Removing duplicate .NET Installs

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmq1
  • Start date Start date
M

mmq1

Somehow I wound up with both version 1.1 and version 1.0.3705 of .Net
Framework installed. Seems redundant to keep the older version, so can
I simply use Add/Remove to deinstall that without disturbing the 1.1
install?
 
Somehow I wound up with both version 1.1 and version 1.0.3705 of .Net
Framework installed. Seems redundant to keep the older version, so can
I simply use Add/Remove to deinstall that without disturbing the 1.1
install?
Click to expand...
 
Somehow I wound up with both version 1.1 and version 1.0.3705 of .Net
Framework installed. Seems redundant to keep the older version, so can
I simply use Add/Remove to deinstall that without disturbing the 1.1
install?
Click to expand...


No one ? Is this a hard question, or too easy?
 
No one ? Is this a hard question, or too easy?
Click to expand...

I think it's because most people on here are still recovering from
being bombarded for weeks after 2.0 was released with questions from
people who were convinced that 2.0 superceded all other versions and
that they should therefore remove all previous versions. Not that I'm
criticizing you or your question, and since it is slightly different, I
think I'll have a stab at it...

1) Each .NET version (1.0, 1.1 and 2.0) is an independant entity. Think
less of business software and more of games - you don't expect "Age of
Empires 2" to overwrite "Age of Empires", or for the two to have any
dependance on each other.

2) Whilst you can remove 1.0 and leave 1.1 intact, bear in mind that
any software you are using which currently has a dependance on 1.0 has
*probably* only been tested against the 1.0 framework.

3) If you remove the framework version which a particular application
was compiled against, it will default to using the latest version
installed on the machine.

4) There *are* breaking changes between framework versions. In most
cases, this will have no effect. In some cases, software will fail
completely if run against a different version.

5) If you are using thid-party apps which were compiled against 1.0,
and then remove 1.0 and force them to run against 1.1, you may discover
that you are no longer running a supported configuration, and so
therefore no longer be able to receive assistance if the software
fails.

6) Do you really need ~100MB of disk space back? If not, just leave it
be.

Hope this has helped,

Damien
 
Hmmm. Seems rather odd that a later subversion would 'break' an
earlier release. It's not supposed to work that way, I'm sure you'll
aggree. If it does its a bug.

Java, does not require that you keep every iteration, only BUGS in
the implementaion make that necessary.

I don't use many apps that require .NET, and I could presumable
replace that earlier version if I had to. I'll probably just delete
it, after cloning my drives (just in case).

PS A different version of a game is a different game. I don't think a
subversion of .NET falls into the the category of a different program.
Thanks for your input.
 
Hmmm. Seems rather odd that a later subversion would 'break' an
earlier release. It's not supposed to work that way, I'm sure you'll
aggree. If it does its a bug.
Click to expand...
They're called breaking changes. For instance, you discover that an
existing function is partially broken, so you fix the behaviour to what
it should have been. But any existing program which has come to rely on
the partially broken implementation may not behave correctly on the
fixed implementation. That's just one example of a breaking change.
Java, does not require that you keep every iteration, only BUGS in
the implementaion make that necessary.
Click to expand...
There are upgrades to existing versions which just fix bugs. You
wouldn't expect older versions to stick around. But if Sun were to
release version 6, you would expect there to be larger, functional,
changes. And if you had software which had been developed and *tested*
against version 5, you may prefer that it continue to work against that
version rather than against a later version (which the software may not
have been tested against, and which the software developers may not
provide support for)
I don't use many apps that require .NET, and I could presumable
replace that earlier version if I had to. I'll probably just delete
it, after cloning my drives (just in case).
Click to expand...
I don't understand what great personal harm having the older framework
on your machine is causing you, but sure, go ahead.
PS A different version of a game is a different game. I don't think a
subversion of .NET falls into the the category of a different program.
Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
You keep referring to "subversion". They are not, they are different
versions. I would describe a subversion as, for instance, the Service
Pack 1 for .NET Framework 1.1.

I was using the game analogy, since this concept of each version being
distinct, different, and not necessarily an "upgrade" is quite
different from most business software. There are three versions of the
..NET framework. These are 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0. 1.1 has received a service
pack, I do not remember any SPs for 1.0 and (since it's only just
arrived), 2.0 has not received one yet. Sure, it may have been clearer
that 1.1 was not an upgrade of 1.0 if they had given it the name 2.0
(and the new one would then by 3.0). But hey, that's history for you.

Damien
 
I know nothing about .NET, but if 1.1 was not intended as a backward
compatable upgrade of 1.0 , then someone is smoking the funny stuff.
Any other examples of that naming convention used this way? I've only
been around PC's 25+ years, so forgive my newbieness.
 
I know nothing about .NET, but if 1.1 was not intended as a backward
compatable upgrade of 1.0 , then someone is smoking the funny stuff.
Any other examples of that naming convention used this way? I've only
been around PC's 25+ years, so forgive my newbieness.
Click to expand...
I've been as clear as I can be in previous posts. Anyone else feel like
having a go at explaining the same thing over again?

Damien
 
Back
Top