Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > ASP .Net > Different .net versions installed.

Reply
Thread Tools

Different .net versions installed.

 
 
Qwert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Hello,

I have multiple versions of the MS .NET Framework installed:
Microsoft .NET Framework (english) v1.0.3705 = 1764 MB
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 Hotfix (KB886906) = 1764 MB
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 = 1764 MB
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB886903) = 1764 MB

Can I remove them all except 1.1 Hotfix, without disrupting anything on my
comp?

Thanks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott M.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
There is no reason to remove any version of them. They are meant to stay
there for backwards compatibilty. You "can" remove any of them you like,
but if you try to run an application that is built for a specific version,
it won't run if that version isn't there.


"Qwert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> I have multiple versions of the MS .NET Framework installed:
> Microsoft .NET Framework (english) v1.0.3705 = 1764 MB
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 Hotfix (KB886906) = 1764 MB
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 = 1764 MB
> Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Hotfix (KB886903) = 1764 MB
>
> Can I remove them all except 1.1 Hotfix, without disrupting anything on my
> comp?
>
> Thanks.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael Nemtsev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2005
Hello Scott M.,

FW 1.0 is outdated, U hardly find app for that.
U can freely remove it

S> There is no reason to remove any version of them. They are meant to
S> stay there for backwards compatibilty. You "can" remove any of them
S> you like, but if you try to run an application that is built for a
S> specific version, it won't run if that version isn't there.
S>
S> "Qwert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
S> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche


 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott M.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2005
Uh, no, that's not true at all.

First, I never said you couldn't remove a version, I said you should keep
them for backwards compatibility. Your assertion that there are no VS.NET
2002 applications out there is grossly incorrect.



"Michael Nemtsev" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t.com...
> Hello Scott M.,
>
> FW 1.0 is outdated, U hardly find app for that.
> U can freely remove it
>
> S> There is no reason to remove any version of them. They are meant to
> S> stay there for backwards compatibilty. You "can" remove any of them
> S> you like, but if you try to run an application that is built for a
> S> specific version, it won't run if that version isn't there.
> S> S> "Qwert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> S> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> ---
> WBR,
> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/laflour
>
> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do
> not cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Nemtsev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2005
Hello Scott M.,

Maybe, but have u met apps recently, that need FW 1.0? I haven't, in a year
after FW 1.1 release

S> Uh, no, that's not true at all.
S> First, I never said you couldn't remove a version, I said you should
S> keep them for backwards compatibility. Your assertion that there are
S> no VS.NET 2002 applications out there is grossly incorrect.
S>
S> "Michael Nemtsev" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
S> news:(E-Mail Removed) t.com...
S>
>> Hello Scott M.,
>>
>> FW 1.0 is outdated, U hardly find app for that.
>> U can freely remove it
>> S> There is no reason to remove any version of them. They are meant
>> to
>> S> stay there for backwards compatibilty. You "can" remove any of
>> them
>> S> you like, but if you try to run an application that is built for a
>> S> specific version, it won't run if that version isn't there.
>>

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche


 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott M.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2005
Yes, I have.


"Michael Nemtsev" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t.com...
> Hello Scott M.,
>
> Maybe, but have u met apps recently, that need FW 1.0? I haven't, in a
> year after FW 1.1 release
>
> S> Uh, no, that's not true at all.
> S> First, I never said you couldn't remove a version, I said you should
> S> keep them for backwards compatibility. Your assertion that there are
> S> no VS.NET 2002 applications out there is grossly incorrect.
> S> S> "Michael Nemtsev" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> S> news:(E-Mail Removed) t.com...
> S>
>>> Hello Scott M.,
>>>
>>> FW 1.0 is outdated, U hardly find app for that.
>>> U can freely remove it
>>> S> There is no reason to remove any version of them. They are meant
>>> to
>>> S> stay there for backwards compatibilty. You "can" remove any of
>>> them
>>> S> you like, but if you try to run an application that is built for a
>>> S> specific version, it won't run if that version isn't there.
>>>

> ---
> WBR,
> Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/laflour
>
> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do
> not cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?QW1hZGVsbGU=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2005
Yub I agree with Scott M. Lots of apps in FW 1.0 but really depends on what
environment you are working on and what you are trying to do.

"Scott M." wrote:

> Yes, I have.
>
>
> "Michael Nemtsev" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) t.com...
> > Hello Scott M.,
> >
> > Maybe, but have u met apps recently, that need FW 1.0? I haven't, in a
> > year after FW 1.1 release
> >
> > S> Uh, no, that's not true at all.
> > S> First, I never said you couldn't remove a version, I said you should
> > S> keep them for backwards compatibility. Your assertion that there are
> > S> no VS.NET 2002 applications out there is grossly incorrect.
> > S> S> "Michael Nemtsev" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > S> news:(E-Mail Removed) t.com...
> > S>
> >>> Hello Scott M.,
> >>>
> >>> FW 1.0 is outdated, U hardly find app for that.
> >>> U can freely remove it
> >>> S> There is no reason to remove any version of them. They are meant
> >>> to
> >>> S> stay there for backwards compatibilty. You "can" remove any of
> >>> them
> >>> S> you like, but if you try to run an application that is built for a
> >>> S> specific version, it won't run if that version isn't there.
> >>>

> > ---
> > WBR,
> > Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/laflour
> >
> > "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do
> > not cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche
> >
> >

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Different results from different gcc versions ks C++ 9 03-20-2010 02:09 PM
Different flavors of a gem for different versions of Ruby Ken Bloom Ruby 2 11-04-2008 01:01 AM
Network Different Versions? =?Utf-8?B?SmVubmllU3ByYWQ=?= Wireless Networking 3 10-11-2005 07:16 PM
accessing different versions of perl Julia Bell Perl 1 12-06-2003 05:20 PM
dbm file locking with different versions of perl Matt Johnson Perl 0 08-08-2003 11:58 AM



Advertisments