.NET update for May

Hello,

I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the versions of
..Net you have installed in your machine.

Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed install
..NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month instead of
the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.

What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have the
..NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.

Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version of
the software even if you only want the update to the older version?

My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in my
laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer needs it
for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, however I do know it
was unnecessary to install the 3.0 and 3.5 for my needs. This just eats up
another 180Mb of space for something I don't need.

I just wish they had kept the updates separate for the different versions
instead of putting them in a combo.

Sorry was angry and forgot to post my system info.

Windows XPSP3
Prior to the May .NET Update I had both .NET1.1 and 2.0 with the latest
service packs installed prior to the May update.

"Ohno" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello,
>
> I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the versions
> of .Net you have installed in your machine.
>
> Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed
> install .NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month
> instead of the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.
>
> What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have
> the .NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.
>
> Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version of
> the software even if you only want the update to the older version?
>
> My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in my
> laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer needs
> it for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, however I do know
> it was unnecessary to install the 3.0 and 3.5 for my needs. This just eats
> up another 180Mb of space for something I don't need.
>
> I just wish they had kept the updates separate for the different versions
> instead of putting them in a combo.
>

Are you referring to KB951847? Was it offered as an Important or Optional
update? (If you have Automatic Updates set to the Automatic configuration,
you won't be able to answer that last question.)

Have you read the More Information section of
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951847 ?

About the "re-release" of .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (SP1) and Family
Update package
http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...ming-soon.aspx

Did/do you need this update? Hard to say without lot more information.

Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my system after
installing .NET Framework 3.5 SP1?
http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archi...0/9557946.aspx
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002


Ohno wrote:
> Sorry was angry and forgot to post my system info.
>
> Windows XPSP3
> Prior to the May .NET Update I had both .NET1.1 and 2.0 with the latest
> service packs installed prior to the May update.
>
>> I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the versions
>> of .Net you have installed in your machine.
>>
>> Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed
>> install .NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month
>> instead of the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.
>>
>> What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have
>> the .NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.
>>
>> Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version of
>> the software even if you only want the update to the older version?
>>
>> My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in my
>> laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer needs
>> it for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, however I do know
>> it was unnecessary to install the 3.0 and 3.5 for my needs. This just
>> eats
>> up another 180Mb of space for something I don't need.
>>
>> I just wish they had kept the updates separate for the different versions
>> instead of putting them in a combo.

Ohno wrote:

> I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the versions of
> .Net you have installed in your machine.

Sort of.

> Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed install
> .NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month instead of
> the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.

Well, that's one piece of good news anyway ... they have managed to reduce the
download size!

> What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have the
> .NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.
>
> Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version of
> the software even if you only want the update to the older version?

Basically, Microsoft now consider .NET 3.0 and .NET 3.5 to be updates to .NET
2.0 rather than being different versions. In a sense, at least, this was always
true as far as the underlying technology was concerned.

My own recommendation is to install .NET 3.5 if (and only if) you need .NET 2.0.
It seems likely that Microsoft won't be doing a lot of testing of .NET
2.0-only scenarios in the future - for that matter, there's no word on whether
or not security updates will be available. (My guess is that they will, but I'd
rather play it safe.)

> My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in my
> laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer needs it
> for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, [...]

I always wipe the hard disk and reinstall Windows when I get a new machine. YMMV.

Harry.

"Ohno" wrote

> Sorry was angry and forgot to post my system info.
>
> Windows XPSP3
> Prior to the May .NET Update I had both .NET1.1 and 2.0 with the latest
> service packs installed prior to the May update.

For XP SP3, the only .NET updates that are needed are .NET 2.0 SP2 and
the application compatibility when .NET 3 and 3.5 runtimes are *not*
installed.

..NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update for Windows XP x86, and
Windows Server 2003 x86 [ ignore the title ]
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...4-6450b0212565

Under "Files in This Download" at the bottom of the above page, download
NDP20SP2-KB958481-x86.exe to install the application compatibility
update for .NET 2.0 SP2.


MowGreen
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============

Yes I was referring to KB951847. On my home build with no .NET installed it
was indeed offered as an optional update which I simply will not get as it
is not needed. On my laptop it was offered as a High Priority update because
the machine has .NET1.1 and 2.0 installed.

I will read the articles listed but was just wondering why the heck I would
have to put the 3.x versions of .NET just to update the 1.1 and 2.0 versions
that were installed.
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Are you referring to KB951847? Was it offered as an Important or Optional
> update? (If you have Automatic Updates set to the Automatic
> configuration,
> you won't be able to answer that last question.)
>
> Have you read the More Information section of
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951847 ?
>
> About the "re-release" of .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (SP1) and
> Family
> Update package
> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...ming-soon.aspx
>
> Did/do you need this update? Hard to say without lot more information.
>
> Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my system
> after installing .NET Framework 3.5 SP1?
> http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archi...0/9557946.aspx
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
>
>
> Ohno wrote:
>> Sorry was angry and forgot to post my system info.
>>
>> Windows XPSP3
>> Prior to the May .NET Update I had both .NET1.1 and 2.0 with the latest
>> service packs installed prior to the May update.
>>
>>> I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the
>>> versions
>>> of .Net you have installed in your machine.
>>>
>>> Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed
>>> install .NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month
>>> instead of the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.
>>>
>>> What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have
>>> the .NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.
>>>
>>> Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version
>>> of
>>> the software even if you only want the update to the older version?
>>>
>>> My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in my
>>> laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer needs
>>> it for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, however I do
>>> know
>>> it was unnecessary to install the 3.0 and 3.5 for my needs. This just
>>> eats
>>> up another 180Mb of space for something I don't need.
>>>
>>> I just wish they had kept the updates separate for the different
>>> versions
>>> instead of putting them in a combo.
>

Thanks for the info.

I would take all .NET out as I don't have any software requireing it, but I
do have a Lenovo and do like a couple of the programs that come with it,
especially the software that detects a built in sensor and spins the hard
drive down if the machine starts to move and possibly take an impact. I am
working with them to see if that program or if any others require .NET.

I just think there should be a better way with this .NET program.

I know some people tell you you need all three versions due to certain
software running on older versions of .NET that are not updated to work on
the newer versions. I for one though would like to think that this could be
managed like service packs. For example let's start with Windows XP initial
release when you start adding service packs you do not see seperate installs
of SP1, SP1a, SP2 and SP3 all in the machine. You only now have SP3. Just
wondering why this can not be done with .NET.

The way .NET seems to work if you applied the same strategy to IE your XP
machine could have IE6, IE6sp1, IE7 and IE8 all installed at the same time.


"Harry Johnston [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:exnrc%...
> Ohno wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the versions
>> of .Net you have installed in your machine.
>
> Sort of.
>
>> Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed
>> install .NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month
>> instead of the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.
>
> Well, that's one piece of good news anyway ... they have managed to reduce
> the download size!
>
>> What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have
>> the .NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.
>>
>> Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version of
>> the software even if you only want the update to the older version?
>
> Basically, Microsoft now consider .NET 3.0 and .NET 3.5 to be updates to
> .NET 2.0 rather than being different versions. In a sense, at least, this
> was always true as far as the underlying technology was concerned.
>
> My own recommendation is to install .NET 3.5 if (and only if) you need
> .NET 2.0. It seems likely that Microsoft won't be doing a lot of testing
> of .NET 2.0-only scenarios in the future - for that matter, there's no
> word on whether or not security updates will be available. (My guess is
> that they will, but I'd rather play it safe.)
>
>> My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in my
>> laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer needs
>> it for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, [...]
>
> I always wipe the hard disk and reinstall Windows when I get a new
> machine. YMMV.
>
> Harry.

Ohno wrote:

> Yes I was referring to KB951847. On my home build with no .NET installed it
> was indeed offered as an optional update which I simply will not get as it
> is not needed. On my laptop it was offered as a High Priority update because
> the machine has .NET1.1 and 2.0 installed.
>
> I will read the articles listed but was just wondering why the heck I would
> have to put the 3.x versions of .NET just to update the 1.1 and 2.0 versions
> that were installed.

You don't have to " put the 3.x versions of .NET just to update the 1.1
and 2.0 versions that were installed. "


Did you not see my post ?


MowGreen
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============

> I will read the articles listed but was just wondering why the heck I
> would
> have to put the 3.x versions of .NET just to update the 1.1 and 2.0
> versions
> that were installed.

You need to read those articles, Ohno.

Ohno wrote:
> Yes I was referring to KB951847. On my home build with no .NET installed
> it
> was indeed offered as an optional update which I simply will not get as it
> is not needed. On my laptop it was offered as a High Priority update
> because
> the machine has .NET1.1 and 2.0 installed.
>
> I will read the articles listed but was just wondering why the heck I
> would
> have to put the 3.x versions of .NET just to update the 1.1 and 2.0
> versions
> that were installed.
>
>> Are you referring to KB951847? Was it offered as an Important or
>> Optional
>> update? (If you have Automatic Updates set to the Automatic
>> configuration,
>> you won't be able to answer that last question.)
>>
>> Have you read the More Information section of
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951847 ?
>>
>> About the "re-release" of .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (SP1) and
>> Family
>> Update package
>> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...ming-soon.aspx
>>
>> Did/do you need this update? Hard to say without lot more information.
>>
>> Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my system
>> after installing .NET Framework 3.5 SP1?
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archi...0/9557946.aspx
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
>>
>>
>> Ohno wrote:
>>> Sorry was angry and forgot to post my system info.
>>>
>>> Windows XPSP3
>>> Prior to the May .NET Update I had both .NET1.1 and 2.0 with the latest
>>> service packs installed prior to the May update.
>>>
>>>> I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the
>>>> versions
>>>> of .Net you have installed in your machine.
>>>>
>>>> Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed
>>>> install .NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month
>>>> instead of the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.
>>>>
>>>> What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have
>>>> the .NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.
>>>>
>>>> Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version
>>>> of
>>>> the software even if you only want the update to the older version?
>>>>
>>>> My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in
>>>> my
>>>> laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer
>>>> needs
>>>> it for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, however I do
>>>> know
>>>> it was unnecessary to install the 3.0 and 3.5 for my needs. This just
>>>> eats
>>>> up another 180Mb of space for something I don't need.
>>>>
>>>> I just wish they had kept the updates separate for the different
>>>> versions
>>>> instead of putting them in a combo.

Ohno,

I agree entirely. The .NET versioning has been mishandled.

Harry.

Ohno wrote:

> Thanks for the info.
>
> I would take all .NET out as I don't have any software requireing it, but I
> do have a Lenovo and do like a couple of the programs that come with it,
> especially the software that detects a built in sensor and spins the hard
> drive down if the machine starts to move and possibly take an impact. I am
> working with them to see if that program or if any others require .NET.
>
> I just think there should be a better way with this .NET program.
>
> I know some people tell you you need all three versions due to certain
> software running on older versions of .NET that are not updated to work on
> the newer versions. I for one though would like to think that this could be
> managed like service packs. For example let's start with Windows XP initial
> release when you start adding service packs you do not see seperate installs
> of SP1, SP1a, SP2 and SP3 all in the machine. You only now have SP3. Just
> wondering why this can not be done with .NET.
>
> The way .NET seems to work if you applied the same strategy to IE your XP
> machine could have IE6, IE6sp1, IE7 and IE8 all installed at the same time.
>
>
> "Harry Johnston [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:exnrc%...
>> Ohno wrote:
>>
>>> I was under the impression that the .NET update only updated the versions
>>> of .Net you have installed in your machine.
>> Sort of.
>>
>>> Well low and behold when I installed the update today it did indeed
>>> install .NET 3.0 and the 3.5 update. Since it was only 69Mb this month
>>> instead of the 285Mb last month I thought I was safe.
>> Well, that's one piece of good news anyway ... they have managed to reduce
>> the download size!
>>
>>> What I am interested in finding out is I do not use and or need to have
>>> the .NET software in my machine beyond .NET2.0.
>>>
>>> Is it now Microsoft's intention to force you to put in a newer version of
>>> the software even if you only want the update to the older version?
>> Basically, Microsoft now consider .NET 3.0 and .NET 3.5 to be updates to
>> .NET 2.0 rather than being different versions. In a sense, at least, this
>> was always true as far as the underlying technology was concerned.
>>
>> My own recommendation is to install .NET 3.5 if (and only if) you need
>> .NET 2.0. It seems likely that Microsoft won't be doing a lot of testing
>> of .NET 2.0-only scenarios in the future - for that matter, there's no
>> word on whether or not security updates will be available. (My guess is
>> that they will, but I'd rather play it safe.)
>>
>>> My home built machine has no .NET at all and the only reason it is in my
>>> laptop is because it came with it. Not knowing if the manufacturer needs
>>> it for some programs pre installed I did not remove it, [...]
>> I always wipe the hard disk and reinstall Windows when I get a new
>> machine. YMMV.
>>
>> Harry.
>
>