|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
How many frameworks do I need?Windows update says I need .NET Framework 1.1 service pack 1, but it fails
to install and will not say why. Looking in Add/Remove Programs, I have: Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 1.0 SP3 Developer Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 2.0 Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 What are these for? The last three seem cumulative. Do I need them all? Many thanx, Rip
Show quote
"RipperT" <Ripp***@Nowhere.com> wrote in message 3.0 is an add-on to 2.0, so you cannot remove 2.0.news:%23V3oPNBZHHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Windows update says I need .NET Framework 1.1 service pack 1, but it fails > to install and will not say why. Looking in Add/Remove Programs, I have: > > Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 1.0 SP3 Developer > Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 2.0 > Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 > Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 > Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 > > What are these for? The last three seem cumulative. Do I need them all? > > Many thanx, > > Rip > Whether you need 1.1 depends on whether or not you are currently using an application that needs 1.1. If you do have such an application installed, and you cannot obtain an updated version that can use 2.0, removing 1.1 will break the app. >> Do I need them all? Yes. It's a marketing gizmo / stupid technology decision, forcing you to buya new version of Visual Studio every time something changes in the Framework. Bob Lehmann Show quote "RipperT" <Ripp***@Nowhere.com> wrote in message news:%23V3oPNBZHHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Windows update says I need .NET Framework 1.1 service pack 1, but it fails > to install and will not say why. Looking in Add/Remove Programs, I have: > > Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 1.0 SP3 Developer > Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 2.0 > Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 > Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 > Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 > > What are these for? The last three seem cumulative. Do I need them all? > > Many thanx, > > Rip > > On Mar 11, 11:10 pm, "Bob Lehmann" <nos***@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote: Yes, because even though Visual Studio 2002/2003 were released years> >> Do I need them all? > > Yes. It's a marketing gizmo / stupid technology decision, forcing you to buy > a new version of Visual Studio every time something changes in the > Framework. > > Bob Lehmann > before 2.0 came out, they should obviously have automatically worked out how generics work... (and for 3.0, they're providing plugins for VS2005, even though that's the VS for 2.0...) Damien
Show quote
"Damien" <Damien_The_Unbelie***@hotmail.com> wrote in message 3.0 is just 2.0 + extra stuff, so nothing changed. If they could have news:1173697171.368652.51310@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 11, 11:10 pm, "Bob Lehmann" <nos***@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote: >> >> Do I need them all? >> >> Yes. It's a marketing gizmo / stupid technology decision, forcing you to >> buy >> a new version of Visual Studio every time something changes in the >> Framework. >> >> Bob Lehmann >> > Yes, because even though Visual Studio 2002/2003 were released years > before 2.0 came out, they should obviously have automatically worked > out how generics work... (and for 3.0, they're providing plugins for > VS2005, even though that's the VS for 2.0...) > > Damien > gotten Orcas done in time to release early this year (or last year, when it was originally planned), you'd be buying a new version of VS to do WPF, WCF, and WF. The new version of VS will be out before the end of the year, and will include 3.0 plus some more stuff (like Linq) I bet you can't do in VS2005. Robin S.
Show quote
On Mar 12, 2:45 pm, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote: So on the one hand, you claim it's just a marketing gizmo, but on the> "Damien" <Damien_The_Unbelie***@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1173697171.368652.51310@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 11, 11:10 pm, "Bob Lehmann" <nos***@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote: > >> >> Do I need them all? > > >> Yes. It's a marketing gizmo / stupid technology decision, forcing you to > >> buy > >> a new version of Visual Studio every time something changes in the > >> Framework. > > >> Bob Lehmann > > > Yes, because even though Visual Studio 2002/2003 were released years > > before 2.0 came out, they should obviously have automatically worked > > out how generics work... (and for 3.0, they're providing plugins for > > VS2005, even though that's the VS for 2.0...) > > > Damien > > 3.0 is just 2.0 + extra stuff, so nothing changed. If they could have > gotten Orcas done in time to release early this year (or last year, when it > was originally planned), you'd be buying a new version of VS to do WPF, > WCF, and WF. The new version of VS will be out before the end of the year, > and will include 3.0 plus some more stuff (like Linq) I bet you can't do in > VS2005. > > Robin S. other hand, you admit that there is new functionality in each version of the framework (I think, for the sake of sanity, we should gloss over 2.0/3.0, since I think we'd both agree that those two are the same) which you'd need a new version of Visual Studio to access? Orcas is now solidly targetted at 3.5, which is the release which will have Linq, VB 9 and C# 3. Damien > So on the one hand, you claim it's just a marketing gizmo, but on the I agree with you that Bob's comments are unfair, but I think Robin's point > other hand, you admit that there is new functionality in each version > of the framework (I think, for the sake of sanity, we should gloss > over 2.0/3.0, since I think we'd both agree that those two are the > same) which you'd need a new version of Visual Studio to access? Orcas > is now solidly targetted at 3.5, which is the release which will have > Linq, VB 9 and C# 3. > > Damien > actually agrees with your position: there will be a new version of VS soon, but it'll include a whole host of new functionality not supported in earlier versions of .NET. Having said that... I did see one of my colleagues playing with some Linq the other day and it was somehow working fine in VS 2005 so maybe a new VS won't be necessary. The only mud that might stick here is .NET 1.0 vs .NET 1.1 where you needed VS 2003 for the latter, yet the differences between them weren't really that significant. Regards, Bart
Show quote
"Bart Read" <Bart R***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message You're right, that was my point. I'm not bashing Microsoft, I'm going with news:86CDBD09-BE7D-40EE-B356-BC8B11963329@microsoft.com... > > >> So on the one hand, you claim it's just a marketing gizmo, but on the >> other hand, you admit that there is new functionality in each version >> of the framework (I think, for the sake of sanity, we should gloss >> over 2.0/3.0, since I think we'd both agree that those two are the >> same) which you'd need a new version of Visual Studio to access? Orcas >> is now solidly targetted at 3.5, which is the release which will have >> Linq, VB 9 and C# 3. >> >> Damien >> > > I agree with you that Bob's comments are unfair, but I think Robin's > point > actually agrees with your position: there will be a new version of VS > soon, > but it'll include a whole host of new functionality not supported in > earlier > versions of .NET. Having said that... I did see one of my colleagues > playing > with some Linq the other day and it was somehow working fine in VS 2005 > so > maybe a new VS won't be necessary. > > The only mud that might stick here is .NET 1.0 vs .NET 1.1 where you > needed > VS 2003 for the latter, yet the differences between them weren't really > that > significant. > > > Regards, > Bart > the (work)flow. Haha. (Sorry, it's late). It would be great if they released an update to VS2005 that we could use all the new functionality with, but I'd be really surprised. I think they've thrown VS2003 out the window. Not supported on Vista, can't use .Net 3.0 with it (which makes sense, since you can't use .Net 2.0). Robin S. On Mar 14, 5:23 pm, Bart Read <Bart R***@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote: Show quote > > So on the one hand, you claim it's just a marketing gizmo, but on the I wouldn't be surprised if you could use the Linq functionality inside> > other hand, you admit that there is new functionality in each version > > of the framework (I think, for the sake of sanity, we should gloss > > over 2.0/3.0, since I think we'd both agree that those two are the > > same) which you'd need a new version of Visual Studio to access? Orcas > > is now solidly targetted at 3.5, which is the release which will have > > Linq, VB 9 and C# 3. > > > Damien > > I agree with you that Bob's comments are unfair, but I think Robin's point > actually agrees with your position: there will be a new version of VS soon, > but it'll include a whole host of new functionality not supported in earlier > versions of .NET. Having said that... I did see one of my colleagues playing > with some Linq the other day and it was somehow working fine in VS 2005 so > maybe a new VS won't be necessary. > > The only mud that might stick here is .NET 1.0 vs .NET 1.1 where you needed > VS 2003 for the latter, yet the differences between them weren't really that > significant. > > Regards, > Bart VS2005, since even for .Net 3.5, they're not changing the CLR. But the major change for 3.5 is what the compilers support, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to use the Linq syntax (you'd have to make direct calls into the Linq functions), nor to be able to use the new type inference system ("var x ="). Still, I'm only dreaming at the moment. Still stuck on 1.1/VS2003 here :-( Damien You also won't be able to use LINQ designers, refactor upgrades, etc. You
can download the March CTP to see most of what will be in the final release. -- Show quoteGregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA ********************************************* Think outside the box! ********************************************* "Damien" <Damien_The_Unbelie***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1173945882.930272.293220@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 14, 5:23 pm, Bart Read <Bart R***@discussions.microsoft.com> > wrote: >> > So on the one hand, you claim it's just a marketing gizmo, but on the >> > other hand, you admit that there is new functionality in each version >> > of the framework (I think, for the sake of sanity, we should gloss >> > over 2.0/3.0, since I think we'd both agree that those two are the >> > same) which you'd need a new version of Visual Studio to access? Orcas >> > is now solidly targetted at 3.5, which is the release which will have >> > Linq, VB 9 and C# 3. >> >> > Damien >> >> I agree with you that Bob's comments are unfair, but I think Robin's >> point >> actually agrees with your position: there will be a new version of VS >> soon, >> but it'll include a whole host of new functionality not supported in >> earlier >> versions of .NET. Having said that... I did see one of my colleagues >> playing >> with some Linq the other day and it was somehow working fine in VS 2005 >> so >> maybe a new VS won't be necessary. >> >> The only mud that might stick here is .NET 1.0 vs .NET 1.1 where you >> needed >> VS 2003 for the latter, yet the differences between them weren't really >> that >> significant. >> >> Regards, >> Bart > > I wouldn't be surprised if you could use the Linq functionality inside > VS2005, since even for .Net 3.5, they're not changing the CLR. But the > major change for 3.5 is what the compilers support, so I wouldn't > expect you to be able to use the Linq syntax (you'd have to make > direct calls into the Linq functions), nor to be able to use the new > type inference system ("var x ="). > > Still, I'm only dreaming at the moment. Still stuck on 1.1/VS2003 > here :-( > > Damien > 1.0 is Visual Studio .NET 2002 (or apps you have installed that use this)
1.1 is Visual Studio .NET 2003 (same caveat) 2.0 is Visual Studio .NET 2005 (last full framework) 3.0 are incremental additions to Framework 2.0 (not a full framework) Compact Framework is for development on Mobile devices and necessary only if you are developing for mobile. 2.0 and 3.0 I would definitely keep. If you have no installed 1.0 or 1.1 apps, you can get rid of those. -- Show quoteGregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA ********************************************* Think outside the box! ********************************************* "RipperT" <Ripp***@Nowhere.com> wrote in message news:%23V3oPNBZHHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Windows update says I need .NET Framework 1.1 service pack 1, but it fails > to install and will not say why. Looking in Add/Remove Programs, I have: > > Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 1.0 SP3 Developer > Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 2.0 > Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 > Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 > Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 > > What are these for? The last three seem cumulative. Do I need them all? > > Many thanx, > > Rip >  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics