On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:43 -0600, "Paul Randall"
<paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:
>> The .NET framework is a set of libraries (plus a few other things). If
>> you don't have it on your machine, and you try to install or use an
>> application which requires it, you'll be told about the problem and
>> will be able to install it at that point. Until that happens, you
>> don't need it. Uninstalling it will almost certainly not cause you any
>> serious problems. If you do have a .NET application on your machine,
>> then uninstalling the framework will mean those applications will not
>> run - but that's not a disaster, when you attempt to run them, they'll
>> complain about the missing framework, and you can reinstall it at that
>> point.
>>
>> GSEJ
>
>Nice explaination.
>Question: if you uninstall all your .Net versions, and then run a program
>that requires one of them, and you allow its automatic installation, then
>will this installation be completely up to date, or will Microsoft's Update
>program want to do a few years worth of updates to this .Net version?
I suspect it would depend on when you do it - whether they've updated
the download recently, or released any new patches.
I've just tried this on a fresh XP install. I installed all of the
updates from windows update, except for the .NET framework versions
which were offered (I chose to hide those).
Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
initialize properly").
I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
time I got the prompt to install the framework:
This setup requires the .NET framwork version 3.5 Please install the
..NET framework and run this setup again. The .NET framework can be
obtained from the web. Would you like to do this now?
Once the install was complete I ran windows update again. Four new
updates appeared - two explicity for the 3.5 framework, one for XP
(mentioning the framework) and one to install powershell. Those
updates altogether weighed in at 72Mb - more than the framework
itself!
> Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
> the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
> initialize properly").
>
> I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
> time I got the prompt to install the framework:
More thoughtful application providers would bundle required components (e.g.
..Net framework, java runtime, or DirectX etc.), and the install routine will
first check the system to see if the required component(s) had been
installed, and if not, it will perform the installation for the component(s)
before proceeding to the main program.
I could be wrong but I think that most programs will and can only include
the major version of the component, but not all updates such as security
patches.
Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of "its"
components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
(e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use for
other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
"gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:taq7451nomfumu27novon32h0846udgc3b@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:43 -0600, "Paul Randall"
> <paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> The .NET framework is a set of libraries (plus a few other things). If
>>> you don't have it on your machine, and you try to install or use an
>>> application which requires it, you'll be told about the problem and
>>> will be able to install it at that point. Until that happens, you
>>> don't need it. Uninstalling it will almost certainly not cause you any
>>> serious problems. If you do have a .NET application on your machine,
>>> then uninstalling the framework will mean those applications will not
>>> run - but that's not a disaster, when you attempt to run them, they'll
>>> complain about the missing framework, and you can reinstall it at that
>>> point.
>>>
>>> GSEJ
>>
>>Nice explaination.
>>Question: if you uninstall all your .Net versions, and then run a program
>>that requires one of them, and you allow its automatic installation, then
>>will this installation be completely up to date, or will Microsoft's
>>Update
>>program want to do a few years worth of updates to this .Net version?
>
> I suspect it would depend on when you do it - whether they've updated
> the download recently, or released any new patches.
>
> I've just tried this on a fresh XP install. I installed all of the
> updates from windows update, except for the .NET framework versions
> which were offered (I chose to hide those).
>
> Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
> the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
> initialize properly").
>
> I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
> time I got the prompt to install the framework:
>
> This setup requires the .NET framwork version 3.5 Please install the
> .NET framework and run this setup again. The .NET framework can be
> obtained from the web. Would you like to do this now?
>
> Clicking "Yes" opened up a browser at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/netf.../aa569263.aspx, and the
> file downloaded from there was the standard dotnetfx35setup.exe.
>
> Once the install was complete I ran windows update again. Four new
> updates appeared - two explicity for the 3.5 framework, one for XP
> (mentioning the framework) and one to install powershell. Those
> updates altogether weighed in at 72Mb - more than the framework
> itself!
>
> GSEJ
"gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:taq7451nomfumu27novon32h0846udgc3b@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:43 -0600, "Paul Randall"
> <paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> The .NET framework is a set of libraries (plus a few other things). If
>>> you don't have it on your machine, and you try to install or use an
>>> application which requires it, you'll be told about the problem and
>>> will be able to install it at that point. Until that happens, you
>>> don't need it. Uninstalling it will almost certainly not cause you any
>>> serious problems. If you do have a .NET application on your machine,
>>> then uninstalling the framework will mean those applications will not
>>> run - but that's not a disaster, when you attempt to run them, they'll
>>> complain about the missing framework, and you can reinstall it at that
>>> point.
>>>
>>> GSEJ
>>
>>Nice explaination.
>>Question: if you uninstall all your .Net versions, and then run a program
>>that requires one of them, and you allow its automatic installation, then
>>will this installation be completely up to date, or will Microsoft's
>>Update
>>program want to do a few years worth of updates to this .Net version?
>
> I suspect it would depend on when you do it - whether they've updated
> the download recently, or released any new patches.
>
> I've just tried this on a fresh XP install. I installed all of the
> updates from windows update, except for the .NET framework versions
> which were offered (I chose to hide those).
>
> Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
> the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
> initialize properly").
>
> I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
> time I got the prompt to install the framework:
>
> This setup requires the .NET framwork version 3.5 Please install the
> .NET framework and run this setup again. The .NET framework can be
> obtained from the web. Would you like to do this now?
>
> Clicking "Yes" opened up a browser at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/netf.../aa569263.aspx, and the
> file downloaded from there was the standard dotnetfx35setup.exe.
>
> Once the install was complete I ran windows update again. Four new
> updates appeared - two explicity for the 3.5 framework, one for XP
> (mentioning the framework) and one to install powershell. Those
> updates altogether weighed in at 72Mb - more than the framework
> itself!
>
> GSEJ
> Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of "its"
> components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
> (e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use for
> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
<Snipped a bit>
Imagine this. My grandfather installs program x, which requires and
installs Net Framework 3.5. Some time later he installs program y, which
also requires Net Framework 3.5, but doesn't install it because it's there.
Now he uninstalls program x, which then follows your idea and uninstalls
Net Framework 3.5.
Now program y is broken and my grandfather doesn't know why. Furthermore,
he asks me to help him and I don't know why either...
You brought up an interesting question which also is a challenging one for
application developers (doesn't imply I am one).
Since I have no idea for if you or your beloved grandfather (or anyone else)
would use it, so I said:
>>So it would be
>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
>> for
>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
Notice that I used "or" so one, as a user, doesn't have to remove it.
The question is, as a user, one may not know if he/she would use it. But
then again, an average user might not dig so deep to find out if those
components were still there.
In any case, here comes the developer's role. As a general rule, I would
say to remove all of the application's components upon performing an
uninstallation process. But this is one of the rare occasions when I would
say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party components intact when the
program is being removed.
The primary concern is exactly to prevent the scenario as you described and
there is no way for an average user to know where might be the problem, and
the publisher of program Y might be falsely blamed.
So if it was my call, I would say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party
components (as opposed to proprietary components developed by the publisher
and used solely for the program).
But not every one thinks the same, so there are programs that will remove
everything indiscriminately.
Hope I've answered your question.
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:192f3njuglya5$.16vggwo8metwe.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, xfile wrote:
>
>> Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of "its"
>> components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
>> (e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
>> for
>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
>
> <Snipped a bit>
>
> Imagine this. My grandfather installs program x, which requires and
> installs Net Framework 3.5. Some time later he installs program y, which
> also requires Net Framework 3.5, but doesn't install it because it's
> there.
>
> Now he uninstalls program x, which then follows your idea and uninstalls
> Net Framework 3.5.
>
> Now program y is broken and my grandfather doesn't know why. Furthermore,
> he asks me to help him and I don't know why either...
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
> Hi,
>
>
> You brought up an interesting question which also is a challenging one for
> application developers (doesn't imply I am one).
>
> Since I have no idea for if you or your beloved grandfather (or anyone else)
> would use it, so I said:
>
>>>So it would be
>>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
>>> for
>>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
>
> Notice that I used "or" so one, as a user, doesn't have to remove it.
>
> The question is, as a user, one may not know if he/she would use it. But
> then again, an average user might not dig so deep to find out if those
> components were still there.
>
> In any case, here comes the developer's role. As a general rule, I would
> say to remove all of the application's components upon performing an
> uninstallation process. But this is one of the rare occasions when I would
> say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party components intact when the
> program is being removed.
>
> The primary concern is exactly to prevent the scenario as you described and
> there is no way for an average user to know where might be the problem, and
> the publisher of program Y might be falsely blamed.
>
> So if it was my call, I would say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party
> components (as opposed to proprietary components developed by the publisher
> and used solely for the program).
>
> But not every one thinks the same, so there are programs that will remove
> everything indiscriminately.
>
> Hope I've answered your question.
No, you haven't.
ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, and you seemed to
feel that only some uninstallers might give the user a chance to refuse.
It wasn't a question at all. It was a counter example to what I consider a
very bad idea.
> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
> news:192f3njuglya5$.16vggwo8metwe.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, xfile wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of "its"
>>> components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
>>> (e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
>>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
>>> for
>>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
>>
>> <Snipped a bit>
>>
>> Imagine this. My grandfather installs program x, which requires and
>> installs Net Framework 3.5. Some time later he installs program y, which
>> also requires Net Framework 3.5, but doesn't install it because it's
>> there.
>>
>> Now he uninstalls program x, which then follows your idea and uninstalls
>> Net Framework 3.5.
>>
>> Now program y is broken and my grandfather doesn't know why. Furthermore,
>> he asks me to help him and I don't know why either...
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
xfile wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> You brought up an interesting question which also is a challenging one
> for application developers (doesn't imply I am one).
>
> Since I have no idea for if you or your beloved grandfather (or anyone
> else) would use it, so I said:
>
>>> So it would be
>>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to
>>> use for
>>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
>
> Notice that I used "or" so one, as a user, doesn't have to remove it.
>
> The question is, as a user, one may not know if he/she would use it.
> But then again, an average user might not dig so deep to find out if
> those components were still there.
>
> In any case, here comes the developer's role. As a general rule, I
> would say to remove all of the application's components upon performing
> an uninstallation process. But this is one of the rare occasions when I
> would say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party components intact
> when the program is being removed.
The runtime component of the .Net Framework is not a 3rd party
component. It is a mistake by the developer to uninstall the runtime
component of the Framework, with the developer not knowing or assuming
that the developer's solution was the only solution using the Framework.
> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, [...]
I didn't or kindly point me to where I said that and I will apologize.
> [...] and you seemed to feel that only some uninstallers might give the
> user a chance to refuse.
Since I know very well that I am not Mr. Know Everything and I don't know
ALL programs in the world, so I can only say from experience that "some" do
provide and others don't.
I try not to use any generalized statement for things that I don't know.
>It wasn't a question at all. It was a counter example to what I consider a
>very bad idea.
I respect your decision if you consider it is a bad idea, but I don't know
what is so bad about for presenting choices?
I didn't instruct in any way that one should keep it or not, as I have no
idea about everyone's computer literacy and user environment. If anyone
wishes to remove anything that he/she doesn't know or bother to investigate
more, that is his/her own decision which is fine. If one wishes to learn
more and then makes the decision accordingly, that is fine too.
Can you please quote what I said so I know better if I mislead you?
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1q0zzdxh63r0b$.1bs4agtlyxbul.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:01:45 -0700, xfile wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> You brought up an interesting question which also is a challenging one
>> for
>> application developers (doesn't imply I am one).
>>
>> Since I have no idea for if you or your beloved grandfather (or anyone
>> else)
>> would use it, so I said:
>>
>>>>So it would be
>>>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
>>>> for
>>>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
>>
>> Notice that I used "or" so one, as a user, doesn't have to remove it.
>>
>> The question is, as a user, one may not know if he/she would use it. But
>> then again, an average user might not dig so deep to find out if those
>> components were still there.
>>
>> In any case, here comes the developer's role. As a general rule, I would
>> say to remove all of the application's components upon performing an
>> uninstallation process. But this is one of the rare occasions when I
>> would
>> say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party components intact when the
>> program is being removed.
>>
>> The primary concern is exactly to prevent the scenario as you described
>> and
>> there is no way for an average user to know where might be the problem,
>> and
>> the publisher of program Y might be falsely blamed.
>>
>> So if it was my call, I would say to leave those commonly shared 3rd
>> party
>> components (as opposed to proprietary components developed by the
>> publisher
>> and used solely for the program).
>>
>> But not every one thinks the same, so there are programs that will remove
>> everything indiscriminately.
>>
>> Hope I've answered your question.
>
> No, you haven't.
>
> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, and you seemed
> to
> feel that only some uninstallers might give the user a chance to refuse.
>
> It wasn't a question at all. It was a counter example to what I consider a
> very bad idea.
>
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:192f3njuglya5$.16vggwo8metwe.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, xfile wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of "its"
>>>> components upon uninstallation including previously installed
>>>> components
>>>> (e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would
>>>> be
>>>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
>>>> for
>>>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
>>>
>>> <Snipped a bit>
>>>
>>> Imagine this. My grandfather installs program x, which requires and
>>> installs Net Framework 3.5. Some time later he installs program y, which
>>> also requires Net Framework 3.5, but doesn't install it because it's
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Now he uninstalls program x, which then follows your idea and uninstalls
>>> Net Framework 3.5.
>>>
>>> Now program y is broken and my grandfather doesn't know why.
>>> Furthermore,
>>> he asks me to help him and I don't know why either...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
> The runtime component of the .Net Framework is not a 3rd party component.
OK, but for some like myself, anything not directly from in-house
development is a 3rd party component even it's from Microsoft.
>It is a mistake by the developer to uninstall the runtime component of the
>Framework, with the developer not knowing or assuming that the developer's
>solution was the only solution using the Framework.
OK, I have no comment and as I said in the previous post, not every one
thinks the same
"Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
news:eYohfjs9JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> xfile wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> You brought up an interesting question which also is a challenging one
>> for application developers (doesn't imply I am one).
>>
>> Since I have no idea for if you or your beloved grandfather (or anyone
>> else) would use it, so I said:
>>
>>>> So it would be
>>>> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
>>>> for
>>>> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.
>>
>> Notice that I used "or" so one, as a user, doesn't have to remove it.
>>
>> The question is, as a user, one may not know if he/she would use it. But
>> then again, an average user might not dig so deep to find out if those
>> components were still there.
>>
>> In any case, here comes the developer's role. As a general rule, I would
>> say to remove all of the application's components upon performing an
>> uninstallation process. But this is one of the rare occasions when I
>> would say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party components intact when
>> the program is being removed.
>
> The runtime component of the .Net Framework is not a 3rd party component.
> It is a mistake by the developer to uninstall the runtime component of the
> Framework, with the developer not knowing or assuming that the developer's
> solution was the only solution using the Framework.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
>> the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
>> initialize properly").
>>
>> I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
>> time I got the prompt to install the framework:
>
>
>More thoughtful application providers would bundle required components (e.g.
>.Net framework, java runtime, or DirectX etc.), and the install routine will
>first check the system to see if the required component(s) had been
>installed, and if not, it will perform the installation for the component(s)
>before proceeding to the main program.
I've never had to package a .NET app for distribution, so I might be
mistaken about this, but I'd imagine that given the size of the
framework, and the fact that MS appear to provide a reliable mechanism
for a deployment package to direct a user to the appropriate page of
their site, that including the framework with every distributed
application would be fairly pointless, not to mention greatly
increasing the size of the download.
Re: .NET Framework - how 'important?' 
Linear Mode
