73b2a5d3
XPost: alt.windows-xp, microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
XPost: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
From: glee29@spamindspring.com
"Greegor" wrote in message
news:8eaa7094-1dd3-4e55-8f3f-f6ccf53adb51@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>Somebody claimed that you can install just one
>version of FW. I doubted what they said and
>asked them to back up what they said.
>
>The references you posted support the impression that
>I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
>to be backward compatible like it should have.
Correct.... backward compatibility was not one of their aims and for the
most part, they are not. A lot depends on how a particular software app
that is running on .NET was written. Some s'ware written with/for .NET
2.x will run with the early .NET 3.x installed and no .NET 2.x
installed.... the early iterations of .NET 3.x did not have .NET 2.x
runtimes, but some .NET 2.x apps could run on it. Some .NET 1.x apps
can run with only .NET 2.x or 3.x installed, others will not run without
their version of .NET 1.x. Even with the release of .NET 4.x, .NET apps
will need their own .NET flavor installed. It's a jungle and it's
crazy. Then mid-stream, to simplify installs and compatibility,
Microsoft changed the installer packages so that if you install .NET 3.5
SP1, you got all the .NET 2.x and 3.x runtimes included in the package,
behind the scenes. That improved things a bit, but in many cases the
old .NET installations were damaged by then, and a number of users had
to rip out all .NET with Stebner's tool, then just install the new
package of .NET 3.5.
.NET 4 was released later.... the tool also works to remove it, since
there are still .NET updating issues even after the changes.... They are
less frequent now.
>
>The interdependence of Framework on all previous
>versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
>is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.
Incorrect, inasmuch as the .NET versions are not dependent on previous
versions. Each version has no dependency on a previous version.... it's
the software apps written with various versions that have the dependency
on that particular version. What's bad design is that the whole series
of .NET Framework was made that way in the first place. But it's not
something new. There were VB5 apps that still needed VB5 installed,
when VB6 runtimes were already installed.... not entirely backward
compatible there either.
I assume what you really mean by "interdependence on previous versions"
is that once you install .NET 3.5 SP1, you can't remove .NET 2.x
versions anymore, without removing .NET 3.5 also. That's not so much
"interdependence" as the fact that the .NET 2.x and early 3.x runtimes
are part of the parcel now, and you can't separate them. It's not
interdependence, it's just how they dealt with having a simplified
package to get all the 2.x and 3.x runtimes at once, to minimize issues
with apps needing their .NET flavor.
>
>I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.
I'm sorry they developed .NET in the first place. I'd guess the most
common update failures are updating .NET.... damage to the Frameworks
became so common, Stebner had to write his tools. You still haven't
answered why you have .NET 4.x installed in the first place.... do you
have any apps that run on it? There is no reason to install it
otherwise, other than to have something to aggravate you.
>
>Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
>jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
>could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
>hell with Windows XP users?
>
>Is that what they're doing?
They don't need to do that to kiss off XP.... that's already in the
works via the EOL.
>snip
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
