 2.0 will be put
on as well, or you'll be told you must install 2.0 first. Are you sure .NET
2.0 is not already installed as part of XP SP3? I don't think WU would be
offering you 3.5 if 2.0 were not present. Look in:

<OS Drive>:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework

What do you see?

 

[Jeroen Mostert]

They should, yes. But in reality, there are probably still some "corner
cases".

.NET has two parts: the framework library, and the "common language
run-time". For .NET 2.0, Microsoft changed both the library and the
CLR. For .NET 3.5, only the library changed, and the vast majority of
that change was the addition of new features, not changes to the
existing features.

That means that comparing 2.0 and 3.5, there's literally nothing that
could be broken in the CLR because it's the same CLR.

Almost. This does not apply if you've installed 3.5 SP1, because this will
upgrade the CLR as well -- to 2.0 SP1. This *does* break programs in rare
cases, mostly due to jitter bugs. (Jitterbugs! Hee.)

 

[Jeroen Mostert]

Well, okay. I guess. But the same thing would happen if you simply
upgraded a .NET 2.0 installation to SP1 (not sure how that would happen
without 3.5, but I think you could manage it ).

In other words, it's not that 3.5 is installed that causes issues; it's
simply a versioning issue between the two 2.0 CLRs.

Well, the entire point is that there is no separate installer for the 2.0
SP1 CLR, nor is there any way to avoid installing the 2.0 SP1 CLR if you're
installing 3.5 SP1. So yes, it's "simply a versioning issue", of course,
these versioning issues are what the thread's about.

Most people would not find it intuitive that installing .NET 3.5 SP1 will
cause runtime differences for 2.0 programs, *especially* given the identical
runtimes of 3.5 and 2.0, so I thought it was worth mentioning. I'm sure I'm
not telling *you* anything you didn't already know, nor was that my intent.

 

[Pavel Minaev]

Well, the entire point is that there is no separate installer for the 2.0
SP1 CLR, nor is there any way to avoid installing the 2.0 SP1 CLR if you're
installing 3.5 SP1.

First of all, there is a separate installer for 2.0 SP1:

http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/...77-E02C-4AD3-AACF-A7633F706BA5&displaylang=en

However, 2.0 SP1 is the one that gets installed with plain 3.5, not
3.5 SP1 - the latter actually installs 2.0 SP2 (and that one does
break stuff, while SP1 did not, to the best of my knowledge). This one
is also installable separately:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...58-915b-4eb5-9b1d-10e506da9d0f&displaylang=en

(the installers for both weren't available originally when 3.5 and 3.5
SP1 were released - they were made available for download later).

.... I hope this wasn't any more confusing than the versioning scheme
itself

 

[Jeroen Mostert]

First of all, there is a separate installer for 2.0 SP1:

http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/...77-E02C-4AD3-AACF-A7633F706BA5&displaylang=en

However, 2.0 SP1 is the one that gets installed with plain 3.5, not
3.5 SP1 - the latter actually installs 2.0 SP2 (and that one does
break stuff, while SP1 did not, to the best of my knowledge).

Ooh, good catch. I'm out of sync by one service pack.

This one
is also installable separately:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...58-915b-4eb5-9b1d-10e506da9d0f&displaylang=en

Now *this* I didn't know...

(the installers for both weren't available originally when 3.5 and 3.5
SP1 were released - they were made available for download later).

....because of this. I note that the 2.0 SP2 installer in particular is quite
new.

... I hope this wasn't any more confusing than the versioning scheme
itself

Not hardly. This is all part of the highly convoluted story.

 

[Jon]

Thanks everyone for your helpful replies. I have installed .NET 3.5 from Windows Update and the C#
programme is working fine.

PvdG42 said " Are you sure .NET 2.0 is not already installed as part of XP SP3? I don't think WU
would be offering you 3.5 if 2.0 were not present. Look in: <OS
Drive>:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework" I checked before installing .NET 3.5, but there was no such
folder.

Jon


"Jon" <-> wrote in message I've just re-installed XP Pro on a low performance laptop (256M RAM, Pentium III around 700MHz).
I've also installed XP SP3.

Before re-installing, the laptop had .NET 2.0 installed so that it could run a C#.NET programme that
targetted .NET 2.0.

After XP Pro re-installation I did a Microsoft Update, and expected to find the .NET 2.0 download
under the optional category. However, I only found 1.1 and 3.5.

If I understand correctly, .NET 2.0 targetted programmes will run on .NET 3.5 - is this correct?

Also, since the laptop is low performance, would it be better to install .NET 2.0 instead of .NET
3.5?