.NET Framework - do I need to keep every version?

[Loooren]

I've been trying to clear out my hard drive, and going through the add / remove programs list, I have three versions of .NET Framework listed - 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0. I suspect this might seem really obvious to most of you (sorry) but do I need to keep 1.1 and 2.0 around if 3.0 is there?

Thanks in advance!

[roadgeek9]

I've been trying to clear out my hard drive, and going through the add / remove programs list, I have three versions of .NET Framework listed - 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0. I suspect this might seem really obvious to most of you (sorry) but do I need to keep 1.1 and 2.0 around if 3.0 is there?

Thanks in advance!

You do.

[Mordkanin]

3.0 depends on 2.0. You should have 1.1 around for apps that require it.

When you install 3.5, that'll require that 3.0 is there (It uses both 3.0 and 2.0)

[RobC]

I am a VB6 programmer who is ****ed off that MS did not create backward compatability. (Or a proper upgrade utility.)

And they are still doing it.

I believe that programs written for the earlier frameworks, need those frameworks to run. They won't run if only the recent framework is present.

[Mordkanin]

I am a VB6 programmer who is ****ed off that MS did not create backward compatability. (Or a proper upgrade utility.)

And they are still doing it.

I believe that programs written for the earlier frameworks, need those frameworks to run. They won't run if only the recent framework is present.

The newer frameworks (3.0 and 3.5) both use the v2.0 CLR. That's why you have to have 2.0 installed. 3.0 and 3.5 are basically just a set of addons (WPF, WCF, LINQ, etc.)

Most apps written for 1.1 will work just fine with 2.0. However, the changes to how everything works, and to the BCL itself are big enough to justify installing 1.1 if you need it. It really matured with 2.0, which is probably why everything is still based on 2.0.

[Loooren]

OK - thanks everyone! (Not that I'm particularly delighted by the answer, though it seems I'm not the only one :ermm:)

Edit: Actually, I used to have a copy of Visual Studio 2005 on my laptop (I wasn't the one using it...) and now I've uninstalled. Maybe I should elaborate - do I need .NET Framework around for normal purposes?

Edited July 14, 2008 by Loooren

[soldier1st]

do you run any .net apps?if you do most are 2.0 so stick to that one unless you have a .net app that needs 1.1,vista comes with 3.0 so no worry there.

[Antaris]

I am a VB6 programmer who is ****ed off that MS did not create backward compatability. (Or a proper upgrade utility.)

And they are still doing it.

I believe that programs written for the earlier frameworks, need those frameworks to run. They won't run if only the recent framework is present.

Er, .NET and the older VB6 runtime are completely separate. Your VB6 applications can still run as long as you have the Vb runtime files installed.

OK - thanks everyone! (Not that I'm particularly delighted by the answer, though it seems I'm not the only one :ermm:)

Edit: Actually, I used to have a copy of Visual Studio 2005 on my laptop (I wasn't the one using it...) and now I've uninstalled. Maybe I should elaborate - do I need .NET Framework around for normal purposes?

Regardless, .NET will normally be delivered during the Windows Update process. Why do you want to get rid of it? You may find that you need it later on. .NET client development is showing a boom, with more and more applications coming out, the .NET Framework is the cornerstone!

[The_Decryptor]

I am a VB6 programmer who is ****ed off that MS did not create backward compatability. (Or a proper upgrade utility.)

...

They provided an API compatibility layer (MsgBox calls MessageBox.Show)

The language was changed in various breaking ways, but it was for the better, VB.NET is a much better language than VB6.