Is .NET Framework 4.5/4.5.1 automatically installed by WU on Vista/7?


Recommended Posts

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.

  On 10/01/2014 at 14:56, Frank B. said:

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

  On 10/01/2014 at 22:19, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

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.

  On 11/01/2014 at 07:21, francescob said:

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.

  On 11/01/2014 at 08:20, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

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.

  On 11/01/2014 at 08:45, francescob said:

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.

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)

  On 11/01/2014 at 09:38, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

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.

 

  On 11/01/2014 at 09:38, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

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.

 

  On 11/01/2014 at 10:12, JaykeBird said:

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).

 

  On 11/01/2014 at 10:12, JaykeBird said:

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?

  On 11/01/2014 at 17:14, francescob said:

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

  On 11/01/2014 at 18:12, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

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.

  On 11/01/2014 at 18:12, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

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.

  On 12/01/2014 at 01:15, francescob said:

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?

  On 12/01/2014 at 01:18, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

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

Sorry I forgot to mention I used a Windows 7 SP1 disc to install. I also installed all the batches of security updates for each framework to be sure nothing changed.

 

As last thing I enabled Microsoft Update and now the update is listed as important (not in the optionals tab but also not selected) because when it's set up it enables the setting to have recommended updates considered as important.

Don't assume anything about the older .NET versions with the newer OSes.  For example, Server 2012 ships with 3.5, but you have to go to "Turn Windows features on or off" to install them.  Then you have to wait for the updates to install, then the updates to the updates, then...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Vivaldi, spiritual fork of the original opera browser, highly configurable 
    • You could have moved her to Apple. Would have been the same ending. For the basic stuff it's fine, I agree.
    • iFixit explains why it is cutting the repairability score of the Nintendo Switch by half by David Uzondu With less than three days till the official release of the Nintendo Switch 2, iFixit just announced it is chopping the original Switch's repairability score clean in half, taking it from an 8 out of 10 all the way down to a 4. Now, the actual console from 2017 has not changed a bit, but iFixit says its way of looking at repair and what is even possible in handheld gaming has come a long way in eight years. The company figured that with the Switch 2 about to drop, people would want a proper way to compare the old with the new. Back when the Switch first came out, it was a weird one to score because it was part console, part handheld. iFixit now feels it has a better handle on things, and since Nintendo itself says most people play the Switch undocked, the device is getting judged harder as a portable machine. The iFixit Repairability Scoring Rubic So, what are the big complaints making iFixit take an axe to the score? Well, that glued-in battery is still incredibly difficult to remove, and the only way to charge the thing is through a port soldered right onto the main circuit board, which is always a recipe for repair nightmares. On top of that, Nintendo has never bothered to sell official replacement parts for the original Switch or even give out official repair guides. You cannot just ignore issues like that when you are talking about how easy something is to fix. Even finding one of the specific types of thermal goop you need for many fixes inside the console has been a pain. And while everyone knows about the Joy-Con drift, iFixit is clear its score does not hit for bad durability, but seeing so many busted joysticks has made how easy they are to fix a bigger deal in its scoring lately. This is not the first time iFixit has had to go back and change a score based on new information or a change in how it sees things, like in 2023 when it cut the iPhone 14's repairability score because Apple started using software to link almost every part to a specific phone, making independent repairs a massive pain even if the phone was physically easier to open. iFixit still gives Nintendo credit for the plug-and-play joysticks (even if they drift), storage you can replace and add to, and an inside layout that is mostly simple. But those good points just do not count for as much when you compare the Switch to what is out there now and how much easier other companies like ASUS with the ROG Ally and Lenovo with the Legion Go, are making repairs. iFixit is hoping Nintendo learned a few things for the Switch 2. Plus, there is a Right to Repair law in New York that kicked in for gadgets made after July 1, 2023. That law might just force Nintendo to sell parts and share repair info for the new console, at least for things like batteries and screens. If Nintendo starts selling parts and guides for the original Switch while people are still buying it, iFixit says it will happily look at the score again.
    • Yes and No... Yesterday there was someone on another forum asking what Linux version he should use for his transition from Windows, based on his graphical/video/3d needs. He got 10 different Linux distros and a handful of GUI's as an answer. Linux for the uninformed is just a hot mess regarding distributions. People are used to one Windows version. Or one Mac. Not having to choose from a pile of... what actually? And yes, Linux Mint would be a great replacement as long as you use the PC for the basics. Anything else will quickly result in frustration and searching on various forums. Linux isn't really the easy replacement for Windows. As I hate to say it, transitioning to a Mac is a way better experience. And I'm not entirely unfamiliar with Linux, having extensively dabbled with Mint and lately with Rocky for my Davinci Resolve experiments. It's still a pain... It really is..
    • Welcome on board!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Leonard grant earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      portacnb1 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      portacnb1 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      m10d earned a badge
      First Post
    • Conversation Starter
      DarkShrunken earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      261
    2. 2
      snowy owl
      158
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      145
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      140
    5. 5
      Xenon
      131
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!