Helping people with computers... one answer at a time.
.NET framework is an important support library for many programs. Unfortunately, its versioning and updating leave a lot to be desired.
Do i need Microsoft .net framework 1.1 and 2.0 service pack 1 and 3.0 service pack 1 on my desk top computer? I don't develop new software.
•
The fact that you don't develop software actually has nothing to do with anything here.
.NET is most likely used by other software you have installed on your machine.
.NET versioning, unfortunately, is apparently a mess.
•
To cut to the chase: I wouldn't delete a thing. It possible that you do, in fact, need all those different versions of .NET - or not. We could go through a long exhaustive search to see which programs you have installed might require one version or the other, but in my opinion it's just not worth it.
OK, just what is the .NET framework?
To grossly oversimplify, it's a package of common support software that can be used by programs so that they don't all have to re-write the same software over and over again. More specifically, it's aimed at users of Microsoft's newer versions of programming languages like C#, Visual Basic .NET and others. The .NET framework provides a broad array of functionality that can be used by programs written in those languages to perform common tasks, most commonly things that involve interacting with Windows itself.
So you may well have programs installed on your machine that rely on the .NET framework, and thus deleting .NET will cause that program to fail. Over time, more and more programs have come to rely on .NET, so chances are actually pretty high that you have at least one and perhaps more that rely on .NET.
You get the .NET framework either of three ways:
-
It might already be on your machine. Certain versions of the .NET framework are pre-installed on some versions of Windows.
-
A program you install might install it. The .NET framework is available in what are called "redistributable packages", which means nothing more than software vendors can include it in the software they deliver to you. If a program requires the .NET framework, then it may include it on its CD or in its download, and install it automatically as part of installing the program.
-
You may be instructed to download it. The .NET framework tends to be large, and because it's also fairly common these days, many vendors are opting not to actually include it in their distributions, but instead ask you to download and install it if you don't already have the required version.
Now, about those versions.
The .NET framework versions installed on my machine
Normally, it's safe to assume that version 2 of some software replaces version 1, and that version 3 replaces both 1 and 2. Each later version includes everything in the prior versions, so that the prior versions are no longer necessary.
Apparently the .NET framework isn't "normal". For example, software that requires .NET framework version 1 might not work if only version 2 is installed. In fact, you'll already note that while most software upgrades replace the previous versions, .NET framework installations do not. If you install version N+1, version N remains.
That's kind of frustrating.
But the solution is simple: leave them there. Yes, they eat up more disk space, but unless you really know what you're doing or want to spend a lot of time experimenting (back up first!), just leave them there and get on with your life.
Rumors are that the mess will get cleaned up in a future version, but in all honesty, I'm skeptical.
Article C3563 - November 13, 2008
Leo A. Notenboom has been playing with computers since he
was required to take a programming class in 1976. An 18 year career as a programmer at Microsoft soon followed.
After "retiring" in 2001, Leo started Ask Leo! in 2003 as a place for answers
to common computer and technical questions. More about Leo.
at least one early version of .net was impossible to uninstall. it also corrupted my os. i tried several times to find a manual uninstall procedure and ended up reformatting my hard drive instead. ever since then i have refused to install any application that uses .net. unfortunately .net is neither secure nor is it a cross-platform development standard. my understanding is that it is mainly a set of libraries to allow programmers to more easily access the existing windows libraries. libraries to access libraries... as such there is no reason to even install the .net libraries in the client at all since an application written in .net amounts to interpreted code that could just as easily be compiled to access the non-.net libraries directly instead. could there be any clearer admission of incompetence? no wonder each version of .net is unique and not backward compatible. nobody really knows what windows bloatware even consists of let alone how to use it 'properly' anyway, so it is understandable that it would take multiple tries to develop a consistent 'user interface' for developers. all .net does is allow a programmer to use windows without having to learn about all its arcane idiosyncracies - some of them are allegedly deliberately undocumented to discourage independently written freeware by small developers. windows is still a prime candidate for a(nother) total rewrite, similar to the introduction of nt, which me may witness before the decade is out. maybe some day someone will design a microsoft operating system from a logical specification with a consistent architecture based on standard practices rather than just hacking code until it evolves into something that sort of works well enough to be beta tested in a version 1.0 on an unwary public. the only good thing about windows is plug and play and as hardware standards coalesce that advantage gets smaller all the time... but if they were to start over with something that resembles the .net sdk as the primary programmers interface standard maybe it could be made compatible with cross-platform standards too such as (real) java and (real) c and (real) xml/html instead of the microsoft nonstandard version... and what is with this visual basic anyway? who programs in basic for goodness' sake? that is like playdough
Posted by: mimeo at June 17, 2011 2:41 AMWARNING! DON'T REMOVE ANY OF THEM THAT ARE INSTALLED. Not even a system restore will bring them back if you do. One of the programs on your computer needs it to run right. Found this out the hard way after removing one that I thought I didn't need. eBay's Turbo Lister stopped working correctly what a nightmare. System restore nothing, Framework re install nothing, Program re install nothing. Had to re install OS.
Posted by: LostLight at June 28, 2011 10:01 AMI've been having issues with .NET
Posted by: Bob at September 30, 2011 4:05 AMMy machine (for whatever reason) is steadily accumulating updates for .NET v4 which consistantly fail to install. I am blaming these for the odd times my PC fails to start up - though I could be wrong.
I am also assuming that my machine actually HAS v4 - otherwise why would I be getting updates for it?
Does .NET 4 have any issues with 64-bit Vista?
we use .NET to Develop MS Dynamic Software
Posted by: Saga at November 15, 2011 8:49 PMI am using Spirit to move programs from a XP32 bit to XP 64bit (tried W7-64bit but not W7 for me) and I want to install ALL the .NET stuff on my new machine before moving so programs are not confused. Is there a simple 1, 2, 3 procedure to install all the .NET suff, one right after the other; if not, how do I just get the basics of each version? And, what if I leave out some pieces? And, is there a way to be sure I got all the pieces. The MS site is a mess in determining this. any comments are appreciated. Thanks.
Posted by: PiercePleo at January 16, 2012 12:22 PM