Prev: Printing, or saving to Excel, directory tree
Next: Right Click problem
From: John John - MVP on 26 Apr 2010 08:15
Rick Merrill wrote:
> LD55ZRA wrote:
>> Rick Merrill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Can one safely "uninstall" some of the .NET
>>> installations?
>>
>> It depends on whether you installed all of them manually or did some
>> third party applications install redistributable versions on your system?
>>
>> If you installed them yourself then probably you don't need them and so
>> uninstall them; If some third party applications installed them then you
>> do need them (not all but a specific version).
>>
>> Very soon, you will be bombarded with version 4. I have downloaded and
>> installed on my system because I have started using VS 2010 for my work.
>>
>> <http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=9CFB2D51-5FF4-4491-B0E5-B386F32C0992&displaylang=en>
>>
>>
>>
>> hth
>>
>>
>
> Assuming "version 4" is a good thing, wouldn't it be sensible to remove
> 1-3.5 of .NET first, then install NET4?

You fail to understand how the different .net versions work, they are
not backward compatible and applications only with the particular
version with which they were coded! An application needing version 1
will not work with verision 3, or 4...

John
From: occam on 26 Apr 2010 08:51
On 24/04/2010 16:26, Rick Merrill wrote:
> John John - MVP wrote:

>>
>
>
> Thank you. What would be the first step in "finding out" if anything
> uses NET? (I thought uninstall would at least leave behind any .DLL
> used by another well-behaved application.)
>
>

There is no list of apps (MS or 3d party) which you can tick-off against
your installed ones.
(Not one that I could find , when I asked the same question few months
back.)

Be aware that some very basic system functions use .NET however, as I
discovered when I tried to purge my system of this Microsoft
mess-of-an-environment. My Dell P could not 'rollback' driver updates,
which shook me.

The advice 'leave-it-alone' is a good one, unless you have a lot of time
(and patience).
From: occam on 26 Apr 2010 09:01
On 26/04/2010 14:15, John John - MVP wrote:
>
>>
>> Assuming "version 4" is a good thing, wouldn't it be sensible to remove
>> 1-3.5 of .NET first, then install NET4?
>
> You fail to understand how the different .net versions work, they are
> not backward compatible and applications only with the particular
> version with which they were coded! An application needing version 1
> will not work with verision 3, or 4...
>

The basic 'failure to understand' is one originating from Microsoft.
What clueless organisation would issue 5-6 versions of a developement
environment, all of which are independent and incompatible with each other?
To put it another way, how many versions of Sun's Java environment do
you need on your machine to run Javascript?

Advice to the OP - if you have the patience, purge yourself of .NET. As
far as 3d party applications go, for every one that needs .NET, there
are alternatives which do without .NET (and are the bette for it).
From: glee on 26 Apr 2010 09:40
"occam" <occam(a)127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:ex4CoCU5KHA.3576(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> On 26/04/2010 14:15, John John - MVP wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Assuming "version 4" is a good thing, wouldn't it be sensible to
>>> remove
>>> 1-3.5 of .NET first, then install NET4?
>>
>> You fail to understand how the different .net versions work, they are
>> not backward compatible and applications only with the particular
>> version with which they were coded! An application needing version 1
>> will not work with verision 3, or 4...
>>
>
> The basic 'failure to understand' is one originating from Microsoft.
> What clueless organisation would issue 5-6 versions of a developement
> environment, all of which are independent and incompatible with each
> other?
> To put it another way, how many versions of Sun's Java environment do
> you need on your machine to run Javascript?
>
> Advice to the OP - if you have the patience, purge yourself of .NET.
> As
> far as 3d party applications go, for every one that needs .NET, there
> are alternatives which do without .NET (and are the bette for it).


There goes your credibility on this subject.
The answer to your question, "How many versions of Sun's Java
environment do you need to run JavaScript" is NONE.
Java is a programming language. JavaScript is a scripting language.
They have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and have no
dependencies upon each other. You can remove all versions of Sun Java
and MS Java from your system, and JavaScript will still work just fine.

Actually, .NET Framework is *supposed* to be backward compatible...it
just does not always work for a few reasons. An interesting read here,
though older:
CLR Inside Out: Ensuring .NET Framework 2.0 Compatibility
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163638.aspx


The .NET 3.5 SP1 full installation package includes the full runtime
installation packages for .NET 2.0 SP2 as well as .NET 3.0 SP2, so if
you have NO .NET Frameworks versions installed, you can install just 3.5
SP1 and have the earlier runtimes included in one package.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/

From: Ken Blake, MVP on 26 Apr 2010 13:03
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:01:58 +0200, occam <occam(a)127.0.0.1> wrote:

> To put it another way, how many versions of Sun's Java environment do
> you need on your machine to run Javascript?


None, as you would undoubtedly know if you knew that Java and
Javascript are two completely different things.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Printing, or saving to Excel, directory tree
Next: Right Click problem