MS .Net Framework

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by TouchuvGrey, Feb 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TouchuvGrey

    TouchuvGrey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    441
    Location:
    South Mississippi USA ( ya'll )
    If i have MS.Net framework 2 installed, do i still need .Net Framework 1 ? Are there any security issues involved here ?


    Mike :mad:
     
  2. pugmug

    pugmug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    413
    I was thinking that is was up to ver 3.0 now.I have had no problems with using it.
     
  3. pilotart

    pilotart Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    377
    AFAIK you still need 1 ( dotnetfx.exe ) for some programs.
     
  4. glentrino2duo

    glentrino2duo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Posts:
    310
    yes, it all depends on the programs you use. I have VS.NET 2003 which depends on .net 1.1. I also have Paint.NET which depends on .net 2.0, so I have it also. you can check the system requirements of the programs you use to check if which apps depend on what .net framework version.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  5. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I have both on my computer, but I find it stupid that I have to keep 1.1, when 2.0 is installed. New versions usually cover the older versions too.
    Is that a new brilliant invention of M$, like the on-line activation of winXPproSP2 ? :rolleyes:
     
  6. Meriadoc

    Meriadoc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Cymru
    MS .Net Framework?
    .Net is used by MS, 3rd party, Internet and non Internet
    applications, and depends if you need it on whether an app calls for it.
    If you dont know if it is bloat then keep it, and you should now have 1 through to v3.
     
  7. glentrino2duo

    glentrino2duo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Posts:
    310
    I couldn't agree more. Unlike Java, apps that depend on Java would always work with the latest one. I think it's actually a flaw in the design of .net framework itself.
     
  8. eyes-open

    eyes-open Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    721
    While I've never knowingly experienced a problem - it may not be a universally accurate statement. I came across this addition to the Sun Java site a while ago.

    Source of quote
     
  9. pilotart

    pilotart Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    377
    Warning Sun Java: check version, remove older ones

    The link above goes to the:
    from the top of this Boardo_O
    which advice should be followed on this issue?

    "...recommended that you keep older versions ..."
     
  10. eyes-open

    eyes-open Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    721
    I just archive my older versions on the off chance I fall foul of the long shot. Then the ones in the Java folder can be deleted, or if you prefer just rename them so they can't be called up.

    Edit: Adding additional option; If you are happier just removing older options and reclaiming the disc space, then an archive is available where you can download old versions if for any reason there's a need.

    Java.sun.archives
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  11. pilotart

    pilotart Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    377
    Thank you for the link to the Archive, which has been bookmarked.

    All I had in Control Panel Add/Remove was the single "J2SE Runtime Enviroment 5.0 Update 10" (had been Removing previous based on warnings above). Never any problems from that.

    Options are to "Change" or "Remove" and Change offered some additional options that had not been installed.
    Those were added and it now shows a size of 120.00MB. :)

    After '11' is installed, shall look into Program Files to rename '10'.
     
  12. eyes-open

    eyes-open Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    721
    You're welcome pilotart - it's an unfortunate set of mixed messages, but the security angle must have the edge...

    @ TouchuvGrey - sorry the thread moved off your OT.....
     
  13. pugmug

    pugmug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    413
  14. TouchuvGrey

    TouchuvGrey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    441
    Location:
    South Mississippi USA ( ya'll )
    It did indeed go off topic a tad. BUT i'm always glad to learn anything that will improve security and/or performance in my computers.

    Mike :)
     
  15. GideonD

    GideonD Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Posts:
    150
    I've done some testing on this now.
    3.0 on a clean install with no other .NETs installed will install 3.0 and 2.0 along side it. They both appear in add/remove. 1.1 still needs downloaded separately. You DO need all three if you have apps that use them. I tested an old 1.1 app with just 2.0/3.0 installed and it wouldn't install without 1.1 being installed on the system first.

    On another note, I suggest removing all .NET frameworks before installing 3.0 to be safe. I've run into issues on several PCs trying to install 3.0 over the other two existing frameworks, and there are references on the internet of similar problems with failed installations. After doing a clean install of 3.0, which will put 2.0 on as well, you can install 1.1 again with no issues.

    I haven't fully tested all aspects of this yet either. You may only have to uninstall 2.0 before installing 3.0. Leaving 1.1 may work fine. I removed all previous versions to be safe and save additional headache since I'd been trying to install 3.0 over the others for hours already.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.