 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / New Users / December 2007Understanding .NET versions -- for a non-programmer
I'm an Administrator/IT Manager. Athough I dabbled in Basic and Pascal programming years ago as a kid, I am absolutely not a programmer. I'm looking for a high-level overview of the .NET versions and how they all relate (or don't) to each other. For example, I know .NET 1.1 and 2.0 are separate components and that .NET 2.0 is not a "backward-compatible upgrade" of .NET 1.1. But beyond v2.0, I'm unclear as to the relationships and depedencies of dotNET versions. I have to support a number of mission-critical apps running on various .NET versions, and in working with some of their vendors' support departments I've been told things that made me question my understanding of .NET. For example, I think I was working to get a new .NET-based web app installed when a support rep (or a poster in a NG) told me to remove .NET 2.0, install 3.0, and I'd be able to configure those web apps to use ASP v2.0. and it wouldn't break anything. That seemed to contradict my understanding of the relationships between .NET versions (that they are independent of one another). So I'm looking for more information -- not because I'm going to program in .NET, but because I think I need to better understand what I'm administering, and what my options are when I'm planning how to deploy something new into my existing environment. I've googled various terms without finding the kind of high-level overview I'm looking for, which is why I've come here. I'm looking either for someone kind enough to provide answers, or for suggestions on where/how to study. I'm happy to read and learn about this on my own, I just need to find stuff written for my particular audience -- most of the stuff I've found is aimed at developers. Thanks in advance! BJ Hi BJ, Each version of the .NET Framework includes code libraries, a common runtime, and language compilers. Each version can exist along side of the others (ie. there's no need to uninstall one to be able to use the other). This is also valuable in scenarios where you have different applications, each written for a specfic version of the Framework and you need to have those different applications be able to run on their respective Framework. The one exception to how the Frameworks are set up is the 3.x versions. These versions contain additional code libraries and features that sit "on top" of the 2.0 Framework. So, if you want to use any of the 3.x stuff, you MUST have the 2.0 Framework installed first. Removing it (as was suggested to you) will NOT allow you to use ASP .NET 2.0. Generally speaking, there should be no reason for you to uninstall any past, current or future version of the .NET Framework. Having older versions on your system does not mean that they *must* be used, but it does give you the opportunity to target it if needed. Also, the most common development environment for building .NET applications is Visua Studio .NET. Each of the Visual Studio versions creates code and compiles that code for a specific version of the Framework as indicated below: VS .NET 2002 ---> 1.0 Framework VS .NET 2003 ---> 1.1 Framework VS 2005 ----> 2.0 Framework VS 2008 ----> 3.5 Framework While it is possible to use a particular version of VS to write code that will intentionally target a previous version of the Framework to run against, you must be careful that the new code doesn't contain calls/references to non-existant features in the earlier .NET Framwork that is being targetted. Hope this helps. -Scott > I'm an Administrator/IT Manager. Athough I dabbled in Basic and Pascal > programming years ago as a kid, I am absolutely not a programmer. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > BJ Orignally .NET version independence and allowing versions side-by-side indtallation was regarded as one of beauties of .NET framework. And yes, it was the case with 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0. With them, you can choose to install all of them or install only the latest version. However, MS chose to make things as confusing as possible by making 3.0 as 2.0 add-on, and since almost no one actually did development with 3.0 (because no matching VS available), now the version jump to 3.5 (where is 3.1, 3.2 3.3 or 3.4? who knows), as 2.0SP1's add-on (do you also need 3.0 installed for 3.5? I do not know). So, since 3.0, there is no such thing as side-by-side installation any more. If you have followed MS' .NET track since its begining, you may be able to tell all the difference of the versions. If you just started with .NET, you should feel being confused. To make it simpe and safer, always install latest .NET framework, most app developed with earlier version of .NET would work with newest version of .NET framework, at least theoretically. > I'm an Administrator/IT Manager. Athough I dabbled in Basic and Pascal > programming years ago as a kid, I am absolutely not a programmer. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > BJ > Orignally .NET version independence and allowing versions side-by-side > indtallation was regarded as one of beauties of .NET framework. And yes, it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 3.1, 3.2 3.3 or 3.4? who knows), as 2.0SP1's add-on (do you also need 3.0 > installed for 3.5? I do not know) Yes, 3.0SP1 is part of 3.5.  SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk Great! 3.5 need 3.0 (SP1), and then 3.0 needs 2.0. Nothing could be more confusing than this. Since teh 3.x version has been a fact (very bad decision), MS could have package whole thing in 3.0, 3.5, even many files/compononts/library are the same as 2.0, considering huge and cheap storage (hard drive) available to new computers. So that most user sonly need to install latestand single VERSION. When there is specific need, they can do real side-by-side installation. >> Orignally .NET version independence and allowing versions side-by-side >> indtallation was regarded as one of beauties of .NET framework. And yes, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yes, 3.0SP1 is part of 3.5. MS done this packaging thing that is 3.0 and 3.5 *is* 2.0 plus additional and more additional stuff. What I mean is that you don't have to install first 2.0 as it will be installed as part of the 3.0 or 3.5 installation process... So for now the rules are IMO : - if you need a particular version, installs this specific version (and the setup will install whatever else is needed) - you never have to uninstall anything The only potential problem I see is that 3.0 installs 2.0 SP1 and 3.5 installs 3.0 SP1 (also available as separate downloads) which could introduce possible discrepancies between 2.0 only and 3.x installations... So this is already true, you could start by installing just the last package (ie. you'll have 3.0, 3.5 that is 2.0 plus 2.0 is able to run 1.0 and 1.1 application if they don't run into a breaking compatibility change). Then you can install 1.0 or 1.1 if you run into a specific issue. -- Patrice > Great! 3.5 need 3.0 (SP1), and then 3.0 needs 2.0. Nothing could be more > confusing than this. Since teh 3.x version has been a fact (very bad [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >> Yes, 3.0SP1 is part of 3.5. The packaged intallation is different from packaging a complete independent version, such as 1.0/1.1/2.0. When you tell a client, or your boss that you only need .NET 3.5, and the beauty of .NET side-by-side installation, you would be questioned on why there is 2.0/3.0 installed, and worse yet, someone could try to remove 2.0 and 3.0, since he can definitely remove 1.x at will, becuase the .NET philosophy says latest version is enough. personally I understand the version mess well, but there are lot non-.NET developers get confused a lot, such as OP, even they are seasoned IT workers. > MS done this packaging thing that is 3.0 and 3.5 *is* 2.0 plus additional > and more additional stuff. What I mean is that you don't have to install [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >>> >>> Yes, 3.0SP1 is part of 3.5. Humm... I'm not sure which version scheme would have been clearer. If I remember it was changed because most people were frightened that they had to change all their existing 2.0 code with those new WPF features ;-) 3.0 is better to convey the idea that you can adopt those new features at your own pace and that your 2.0 code will still run unchanged... We need perhaps some kind of quantum versioning theory inovation ;-) -- Patrice > The packaged intallation is different from packaging a complete > independent version, such as 1.0/1.1/2.0. When you tell a client, or your [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>>> >>>> Yes, 3.0SP1 is part of 3.5. 3.0 is 2.0 plus additional components so removing 2.0 before installing 3.0 is not needed as 3.0 will reinstall 2.0. Basically the idea is that : - you NEVER have to remove a particular version. Each new version installs side by side with the previous one i.e. you can on a single PC have 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 and each application will use whatever it needs... -- Patrice > I'm an Administrator/IT Manager. Athough I dabbled in Basic and Pascal > programming years ago as a kid, I am absolutely not a programmer. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > BJ // told me to remove .NET 2.0, install 3.0, // Then that person doesn't know what they're talking about. 3.0 is an "add on" for 2.0. //Opinion// MS should have called it "2.5", but they didn't. //Opinion// and MS should have called "3.5" ..."3.0"....and all of it would have made more sense. But the lines are 1.1 ................... 2.0 (only) .................. 3.0 added onto 2.0 (2.0/3.0) .................. 3.5 //Opinion// However, I wouldn't mess with uninstalling previous versions. Now if you had a virgin computer ... and it had no frameworks...then you could install 2.0 on it without 1.1. And then you could add-on 3.0 (to the 2.0) on that same computer. //Opinion// But I wouldn't mess with uninstalling something. You'll probably end up installing 1.1 over/after you installed 2.0 anyways.....and I would stick with chronology if I could. I tried to label my opinions carefully.......so seperate it from the more concrete information. > I'm an Administrator/IT Manager. Athough I dabbled in Basic and Pascal > programming years ago as a kid, I am absolutely not a programmer. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > BJ Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.