Summary: .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.
Related:
-
Is it safe to uninstall updates? Some updates might be safe to uninstall, but doing so makes some risky assumptions. Most programs keep only the patches they need.
-
Are automatic updates a good thing? Unless you're willing to pay a lot of attention on a very regular basis, automatic updates are an important part of keeping your machine safe.
Article C3563 - November 13, 2008
Well, I should have just got rid of IE8. Instead I had assume the issues weren't with IE8 but were with either AVG8 or else .net Framework. After getting rid of most versions of .net Framework back until 1.1 I still had start up issues with IE8. So, I uninstalled IE8 and am back with IE7 (which I should have done in the first place!). IE7 works fine so I'm putting back all the versions of .net Framework available because it wasn't that causing me problems. Well, this all took me a couple of hours and some frustration - but I should have accepted the most obvious cause - the new IE8 and not started looking around for other causes it turned out not to be! Thanx for the good pointers on this .net Framework, Leo. I tried going against you but I came back to see you were probably right in the first place!
Posted by: Richard at April 10, 2009 10:08 AMI have one question:
Posted by: Neeraj Singh at May 25, 2009 7:56 AMMy application was hosted in a server where .Net framework 1.1 and 2.0 was installed.
Due to my requirement I have installed .Net framework 3.5 as of one more application which was development under .Net framework just want to run on the same serevr.
But after installing .Net 3.5 framework, current running application is not working properly.
Is there any draw back to insatll multiple .Net framework into single server. Please suggest ???
I think Leo's right, I might have received it in a redistribution package for website development.
I was having issues with this too. I'm not sure if I need it or not since I uninstalled my Website development software, however, as soon as I 'blocked' it(MicroSoft.NET Framework Assistant) in 'Add-ons' under 'Tools' in Firefox EVERYTHING in my browser improved. Faster page downloads and no more jiggling screens in my email box.
18-Oct-2009
Firefox now automatically blocks mine. I was about to delete. NET. but checked here first. Glad I did.
Posted by: Danny Mink at October 17, 2009 8:41 AMthank you for your explanation very simple even a dunce like me can understand it, like your every day talk
Burns
Posted by: burns at October 19, 2009 3:24 AMFirst of all, I must give my sincere thanks to Leo. He has saved me headaches and possible loss of files and/or even my system, time after time...
Posted by: LinYu at October 24, 2009 8:53 AMRegarding .NET Framework:
Starting 10/14/2009, Windows Automatic Update keeps trying to install .NET Framework 1.1 SP1 Security Update (KB953297), every single day, and each time the installation fails.
I checked and I have already installed in my system: v1.0.3705, v1.1.4322, v2.0.50727, v3.0 and v.3.5 and was ready to uninstall them all but the last one, until I came to "ask Leo"... Good thing I did, once again.
My question is, why is this Security Update systematically failing installation? It started around the same time I upgraded to NIS2010.I wonder if it has anything to do with it?
I also feel important to add that on the same date (10/14/2009), .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 Security Update was successfully installed as well as other updates, by the same process of Windows Automatic Updates.
I use Windows Vista Home Premium and the Error Details line for the repeated installation failure states this: Code 643.
What could possibly be the issue?
Thanks a million for any help on this.
converting vb6 codes to vb.net and do i need microsoft .net framework?
Posted by: ANA at October 31, 2009 1:47 AMRunning J# do i need microsoft .net framework
Posted by: ANA at October 31, 2009 2:02 AMwhat was the response to the question about the continual attempt to automatically install .NET Framework 1.1 SP1 Security Update after it has all ready been installed. Is there some way I can block this?
Posted by: Steve Prover at November 6, 2009 11:31 AMIn relation to auto updates I have experienced exactly the same as Lin Yu on exactly the same dates. This is the message I got today from the automatic update:- The following updates were not installed "Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update for .NET versions 2.0 through 3.5 (KB951847) x86
Posted by: David Cromarty at November 19, 2009 8:08 AMMicrosoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 2 Security Update for Windows 2000, Windows Server 2003, and Windows XP (KB974417". Any ideas on a solution would be great. Thanks.