[OT?] Who has .NET 1.1 and doesn't know it?

[Michael A. Covington]

Am I right in thinking .NET Framework 1.1 was delivered with a recent Media
Player upgrade, or something?

How many Windows XP systems are likely to already have .NET Framework 1.1 on
them without the owner/user realizing it?

 

[Tim Haughton]

Am I right in thinking .NET Framework 1.1 was delivered with a recent Media
Player upgrade, or something?

How many Windows XP systems are likely to already have .NET Framework 1.1 on
them without the owner/user realizing it?

AFAIK it has been available as a Windows Upgrade for a couple of years.

--
Regards,

Tim Haughton

Agitek
http://agitek.co.uk
http://blogitek.com/timhaughton

 

[Christoph Nahr]

AFAIK it has been available as a Windows Upgrade for a couple of years.

Yeah, but I don't think it's a mandatory/automatic update, so most
users who don't need it still wouldn't have it.

 

[Rick Lones]

Am I right in thinking .NET Framework 1.1 was delivered with a recent Media
Player upgrade, or something?

How many Windows XP systems are likely to already have .NET Framework 1.1 on
them without the owner/user realizing it?

Probably a lot of them. I just acquired our first XP system from Dell and it
came with .Net 1.1 already installed - but even I dunno just which piece of MS
or other pre-installed SW needed it, if any. Anyhow, I'm the one that noticed
it - it would mean nothing to my kid even if she browsed the install/uninstall
screen. So there must be are millions of users who have it onboard without
either knowing or caring.

Why do you ask it this way, exactly? Are you meaning to sound an objection or
warning? At this point the .Net Framework seems likely enough to be needed
eventually (especially on a new machine that will almost surely soon be having a
lot of new/recent SW installed) that the PC vendor installing it along with the
OS probably makes the most sense. Less to go wrong than if it's installed later
by the user, I would think. (Better Dell installing it than Kazaa or somebody
like that . . .)

It came with DirectX 9 installed also. The Google Earth installer made a big
deal about how much that would help rendering performance and of course it
turned out to already be there . . . along with no doubt a ton of other good
stuff/just stuff/junk/crap/YMMV . . .

As someone who used to do nothing but assembler on bare hardware it kind of
gives me the creeps actually, so maybe I do know where you are coming from . . .
but I don't see much to do about it except to either get your system from
someone big enough to do decent integration testing and research or else build
it from scratch yourself - which requires you to be an expert with lots of time
on your hands and a super-high frustration quotient in my (sad) experience.

Regards,
-rick-

 

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

Some version of the framework was distributed with SP2, dont remember if it
was 1.1 or 1.0 though.

cheers,

 

[Michael A. Covington]

Probably a lot of them. I just acquired our first XP system from Dell and
it came with .Net 1.1 already installed - but even I dunno just which
piece of MS or other pre-installed SW needed it, if any. Anyhow, I'm
the one that noticed it - it would mean nothing to my kid even if she
browsed the install/uninstall screen. So there must be are millions of
users who have it onboard without either knowing or caring.

That's good to know.

Why do you ask it this way, exactly? Are you meaning to sound an
objection or warning?

Not at all. I'm about to start distributing some freeware that requires
..NET and wondered whether every user was going to need to download .NET and
install it. Sounds like quite a lot of them won't. So I'll say "if you're
not sure, just try running it, and if you get error messages about
MSCORLIB.DLL, go such-and-such a place and download dotnetfx.exe."

As someone who used to do nothing but assembler on bare hardware it kind
of gives me the creeps actually, so maybe I do know where you are coming
from . . .

No, I don't object to operating systems at all. In fact I think .NET may be
the first big advance in operating systems since UNIX. (Other than Lisp
machines, where the .NET people obviously got some of their ideas.)

I do wish that .NET executables would display a more explicit error message
if they start up on a machine that doesn't have .NET.

 

[Michael A. Covington]

To be precise, one of the pieces of freeware is at:
www.covingtoninnovations.com/dslr/exiflog.html

Do you think I'm taking the right approach to the question of whether to
download .NET?

 

[Ross Marchant]

To be precise, one of the pieces of freeware is at:
www.covingtoninnovations.com/dslr/exiflog.html

Do you think I'm taking the right approach to the question of whether to
download .NET?

I think that in big bold letters you should say it is required, how to check
if installed and where to download.

Or maybe make an installer that check for .NET and if it isn't there then a
browser window opens with a link to the download page.

btw:
My ATI based graphics card needs .NET for the control center thing so you
can infer that everyone with a ati graphics card will have it

I hope .NET becomes a mandatory windows update whenever it is updated. I
think it will with so many new programs written for .NET

Ross

 

[Michael A. Covington]

I've just learned that with Visual Studio .NET 2003, as opposed to 2002, a
..NET .EXE puts up a much nicer message when you run it on a machine without
..NET installed.

Instead of complaining about MSCORLIB.DLL, it actually says you need to
install version so-and-so of .NET Framework.