[winXP] Which version of .NET Framework should I install?


Recommended Posts

Heja,

I just Installed a custom stripped down version of WINxp Pro SP3 (I removed the original Net Framework that ships with XP). Its not the first time for that im installing XP, but I never really knew what to do with .net framework.. I usually just install them all via MS update. But I read its not necessary for example to install .net framework 1.1.

netframework.png

As you can see I haven't installed any .net framework version.

Which versions do I have to install? Do I only need to install the latest version 4?

You don't need .NET at all for normal use of XP (99.9% of applications don't need .net) until installing software that needs .NET (there are some new apps now that require .net 4 and that application will ask for installing .net), then you can decide if you need that application and install .net ,or you can pass and find a replacement that doesn't need .net.

  On 18/05/2011 at 14:20, De.Bug said:

If you need .NET to run a certain program, install .NET 4.0 as it runs all older versions of .NET too. If you don't need the framework for anything specific, don't download it.

not true, .net 3.5 includes .net 2-3.5, .net4 is a standalone, it doesn't contain any older versions. .net 1.1 is a standalone too.

Don't install any, just install whatever you application uses, most newer apps that require .net use .net 3.5 or 4.0.

  On 18/05/2011 at 14:30, torrentthief said:

not true, .net 3.5 includes .net 2-3.5, .net4 is a standalone, it doesn't contain any older versions. .net 1.1 is a standalone too.

Don't install any, just install whatever you application uses, most newer apps that require .net use .net 3.5 or 4.0.

You sure? I swear it runs the older versions too. Other than that I agree with what you said.

  On 18/05/2011 at 14:47, dumble said:

But for example, if another app needs 2.0 it does not matter that I install this after I installed 3.5 right?

3.5 installs 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5. If you install 3.5, you'll be able to run 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 apps without installing anything else.

  On 18/05/2011 at 14:30, torrentthief said:

not true, .net 3.5 includes .net 2-3.5, .net4 is a standalone, it doesn't contain any older versions. .net 1.1 is a standalone too.

  On 18/05/2011 at 15:10, KavazovAngel said:

3.5 installs 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5. If you install 3.5, you'll be able to run 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 apps without installing anything else.

Ooops! I didn't realise that. Thought they were all separate. Sorry! :blush:

  On 18/05/2011 at 15:07, De.Bug said:

You sure? I swear it runs the older versions too. Other than that I agree with what you said.

.NET 3.5 is an interesting case. It's not a new framework version, but rather an extension of .NET 3.0, which itself is an extension of .NET 2.0. So .NET 3.5 = 2.0 + 3.0 + 3.5 all in one (large) package.

.NET 1.1 and 1.0 are separate things, though.

Source

  On 18/05/2011 at 16:10, Lilrich said:

.NET 3.5 is an interesting case. It's not a new framework version, but rather an extension of .NET 3.0, which itself is an extension of .NET 2.0. So .NET 3.5 = 2.0 + 3.0 + 3.5 all in one (large) package.

.NET 1.1 and 1.0 are separate things, though.

Source

More interesting is the fact that when you install 3.5 it doesn't uninstall 1.0, 1.1, 2.0. 3.0 which are redundant.

The best method is to clear all versions of .net with Portable NET Framework CleanUp Tool and install just 3.5 and 4.0 if needed.

  On 18/05/2011 at 16:20, alexalex said:

More interesting is the fact that when you install 3.5 it doesn't uninstall 1.0, 1.1, 2.0. 3.0 which are redundant.

They are not redundant. As already mentioned 3.5 = 2.0 + 3.0 + Extra. Uninstalling 2.0 or 3.0 would break 3.5. 1.0 and 1.1 are separate which could be theoretically removed - but what if people have programs which need to run in 1.0 or 1.1? 2.0 can run 1.0 and 1.1 programs - but not with 100% compatibility.

Most .Net programs are written for 3.5/3.0/2.0. Some programs are starting to target .Net 4.0. Versions 1.0 and 1.1 are basically outdated.

You should only install .net if you plan on running .net apps, but if you do plan on using .net apps then .net 3.5sp1 would be the one that you would want to start with. i would avoid .net 4 as you will have startup slowdowns.

I do not recommend to install any .NET frameworks. It's crapware, cancer and and slow downs entire system. In Windows Vista or Seven you have no choice, .NET is included, but XP is clean.. If some application which you wanna use requires .NET, i would choose an alternative... There are always alternatives. .NET is like Java. Avoid it.

  On 18/05/2011 at 16:48, 6205 said:

I do not recommend to install any .NET frameworks. It's crapware, cancer and and slow downs entire system. In Windows Vista or Seven you have no choice, .NET is included, but XP is clean.. If some application which you wanna use requires .NET, i would choose an alternative... There are always alternatives. .NET is like Java. Avoid it.

an alternative is to use a portable app which has the .net integrated so only that app could use it.

  On 18/05/2011 at 17:23, cooky560 said:

Do not install anything to do with .net framework 4 on XP, it ruins the start up times and causes general slow-down, also I've never found an app that I need daily that exclusively requires .net 4.0

i agree about .net as i said something similar about .net 4.

  On 18/05/2011 at 17:23, cooky560 said:
.. it ruins the start up times and causes general slow-down ..

How do you figure? Unless you're running a dotNET app it's not doing anything, unless you mean those first few moments after a fresh install as it's building up the GAC. (Optimizing itself for your hardware and all that.) If that's the case you can always force it to finish right away instead of processing in the background via "negen executequeueditems". It does nothing otherwise unless you run something that uses the platform.

  On 18/05/2011 at 22:44, Max Norris said:

How do you figure? Unless you're running a dotNET app it's not doing anything, unless you mean those first few moments after a fresh install as it's building up the GAC. (Optimizing itself for your hardware and all that.) If that's the case you can always force it to finish right away instead of processing in the background via "negen executequeueditems". It does nothing otherwise unless you run something that uses the platform.

Windows update recommended I install something called .net framework 4.0 client profile or something like that, after doing so my cpu sat idle for 45+ seconds on startup, every startup for weeks, removing this resolved all my problems

  On 18/05/2011 at 23:33, cooky560 said:

Windows update recommended I install something called .net framework 4.0 client profile or something like that, after doing so my cpu sat idle for 45+ seconds on startup, every startup for weeks, removing this resolved all my problems

MSCONFIG and disable any unnecessary programs that start when you boot (including .net).

  On 18/05/2011 at 23:33, cooky560 said:
Windows update recommended I install something called .net framework 4.0 client profile or something like that, after doing so my cpu sat idle for 45+ seconds on startup, every startup for weeks, removing this resolved all my problems

The only program you should be seeing is "mscorsvw", which is compiling all your assemblies to native code in the background as they get added to the system. As mentioned above, if you force it to run now instead of in the background, that'll clear its queue and it won't have anything to do.. well until you install something new that uses the platform. Once that queue's empty, it won't be using any CPU time whatsoever, and it doesn't keep doing it over and over.. once and done unless the assembly gets updated. Drop to a console and run ngen to get it to finish off its work. On a fully loaded Visual Studio install with a ton of components this process takes maybe 2-3 minutes tops on a mid-range system.. and yes this includes a few XP installs that I work with for testing purposes. If it's been doing this for weeks, then there's something else at fault or some unnecessary "tweaks" being applied.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.