Message from discussion What versions of dotNET Framework are really necessary?
Received: by 10.224.174.74 with SMTP id s10mr1536711qaz.1.1343318060731;
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.88.5 with SMTP id bc5mr1826230pab.11.1343318060662;
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.74.40 with SMTP id q8mr1643310pav.19.1343316312413;
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul <nos...@needed.com>
Subject: Re: What versions of dotNET Framework are really necessary?
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:27 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <DeSdndDKpOR8ypHNnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:28:27 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dd6b53d4f099c605777172d49f025402";
logging-data="27095"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19R8LrP9lm5ByolmxjIMi1TBDgEx7XdsUY="
User-Agent: Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (Windows/20100228)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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
>> 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
>> 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
Anything above 2.0 is part of the "layer cake".
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.
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.
The table here should be adequate for a quick check.
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 :-)