Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 10 January 2014 - 14:54

^ As the topic title says. I wanted to know if I could consider 4.5/4.5.1 to be the lowest common denominator on updated Vista/7 machines for future Visual Studio projects. Is it automatically installed on any updated machine?




#2 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.9.3
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z2

Posted 10 January 2014 - 14:56

It's offered as critical update, but not automatically installed.

 

Since it's a superset of .NET 4.0 ff I would recommend installing it. Saves you from having to wait for a metric ton of .NET 4 updates to install.



#3 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 10 January 2014 - 17:39

It's offered as critical update, but not automatically installed.

 

Since it's a superset of .NET 4.0 ff I would recommend installing it. Saves you from having to wait for a metric ton of .NET 4 updates to install.

 

If critical updates aren't automatically installed (unless deselected) then which ones are? Catastrophic ones? :o



#4 cluberti

cluberti

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-January 10

Posted 10 January 2014 - 22:07

I think he meant "important", not critical.  It's listed as an "important" update (and one I also install on all Win7/2008R2 general purpose machines).



#5 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 10 January 2014 - 22:19

Don't modern versions of Windows throw a warning telling you to install the newer versions of .net anyway when you try to run the assemblies?



#6 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 11 January 2014 - 07:21

Don't modern versions of Windows throw a warning telling you to install the newer versions of .net anyway when you try to run the assemblies?

Yes they show a warning but installing a framework with all the updates can take up to an hour so when switching to a newer version I first have to consider if it would become a major inconvenience for most of the users or not.

 

I'm pretty sure Windows automatically installed some of newer frameworks (3.5/3.5.1 for sure if 2.0 or 3.0 is installed; I think I also saw 4.0 but I don't know if there were related conditions) but I never bothered checking the updates when setting up computers/VMs.

 

I would be much happier if I could use 4.5.1, or even 4.5 for having the better WPF controls available now that XP support is being discontinued (4.5 is not available on XP so it was a major issue until now). WPF on 3.5 and somewhat also on 4.0 can be some kind of a nightmare from hell.



#7 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:20

Yes they show a warning but installing a framework with all the updates can take up to an hour so when switching to a newer version I first have to consider if it would become a major inconvenience for most of the users or not.

 

I'm pretty sure Windows automatically installed some of newer frameworks (3.5/3.5.1 for sure if 2.0 or 3.0 is installed; I think I also saw 4.0 but I don't know if there were related conditions) but I never bothered checking the updates when setting up computers/VMs.

 

I would be much happier if I could use 4.5.1, or even 4.5 for having the better WPF controls available now that XP support is being discontinued (4.5 is not available on XP so it was a major issue until now). WPF on 3.5 and somewhat also on 4.0 can be some kind of a nightmare from hell.

 

An hour is not a typical install time. With XP support discontinued, you shouldn't be targeting 4.0 (a known buggy version of .net) unless it is a client requirement.



#8 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:45

An hour is not a typical install time. With XP support discontinued, you shouldn't be targeting 4.0 (a known buggy version of .net) unless it is a client requirement.

That only if you consider installing only the framework, but there are also all the related service packs, updates, etc. that are extremely slow to install (plus the download times). Ngen trashing the hard drive for a while after the install and after most of the updates can also be quite the annoyance. For now I never had any particular problem with 4.0 and would still prefer it to 3.5 anyday but that's because I wouldn't use WPF on any of both.



#9 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 11 January 2014 - 09:38

That only if you consider installing only the framework, but there are also all the related service packs, updates, etc. that are extremely slow to install (plus the download times). Ngen trashing the hard drive for a while after the install and after most of the updates can also be quite the annoyance. For now I never had any particular problem with 4.0 and would still prefer it to 3.5 anyday but that's because I wouldn't use WPF on any of both.

 

I've never had an issue with installing it or updates. I think you are mostly referring to the time it took 4.0 to pre-cache everything (read as: compile all of its assemblies into native code for your PC).

 

Targeting 4.0 is in generally a bad idea unless you know what you are doing. Remember, 4.5 is an in place upgrade of 4.0 which means that if you test a 4.0 target on a 4.5 install, you will be using the 4.5 library assemblies which have fixes for numerous defects over the 4.0 library assemblies. This means you will never exhibit broken behavior caused by 4.0 bugs. This is the fundamental reason why you shouldn't be targeting 4.0: because it leads to bugs and breakage that you cannot test for unless you are actually developing using the 4.0 platform directly.



#10 JaykeBird

JaykeBird

    Yeah, I'm weird.

  • Joined: 21-March 10
  • Location: United States
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:12

As already been answered, .NET 4.0 and 4.5 are not automatically available on Windows Vista and 7. Available as updates, but as a developer, you shouldn't count on that.

 

However, Windows Vista and 7 do have versions of .NET installed. They both have .NET 2.0 (Vista has 2.0 SP1, and 7 2.0 SP2), and is irremovable, meaning you can always target it and expect it to work. Of course, WPF wasn't added until 3.0 or 3.5, so... :/ Vista and 7 also have .NET 3.0 and 3.5 installed, respectively, but can be removed, so, again, you shouldn't count on that.

 

Windows 8 has .NET 4.5 included, irremovably, and Windows 8.1 has 4.5.1. So at least developing for Windows 8 and later, you won't have to worry about the end user installing anything to get it to work. (Unless you are targeting a pre-4.0 version of .NET)



#11 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 11 January 2014 - 17:14

I've never had an issue with installing it or updates. I think you are mostly referring to the time it took 4.0 to pre-cache everything (read as: compile all of its assemblies into native code for your PC).

 

I'm referring to all of the time wasted. Download time, install time, updating time, most users don't have an high-end pc and it would take a lot of time. That also providing the users won't get tricked by those annoying adware-infested spammy search engine results in the process.

 

Targeting 4.0 is in generally a bad idea unless you know what you are doing. Remember, 4.5 is an in place upgrade of 4.0 which means that if you test a 4.0 target on a 4.5 install, you will be using the 4.5 library assemblies which have fixes for numerous defects over the 4.0 library assemblies. This means you will never exhibit broken behavior caused by 4.0 bugs. This is the fundamental reason why you shouldn't be targeting 4.0: because it leads to bugs and breakage that you cannot test for unless you are actually developing using the 4.0 platform directly.

 

Between 3.5 and 4.0 I'd rather pick 4.0 anyday, I've used it since it was released and I don't remember any particular issue (maybe a bit worse memory management) however I never used WPF with it because of the horrible performance, I only started using WPF after 4.5 came out.

 

As already been answered, .NET 4.0 and 4.5 are not automatically available on Windows Vista and 7. Available as updates, but as a developer, you shouldn't count on that.

 

My question was whether those updates are actually installed or not, because I have confused memories about that. I'm pretty sure I saw 4.0 automatically being checked on some machines but I'm also sure I saw Windows XP installing framework 3.5 for no reason at all (completely clean install with no other frameworks installed).

 

However, Windows Vista and 7 do have versions of .NET installed. They both have .NET 2.0 (Vista has 2.0 SP1, and 7 2.0 SP2), and is irremovable, meaning you can always target it and expect it to work. Of course, WPF wasn't added until 3.0 or 3.5, so... :/ Vista and 7 also have .NET 3.0 and 3.5 installed, respectively, but can be removed, so, again, you shouldn't count on that.

 

Windows 8 has .NET 4.5 included, irremovably, and Windows 8.1 has 4.5.1. So at least developing for Windows 8 and later, you won't have to worry about the end user installing anything to get it to work. (Unless you are targeting a pre-4.0 version of .NET)

 

I do know Vista and 7 come with framework 2.0/3.5 and was previously targeting 3.5 for that reason, because every 2.0 install (on XP and Vista) was automatically turned into 3.5 by Windows Update so it became a common platform for all the OS versions. If Windows Update did the same with 4.5 or 4.5.1 now that I can stop caring about XP support I'd happily switch to 4.5/4.5.1. But can somebody confirm that?



#12 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 11 January 2014 - 18:12

My question was whether those updates are actually installed or not, because I have confused memories about that. I'm pretty sure I saw 4.0 automatically being checked on some machines but I'm also sure I saw Windows XP installing framework 3.5 for no reason at all (completely clean install with no other frameworks installed).

 

 

I do know Vista and 7 come with framework 2.0/3.5 and was previously targeting 3.5 for that reason, because every 2.0 install (on XP and Vista) was automatically turned into 3.5 by Windows Update so it became a common platform for all the OS versions. If Windows Update did the same with 4.5 or 4.5.1 now that I can stop caring about XP support I'd happily switch to 4.5/4.5.1. But can somebody confirm that?

It's already been answered in this thread: 4.5 is not installed automatically on 7. Unless the behavior has changed with the 4.5.1 release, that is still the case. You could easily roll a temporary VM with 7 to test though. That's what I would I do if it were me



#13 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.9.3
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z2

Posted 11 January 2014 - 18:15

It's already been answered in this thread: 4.5 is not installed automatically on 7. Unless the behavior has changed with the 4.5.1 release, that is still the case. You could easily roll a temporary VM with 7 to test.

^ that - it is offered as important (not critical as I mistakenly wrote above) update, but not installed automatically on Windows 7.



#14 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 12 January 2014 - 01:15

It's already been answered in this thread: 4.5 is not installed automatically on 7. Unless the behavior has changed with the 4.5.1 release, that is still the case. You could easily roll a temporary VM with 7 to test though. That's what I would I do if it were me

I did some test installs on a VM and can confirm that:

- WU (now) doesn't install any newer framework on a clean XP SP3 install, with or without the included 1.1 installed.

- WU doesn't install any newer framework on a clean Windows 7 install (3.5 preinstalled). Windows Update only shows 4.5.1 (4.5 is not shown) as a recommended update (not important nor critical) in the optionals tab with no changes if I install 4.0 (client or full(extended)) or 4.5.



#15 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 12 January 2014 - 01:18

I did some test installs on a VM and can confirm that:

- WU (now) doesn't install any newer framework on a clean XP SP3 install, with or without the included 1.1 installed.

- WU doesn't install any newer framework on a clean Windows 7 install (3.5 preinstalled). Windows Update only shows 4.5.1 (4.5 is not shown) as a recommended update (not important nor critical) in the optionals tab with no changes if I install 4.0 (client or full(extended)) or 4.5.

 

What about if you install SP1? Does it give you 4.0 then automatically with that?