That is true many times. Although some programs require that it already be installed. For most on this list, that would not be a problem. But for others...
True that some versions are already installed on Vista/7. Bobby -----Original Message----- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Scott Sipe Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 4:31 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I'll just toss out there, that if you DON'T need .NET, there's no reason I can think of to go out of your way to install if. If a program you use does require .NET, it will tell you exactly what version it needs. I guess it comes built-in to Vista/W7? Scott On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:42 AM, DSinc wrote: > Bobby/Greg, > > Seems I asked a bad question. Or, I just do not understand your answers. > Sorry. > I now have a base Windows XP pro SP3 install;.......after WGA and 79 critical updates. > It was fun! Only took 3 internal Windows Update crashes and 6 hours to complete. > I know. Stuff happens! > > Ok, I'll play dot-NET. Is there a link I can go to and start all over from scratch with a new, virgin, fully patched, MS-blessed install??? > The CUSTOM choices do NOT play nice. > > I'd be quite happy with V3,5 sp1. ATM ......NO-Can-Do! > > BTW, V4 of dot-NET does not seem to play nice in XP (32-bit))..... Perhaps my bad. > Best, > Duncan > > On 08/07/2010 00:14, Greg Sevart wrote: >> All you really need to install is 3.5 to get 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. 3.0 and 3.5 >> don't include a new CLR--they just extend the 2.0 CLR. That means that they >> must install all the previous versions back to 2.0 to operate. >> >> 4.0 is a whole new CLR and the installer only includes that version. >> >> 1.1 can probably be left off any new builds. There are a few legacy apps >> that still require it, but they're pretty rare now. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid >>> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >>> Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET >>> >>> I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so >> little >>> code. >>> >>> As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of >> stuff uses 1.1 >>> that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I >> think. >>> >>> Bobby >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com >>> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc >>> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM >>> To: Hardware Group >>> Subject: [H] MS dot-NET >>> >>> Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was >>> painless and may be beneficial in the future. >>> OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do >> not see any >>> positive or negative effect......................until........... >>> I rebuild a machine from scratch. >>> >>> I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. >>> I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It >>> bombed/failed. >>> Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. >>> I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! >>> >>> On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to >> start >>> the game again???? >>> Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does......... :) Best, >> Duncan >>> >> >> >> >>
