.net 1/2/3 together on XP?

MarcLister

MarcLister

MarcLister

Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
19,606
Location
LU7
I've just been sorting out my backups folder with installers and files for my PC for when I reinstall Windows.

I've noticed that I have installers for .net 1, 2 and 3. Now I thought that if I installed .net 2 that I wouldn't need to install .net 1 and if I installed .net 3 I wouldn't need .net 1 or 2. Is this right?

Can I delete the installers for .net 1 and 2 without causing any problems? I only ask because I think I've installed .net 2 before and then run Windows Update and couldn't quite understand why it wanted me to install .net 1/1.1.
 
'lo there Pete. :)

I already have them all installed. :p I was just wondering if I could remove .net 1 and 2 and not bork my PC when running apps needing .net 1 or 2.

Btw fantastico sig. :)
 
No, an app built for .NET 1.1 will not work if you only have .NET 2.0 for example.
You need the version against which the application was built.
 
So in other words Microsoft haven't made the .NET versions backwards compatible so that a .NET 1.1 app can work on a PC with only .NET 3 installed?

Thanks for clearing it up. :)
 
MarcLister said:
So in other words Microsoft haven't made the .NET versions backwards compatible so that a .NET 1.1 app can work on a PC with only .NET 3 installed?

Thanks for clearing it up. :)
Click to expand...

Well, it may work!

I think MS says that the different versions are mostly backward compatible, but there are no guarantees.
If you have all versions installed then the program will use the version of the framework it was built against and you won't have any issues.

If you really only want to have 3.0 then you're running the risk that applications may not work, not something I'd really want to do.
 
MarcLister said:
Yeah I can see that would be a problem. Not sure if I get the reference. :confused:
Click to expand...

50% of PHP's vast swathe of problems come from poor design, the other 50% come from maintaining previous bad design choices so that you can still run terrible scripts written for terrible versions of PHP 10 years after they were written.
 
Has this not been alleviated somewhat with PHP5 running on the Zend II Engine? All support for PHP4 is going to be stopped in August next year, which is around the time PHP6 will be released.
 
SiriusB said:
Has this not been alleviated somewhat with PHP5 running on the Zend II Engine? All support for PHP4 is going to be stopped in August next year, which is around the time PHP6 will be released.
Click to expand...

No. PHP 6 had the potential to, but it's still not going to.

It's not about support for older versions, it's about backwards compatibility within the language itself.
 
robmiller said:
No. PHP 6 had the potential to, but it's still not going to.

It's not about support for older versions, it's about backwards compatibility within the language itself.
Click to expand...

Well that's what I am saying. Already in PHP5 some PHP4 stuff doesn't work, which is one of the reasons why many PHP4-based websites haven't moved over to PHP5. The fact support is soon to end for PHP4 suggests to me that they don't intend to keep compatibility with PHP4 for much longer.
 
SiriusB said:
Well that's what I am saying. Already in PHP5 some PHP4 stuff doesn't work, which is one of the reasons why many PHP4-based websites haven't moved over to PHP5. The fact support is soon to end for PHP4 suggests to me that they don't intend to keep compatibility with PHP4 for much longer.
Click to expand...

Except PHP6 is already designed, all major features decided (which has pretty much been the case since late 2005), and they're still keeping a load of holdovers from the PHP4 days for compatibility reasons.

They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. PHP without a rewrite is a pretty fatally flawed language, but a complete rewrite would see virtually no adoption (far worse than even the farcical uptake of PHP5). Which is why it's important to do things well from the start (à la .NET).
 
Never really used PHP much, but I take it that it doesn't do multiversioning like .NET does then?

IMO now that we've got plenty of space on our hard drives the way .NET does it is ideal, I've currently got versions 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 of the framwork on my HD and it takes up around 270Mb.
You get the flexibility of having old products still work fine with the version in which they were written, yet streamlined newer versions of the framework that aren't filled with legacy junk.
 
Haircut said:
IMO now that we've got plenty of space on our hard drives the way .NET does it is ideal, I've currently got versions 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 of the framwork on my HD and it takes up around 270Mb.
Click to expand...
Is that for writing .NET apps or just running them? On my PC .NET 3 takes up 245Mb and .NET 2 185Mb (according to Add or Remove Programs).
 
MarcLister said:
Ah thanks Haircut. :)

Can't really see why MS couldn't have made .NET properly backwardly compatible.
Click to expand...

Actually what they have done is proper backwards compatibility. As robmiller said if they want to do some drastic changes rather than try to shoe-horn it into an "update" they just release a new version.
That way when people run an old .NET application it won't be affected by changes newer versions make, and if you want to take advantage of newer features in your program you just tell it that it is targeting a specific version.
 
Side-by-side versioning inherently provides backward compatibility ;)

The global assembly cache can literally store a million different versions of the same assembly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom