Zlain 116 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Urm, do I need these updates to my computer. In Microsoft Update, it gives my version 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 to install. Do I need all three, or should I just install the latest version? Can anyone explain to me what they do? Thanks in advance! Link to post Share on other sites
Jan86 0 Share Posted September 1, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework If you don't use any programs that need it then don't bother installing it. Link to post Share on other sites
Puggsley 0 Share Posted September 1, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework If they are needed by a program then you will be forced to install them other wise its up to you Link to post Share on other sites
night_stalker_z 9 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Install .Net 2 if you know you have programs which need to use it otherwise the program will give you a link to the .Net site. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenomorph 38 Share Posted September 1, 2007 if you have a program written in just 2.0, then you'd need 2.0 to run it. it wont use 3.0 or 1.1. it's the same with a program written with 1.1. having 2.0 or 3.0 wont work for it. personally, i keep them all installed - that way any .NET program runs. and if you have Vista, you already have them installed as well. Link to post Share on other sites
night_stalker_z 9 Share Posted September 1, 2007 You can .Net 1.1 programs using .Net 2. I think only the Oracle db stuff is broken. Link to post Share on other sites
Zlain 116 Author Share Posted September 1, 2007 Okay, I wont install it then. I don't think I need it for the moment. Thanks for your help. Link to post Share on other sites
soldier1st 40 Share Posted September 1, 2007 only install .net if an app needs it but if u do install it then install all 3. Link to post Share on other sites
tao muon 0 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Since you obviously have bits of those .NET frameworks installed already, it's better that you install the updates than not. The updates include security fixes and the like. You'd be surprised how many programs use .NET- particularly audio / video and the like. Link to post Share on other sites
Zlain 116 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 Since you obviously have bits of those .NET frameworks installed already, it's better that you install the updates than not. The updates include security fixes and the like. You'd be surprised how many programs use .NET- particularly audio / video and the like. Yes true, but I wanted to save some space on my computer. I still have 93% left, but thats only because I was forced to reformat a while back. I use to have something like 40% left, so this time around I am trying to cut down on what I download. These updates take up a lot of space which is frustrating. Link to post Share on other sites
Mordkanin 225 Share Posted September 2, 2007 You can .Net 1.1 programs using .Net 2. I think only the Oracle db stuff is broken. Most installers will fail when you have 2.0, but it wants 1.1. Link to post Share on other sites
+LogicalApex 1,750 MVC Share Posted September 2, 2007 if you have a program written in just 2.0, then you'd need 2.0 to run it.it wont use 3.0 or 1.1. it's the same with a program written with 1.1. having 2.0 or 3.0 wont work for it. personally, i keep them all installed - that way any .NET program runs. and if you have Vista, you already have them installed as well. A lot of what you posted is not accurate... .NET supports side by side installs so you can install all 3 yes... But unless the application written on it needs something specific to the version it was written on you don't need to install the older version. The majority of .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET 2.0 without a problem... .NET 3.0 isn't a CLR update (it only adds stuff on top of .NET 2.0 CLR) so unless you must have .NET 1.x I would install .NET 3.0 only and you'll have the capability of all of them... Vista only includes .NET 3.0 out of the box... Link to post Share on other sites
Puggsley 0 Share Posted September 2, 2007 ^ Thats correct The problem with that is the if you have 2.0 installed and the program needs 1.1 then a lot of installers can't detect 2.0 and install 1.1 as well even though its not required Link to post Share on other sites
Athlonite 131 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Yes true, but I wanted to save some space on my computer. I still have 93% left, but thats only because I was forced to reformat a while back. I use to have something like 40% left, so this time around I am trying to cut down on what I download. These updates take up a lot of space which is frustrating. ok if you want to save space but have all the updates loaded here's what you do go into control panel and open up the folder options icon under the VIEW tab tick these box's and click apply box 1: Display the contents of system folders box 2: show hidden files and folders UNTICK these box 1: Hide extensions for know file types box 2: Hide protected operating system file (recommended) you'll need to click on yes when a dialog pops up click apply and ok ... now go into the windows directory and you'll see all of the windows update uninstall folders for the updates now select these and press delete and you'll save about 200MB Link to post Share on other sites
Zlain 116 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 click apply and ok ... now go into the windows directory and you'll see all of the windows update uninstall folders for the updates now select these and press delete and you'll save about 200MB Yes, this can also be done through Ccleaner. But I'm unsure about doing this because I read somewhere that when you do this, if something did go wrong with an update, you would be unable to uninstall it. Would it be possible to backup these files on a USB stick, and then if a problem like this did re-occur, I could then restore the files? Link to post Share on other sites
moonfleet 0 Share Posted September 2, 2007 There are definitely some things that might be part of your computer's original manufacturer installation that use 1.1, which won't run if you should uninstall 1.1 just because you have .NET 2.0 installed. I like .NET personally, and I don't think it takes that much space on a hard drive that there's any need to worry about space. Just Paint.NET alone makes having .NET 2.0 worth it. Link to post Share on other sites
soldier1st 40 Share Posted September 2, 2007 also the .net do take a few more resources but they seem more stable,also if u install the .net on a very old system it will slow down but if u install it on a fairly fast system it wont slow it down. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now