Net Framework

[Barry Karas]

14/Jan/2008 11:14

I have MS (Microsoft) net framework. I looked up "net framework" and found
that it is a developer tool. Since I do not do any developing do I need the
framework?

Thank you,

Barry Karas

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

I have MS (Microsoft) net framework. I looked up "net framework" and found

that it is a developer tool. Since I do not do any developing do I need the
framework?

Sadly, the .NET framework is required by some applications in order to
run. It more like having a plug-in installed. You could remove it but
it might break the application that explicitly requires dome of the
framework components.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Alias]

14/Jan/2008 11:14

I have MS (Microsoft) net framework. I looked up "net framework" and found
that it is a developer tool. Since I do not do any developing do I need the
framework?

Thank you,

Barry Karas

Do you, per chance, have an ATI graphics card?

Alias

 

[David B.]

It's actually .Net (note the dot) and is required for some applications to
run, 1.1 is required for Media Center.

 

[mayayana]

The .Net framework is a virtual machine for
..Net software. There are actually 5 versions
currently, ranging up to 100 MB in size.
(v. 1, 1.1, 2, 3.0, 3.5). If you have any software
written in .Net it will need one or another of
the frameworks.

.Net is basically Microsoft's version of Java. Very
little desktop software is written in Java, but
if you have *any* need of Java at all then
you have to install the JVM (Java Virtual Machine)
The same is true with .Net. You may not need
the framework, but you could have some installed
software that's using it. If you try to run a .Net
program without the necessary framework you get
an error message that says something like, "mscoree.dll
could not be found."

( "Virtual machine" is just the popular term for
a large set of software libraries that provide a
running environment for software.)

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Don't confuse the .net framework sdk (software developer kit) and the .net
framework runtime which is essential to many things working.

 

[Twayne]

14/Jan/2008 11:14

I have MS (Microsoft) net framework. I looked up "net framework" and
found that it is a developer tool. Since I do not do any developing
do I need the framework?

Thank you,

Barry Karas

The best answer is ... maybe. Some software may require it as a
"runtime" in order to function. It's fairly easy to figure out:

Rename the folder it lives in to something like foldernameOLD (so it's
easy to relocate). See if everything still works. If so, you can
delete it/them. It's possible you might need more than one of its
various incarnations.

Usually, if an app needs it and can not find it, the resulting error
message will not only tell you which number of the framework you need,
but also where to download it.
Any new app you install that needs it will likewise inform you of
same. You won't be left wondering why somethign isn't working when it's
one of these missing.

Also, although it looks like versions (1.1, 1.5, 2.0, 3.5, et al), those
are not versions. If something says it needs 1.1, any other number is
NOT likely to work for it. You need whatever number it asks for,
specifically, 99% of the time. Each is a different animal. Do not ask
my why they did that; it's stupid IMO but who knows what those dummies
were thinking sometimes?

I noticed Mayayana gave a pretty good descrip of what they are; be sure
to read his post too; he knows a lot more than I do<g>.

HTH

Twayne

 

[Timothy Daniels]

....although it looks like versions (1.1, 1.5, 2.0, 3.5, et al), those are not
versions. If something says it needs 1.1, any other number is NOT likely to
work for it. You need whatever number it asks for, specifically, 99% of the
time. Each is a different animal. Do not ask my why they did that; it's
stupid IMO but who knows what those
dummies were thinking sometimes?

Actually, those *are* version numbers. Microsoft's intention is that
later versions would run software developed with earlier versions - just
as software written for earlier browser versions *usually* works with
later versions of the browser. The later versions of .NET Framework
simply add functionality and features to earlier versions and make those
available to software developed with it. Only if a program is marked
specifically to run under a particular version of .NET Framework will
that specific version be needed to run the program. That design goal
usually succeeds with .NET Framework, but to what degree, I don't
know.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

....although it looks like versions (1.1, 1.5, 2.0, 3.5, et al), those are not

Actually, those *are* version numbers. Microsoft's intention is that
later versions would run software developed with earlier versions - just
as software written for earlier browser versions *usually* works with
later versions of the browser. The later versions of .NET Framework
simply add functionality and features to earlier versions and make those
available to software developed with it. Only if a program is marked
specifically to run under a particular version of .NET Framework will
that specific version be needed to run the program. That design goal
usually succeeds with .NET Framework, but to what degree, I don't
know.

In my experience, newer versions of .NET framework did NOT work with
software that required a specific older version. I experienced this
with a software package called Crystal Ball.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

14/Jan/2008 11:14

I have MS (Microsoft) net framework. I looked up "net framework" and found
that it is a developer tool. Since I do not do any developing do I need the
framework?

First, not that it's .net (pronounced "dot net). not just "net."

Second, .net itself is a developer tool, but the .net *framework* is a
set of run time files that users need to run programs that were
developed with .net

Third, the .net framework comes in several versions, and you generally
need the matching version for the program you want to run. The .net
framework 2 does not replace the .net framework 1, and the .net
framework 3 does not replace the .net framework 2.

So the answer is that if you run any programs that use it, you need
it. Most of us run some such programs, but even if you don't run any
now, you likely will in the future. So don't delete any of these.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

If it's installed, yes.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

In my experience, newer versions of .NET framework did
NOT work with software that required a specific older version.
I experienced this with a software package called Crystal Ball.

Read what you wrote: "..did NOT work with software that
required a specific older version." Software can be written
(or configured) to work with a specific version of .NET Framework.
Your software apparently does that. If the software doesn't
specify a version, any version later than the one it was developed
with will do. Would it make sense for Microsoft to make subsequent
versions of .NET Framework inherently incompatible with previous
versions? Here is an MS web page that describes how to specify
in the app config file which .NET Framework version to use for the app:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk(VS.80).aspx

*TimDaniels*

 

[mayayana]

Would it make sense for Microsoft to make subsequent

versions of .NET Framework inherently incompatible with previous
versions?

I seem to remember iit doing just that.

http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2003/05/20/fcl_gotchas.html

I don't have any idea which runtimes have what
problems with which, but it appears that one cannot
assume a later runtime will always be fine.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I seem to remember iit doing just that.

http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2003/05/20/fcl_gotchas.html

I don't have any idea which runtimes have what
problems with which, but it appears that one cannot
assume a later runtime will always be fine.

The web page you cite was written in May, 2003 (5 years ago)
when the "recent" upgrade in .NET Framework was to v. 1.1.
Furthermore, no one said (indeed not I) that one could "assume"
that a later .NET Framework runtime would work for an app
written with an earlier version of .NET Framework. But it's
usually true, and that's by design. And the same design allows
Internet Explorer v. 6 to work with web pages written for
Internet Explorer v. 4. If you or someone else has some app
written for a specific version of .NET Framework, that's probably
a shortcoming of the programmer who didn't realize that later .NET
Framework versions would run his app or he didn't realize that his
software development kit was specifying a version.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

Read what you wrote: "..did NOT work with software that

required a specific older version." Software can be written
(or configured) to work with a specific version of .NET Framework.
Your software apparently does that. If the software doesn't
specify a version, any version later than the one it was developed
with will do. Would it make sense for Microsoft to make subsequent
versions of .NET Framework inherently incompatible with previous
versions? Here is an MS web page that describes how to specify
in the app config file which .NET Framework version to use for the app:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk(VS.80).aspx

Because it such a stretch to make newer versions backwards compatible
with older version. Give me a break.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Because it such a stretch to make newer versions backwards compatible
with older version. Give me a break.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

Microsoft does not normally invalidate old methods in .NET Framework.
It usually just deprecates them for a few versions, meaning that the old
classes and their methods will continue to work with software developed
with newer versions of the Framework. Another way to look at it is that
..NET Framework usually gets bigger with each version and doesn't
change the old stuff. "Backward compatibility" has always been a design
goal (not always achieved) with all large software companies which have
to deal with legacy systems. Take a look at this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/08/02/686954.aspx
Your argument really is that the design goal of "backward compatibility"
was not always achieved throughout the .NET Framework libraries.
Since until recently, Visual Studio automatically specified a version of
..NET Framework to be used with software that it produced, it is possible
that software that "requires" a specific version really wouldn't if it had
been compiled with a command line rather than Visual Studio. With
Visual Studio 2008, there will be a "Multi-Targeting" feature to allow
the user to tell Visual Studio which version (2.0, 3.0, or 3.5) of the
..NET Framework to use in development:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb398197.aspx

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Here is Microsoft's pronouncement on backward compatibility
of .NET Framework:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480198.aspx
--------
"How .NET Framework 3.0 Relates to .NET Framework 2.0 and Earlier"

"The .NET Framework 3.0 adds new technologies to the .NET
Framework 2.0, which makes the .NET Framework 3.0 a superset
of the .NET Framework 2.0. You can think of .NET Framework 3.0
as an "additive" release to the .NET Framework 2.0, as contrasted
with a generational release where software is revised across the
board. (For example, the .NET Framework 2.0 was a generational
release over the .NET Framework 1.0.) Because .NET Framework
3.0 is an additive release and uses the core run-time components from
..NET Framework 2.0, it is completely backward compatible with the
earlier version. Your existing .NET Framework 2.0 based-applications
will continue to run without any modifications and you can safely
continue your investments using the technologies that shipped with
..NET Framework 2.0."

"If you are moving to .NET Framework 3.0 from .NET Framework
1.1 or 1.0, you should perform impact analysis and run compatibility
testing prior to deployment. While we have worked to make .NET
Framework releases compatible, there are a small number of known
incompatibles due to security and significant functionality additions.
For more information, see the page Breaking Changes in .NET
Framework 2.0 on the Microsoft .NET Developer Center Web site."
--------

If your software *specifies* a particular version of the Framework,
it may not accept other (later) versions of the Framework. But that
does not mean that it would not work with other (later) versions if the
config file hadn't specified a particular version.

*TimDaniels*