.NET version

I got caught up in the recent bad update for .NET 1.1 -- the SP1 download.
It's fixed now.
But now I see the 1.1 is a really old edition. That's a puzzle since I got
Vista Ultimate 32bit and Office 2007 just recently, when 2.0, 3.0 and now 3.5
were already out. Some sites say 3.0 ships with Vista yet in Programs and
Features only 1.1 is listed.
A reason for asking is that later versions are meant to be better for
multithreading, and since I use a quad core this may be helpful.
Should I upgrade?
What are the pros and cons?
--
Hopefully

There is no pros or cons, 1;. 2, 3 or 3.5 are not upgrade from one to
another, they are different and can co-exist. Each .Net application need one
of them. An Application which need 1.1 will not run on 3 for example.

Net 3 is included with vista, but you may need to install another version.
if an application ask for it.

Daniel

> What are the pros and cons?
> --
> Hopefully

Thanks Daniel, does that mean that 3.0 is there but not visible on the
listing in Programs and Features?
--
Hopefully


"Daniel F Valot" wrote:

> There is no pros or cons, 1;. 2, 3 or 3.5 are not upgrade from one to
> another, they are different and can co-exist. Each .Net application need one
> of them. An Application which need 1.1 will not run on 3 for example.
>
> Net 3 is included with vista, but you may need to install another version.
> if an application ask for it.
>
> Daniel
>
> > What are the pros and cons?
> > --
> > Hopefully
>
>
>

Please take into account, different applications target different versions
of the .NET Framework, so you might be required to install older versions to
support a particular application. Version 3.0 is built into Windows Vista,
but it is not labled .NET Framework 3.0, version 3.5 was release with the
RTM version of the Visual Studio 2008 development suite.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Simpleuser" <> wrote in message
news:FB8C8B9C-56C9-44A1-9D96-...
>I got caught up in the recent bad update for .NET 1.1 -- the SP1 download.
> It's fixed now.
> But now I see the 1.1 is a really old edition. That's a puzzle since I got
> Vista Ultimate 32bit and Office 2007 just recently, when 2.0, 3.0 and now
> 3.5
> were already out. Some sites say 3.0 ships with Vista yet in Programs and
> Features only 1.1 is listed.
> A reason for asking is that later versions are meant to be better for
> multithreading, and since I use a quad core this may be helpful.
> Should I upgrade?
> What are the pros and cons?
> --
> Hopefully

Andre - Many thanks, that very clear and helpful.
--
Hopefully


"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:

> Please take into account, different applications target different versions
> of the .NET Framework, so you might be required to install older versions to
> support a particular application. Version 3.0 is built into Windows Vista,
> but it is not labled .NET Framework 3.0, version 3.5 was release with the
> RTM version of the Visual Studio 2008 development suite.
> --
> Andre
> Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
> My Vista Quickstart Guide:
> http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
> "Simpleuser" <> wrote in message
> news:FB8C8B9C-56C9-44A1-9D96-...
> >I got caught up in the recent bad update for .NET 1.1 -- the SP1 download.
> > It's fixed now.
> > But now I see the 1.1 is a really old edition. That's a puzzle since I got
> > Vista Ultimate 32bit and Office 2007 just recently, when 2.0, 3.0 and now
> > 3.5
> > were already out. Some sites say 3.0 ships with Vista yet in Programs and
> > Features only 1.1 is listed.
> > A reason for asking is that later versions are meant to be better for
> > multithreading, and since I use a quad core this may be helpful.
> > Should I upgrade?
> > What are the pros and cons?
> > --
> > Hopefully
>
>
>

You cannot remove .Net 3 fromVista, so it is not listed, .Net 3 includes
..Net 2.
Daniel,

look under "turn windows features on or off" there you'll see 3.0"


"Simpleuser" wrote:

> Andre - Many thanks, that very clear and helpful.
> --
> Hopefully
>
>
> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>
> > Please take into account, different applications target different versions
> > of the .NET Framework, so you might be required to install older versions to
> > support a particular application. Version 3.0 is built into Windows Vista,
> > but it is not labled .NET Framework 3.0, version 3.5 was release with the
> > RTM version of the Visual Studio 2008 development suite.
> > --
> > Andre
> > Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
> > My Vista Quickstart Guide:
> > http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
> > "Simpleuser" <> wrote in message
> > news:FB8C8B9C-56C9-44A1-9D96-...
> > >I got caught up in the recent bad update for .NET 1.1 -- the SP1 download.
> > > It's fixed now.
> > > But now I see the 1.1 is a really old edition. That's a puzzle since I got
> > > Vista Ultimate 32bit and Office 2007 just recently, when 2.0, 3.0 and now
> > > 3.5
> > > were already out. Some sites say 3.0 ships with Vista yet in Programs and
> > > Features only 1.1 is listed.
> > > A reason for asking is that later versions are meant to be better for
> > > multithreading, and since I use a quad core this may be helpful.
> > > Should I upgrade?
> > > What are the pros and cons?
> > > --
> > > Hopefully
> >
> >
> >