Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Can I uninstall .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 ??

<< < (4/5) > >>

Renegade:
If the .NET world was like Java... although I heard this does have its share of compatibility problems as well, but the proofs I saw were only lots of talking and no real evidence.
--- End quote ---

I'm not sure what you mean there.

I've only ever heard of 1 vendor having compatibility issues with more than 1 framework installed, but that was a very low level utility for .NET programmers, and only for that one specific application.

Java on the other hand... If you don't have the correct version installed, then you may run into problems. At the dayjob one customer is locked into a specific version of Java with bugs that affect how it compresses files. They are then not compatible with anything except Java itself - a bit of a problem there. He can't upgrade Java either... Not a good situation. That simply can't happen in .NET. You can always install another version of .NET and then just keep on going.

Carol Haynes:
The question I wonder is how many of these massive downloads are going to be needed in the long term? We already have 3 versions of .Net installed - in 5 years time will we have 8 versions installed?

Lashiec:
I'm not sure what you mean there.

--- End quote ---

I was talking that, usually, in Java with a single JRE you can size them all (the apps, not the Pokemon ;D). I heard some comments about a nasty compatibility issue (that point updates, which are mostly security-related, caused) with a piece of software (not sure which), but the guy only said that it was causing problems. It was on the Ars OpenForum, where, as you may know, everyone is either a wizard coder or a mega-sized troll.

Of course, it could be possible, but with different versions of Java, as the APIs and the objects structure usually change with major updates. But at least Sun does extensive testing to ensure everything is right (so far, in my own experience, everything went right). Microsoft, in the other hand, simply develop .NET versions. Do you think that kind of fast development, constantly adding features and unneeded extras, would be possible if they had to ensure the maximum compatibility possible? No way, and the way they're going, we might end doing what Carol fears, only to ensure two or three apps could work in our machines (so far, I only have ATI's Catalyst Control Center and in the future, possibly Paint.NET). And considering that to ensure we have true Vista native applications we have to use .NET... well... I feel like o_O.

And what's that he can't upgrade? And those compression problems?

CWuestefeld:
The question I wonder is how many of these massive downloads are going to be needed in the long term? We already have 3 versions of .Net installed - in 5 years time will we have 8 versions installed?
-Carol Haynes (August 03, 2007, 06:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, .Net 3.5 should be out early next year, I've just set up the beta on my desktop in a VM.

But at least Sun does extensive testing to ensure everything is right (so far, in my own experience, everything went right). Microsoft, in the other hand, simply develop .NET versions. Do you think that kind of fast development, constantly adding features and unneeded extras, would be possible if they had to ensure the maximum compatibility possible? -Lashiec (August 03, 2007, 08:27 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm sorry, but I've got to say that this sounds like quite a troll. What does it mean to say that "Microsoft simply develop{s} .Net versions"? You seem to be implying that they don't do the extensive testing that you believe Sun does, but you haven't offered the slightest bit of a citation to support that. You go on to say they're "constantly adding ... unneeded extras". Which new features are unneeded, and on what basis do you deem them so? Past that, even by your own logic, "extras" wouldn't create the compatibility problems you insinuate. For example, as stated above in this thread, the upgrade from .Net 2 to .Net 3 did not change any core functionality; it simply layered additional features on top. Thus, regardless of any quality problems that you may have convinced yourself that MS has in comparison to Sun, new features like additional ADO.Net features (built to support the latest SQL Server) don't have the slightest effect on the established functionality like ASP.Net or WinForms. (Indeed, the development community criticized the naming of .Net 3, saying it should have been 2.5 or even 2 1/3)

That said, I think there is a legitimate gripe from the development community over the speed at which MS is moving the technology. It's difficult for developers to keep up -- we've barely mastered one technology when there's a new one up. And this is difficult for corporate development, since an IT department has trouble starting a project today when tomorrow there will be a (presumably) more advanced technology available. I'm afraid this will lead to more fragmentation in the development community. Today we've got Java, .Net, VB, Ruby, etc.; in the future we'll add Silverlight and others onto the list.

Lashiec:
Yeah, I'm a troll! What I wanted to say is that Microsoft doesn't have to worry about backwards compatibility, while Sun does have. Prior the release of Java 6, Sun "called" all developers to test their apps under the new JRE, to ensure they had the less regression bugs as possible. Microsoft simply deploys the .NET Framework, and say: "there you have it, use whatever you fancy". For example, .NET 2 applications use .NET 2 even having .NET 3 installed.

Those extras are those things pertaining to Vista features, like the printing system. As you know, Microsoft developed a new printing subsystem, that uses XML-based files for the spooler. The guys said: "hey, considering that this is, essentially, a readable file, what if we do a new format based on it?" And thus came XPS. Microsoft did something similar with the printing subsystem prior Vista, and those spool files were the basis for the dreadful WMF pictures. Well, .NET includes XPS reader and printer to produce your own XPS files and challenge Adobe and PDF ;D. They introduce that without asking, but then they are always saying they can't make DirectX10 for XP because of architectural changes, and bla, bla, bla...

BTW, a good troll would say: ".NET sucks because it's Microsoft's. Sun's Java is GPL. Java FTW!!" ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page