Be nice...I'm not a programmer or developer, I'm a hardware guy who is very
confused about the .NET versions.

An application I use installed .NET 2.0. Everything is great, but the app is
a bit fuzzy in certain areas. I'm told that the application will run much
better if I update to .NET 3.5. OK, good.....

Is there a panel or tool in my system that will let me upgrade, or even
check the status of my current .NET installation? Or do I have to go to
microsoft.com and search and download manually? I can find 3.5 so I don't
need a link, but is there a better way than digging through the site?



Next, do I need to uninstall .NET 2.0 before installing 3.5?

What if I manually install 3.5 on a new system, and later when I install the
app (which hasn't been updated) it wants to install 2.0? Does that work?

Honest...I've looked for answers about .NET several times, but I can't find
anything that explains this stuff...everything I see assumes I already know.
;-) What I need is a description written at the level of a PC Technician,
where the top-level MS explanations are conceptual rather than practical.

-John O

Hello JohnO,

> Be nice...I'm not a programmer or developer, I'm a hardware guy who is
> very confused about the .NET versions.

No Problem. Honest seeker of 'relavent' knowledge = very welcome here.

> An application I use installed .NET 2.0. Everything is great, but the
> app is a bit fuzzy in certain areas. I'm told that the application
> will run much better if I update to .NET 3.5. OK, good.....
>
> Is there a panel or tool in my system that will let me upgrade, or
> even check the status of my current .NET installation? Or do I have to
> go to microsoft.com and search and download manually? I can find 3.5
> so I don't need a link, but is there a better way than digging through
> the site?

Just install .Net 3.5 from any link found on Microsoft.com

> Next, do I need to uninstall .NET 2.0 before installing 3.5?
>

No. .Net 3.5 requires (and installs if nessecary) .Net 2.0

> What if I manually install 3.5 on a new system, and later when I
> install the app (which hasn't been updated) it wants to install 2.0?
> Does that work?

It will already work as .Net 2.0 is part of .Net 3.5

If you would like further clarrification , feel free to ask

--
Rory

JohnO <johno@!NOOSPAM!heathkit.com> wrote:

> Be nice...I'm not a programmer or developer, I'm a hardware guy who is very
> confused about the .NET versions.
>
> An application I use installed .NET 2.0. Everything is great, but the app is
> a bit fuzzy in certain areas. I'm told that the application will run much
> better if I update to .NET 3.5. OK, good.....

Hmm... in most cases that won't be the case. An app which manages to
execute against .NET 2.0 is not *likely* to behave differently in .NET
3.5. There are exceptions, but that's not the case.

> Is there a panel or tool in my system that will let me upgrade, or even
> check the status of my current .NET installation? Or do I have to go to
> microsoft.com and search and download manually? I can find 3.5 so I don't
> need a link, but is there a better way than digging through the site?

The normal "installed programs" control panel applet (whatever it's
called on the version of Windows you're using) should show the
installed version. For instance, if it says "Microsoft .NET Framework
3.5" then obviously that means you've got 3.5 installed.

I don't know whether it's easy to get an upgrade to 3.5 without a
download - it may be an optional Windows Update component, but I
suspect not.

> Next, do I need to uninstall .NET 2.0 before installing 3.5?

No.

> What if I manually install 3.5 on a new system, and later when I install the
> app (which hasn't been updated) it wants to install 2.0? Does that work?

It won't need to install 2.0 - 3.5 includes 2.0.

> Honest...I've looked for answers about .NET several times, but I can't find
> anything that explains this stuff...everything I see assumes I already know.
> ;-) What I need is a description written at the level of a PC Technician,
> where the top-level MS explanations are conceptual rather than practical.

Right. Unfortunately it gets somewhat tricky due to the nature of the
differences between 2.0 and 3.5. A few bits are updated, but most of
..NET 3.5 consists of additions on top of 2.0. It's hard to describe
without going into details - which I appreciate wouldn't be helpful to
you.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk

>> An application I use installed .NET 2.0. Everything is great, but the app

>> is
>> a bit fuzzy in certain areas. I'm told that the application will run much
>> better if I update to .NET 3.5. OK, good.....

>
> Hmm... in most cases that won't be the case. An app which manages to
> execute against .NET 2.0 is not *likely* to behave differently in .NET
> 3.5. There are exceptions, but that's not the case.

The issue is speech recognition, using the Win speech SDK. I'll get to test
what the programmer claims tomorrow. :-)

Thanks for the help guys. I appreciate it.

-John O

JohnO,

> I'm told that the application will run much better if I update to .NET
> 3.5. OK, good.....
>

Never listen again to person who told you that.

A Net 2.0 program should run in 3.5 as good as in 2.0.

However because 2.0 is longer in use, the change of not known bugs in 3.5 is
higher.

Cor

Cor Ligthert[MVP] <notmyfirstname@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > I'm told that the application will run much better if I update to .NET
> > 3.5. OK, good.....

> Never listen again to person who told you that.
>
> A Net 2.0 program should run in 3.5 as good as in 2.0.

Not always. .NET 3.5 includes 2.0SP1, i.e. changes to existing code.
For instance, the ThreadPool will contain 250 threads per processor,
not 25. I can see *some* situations where that could improve things.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk

Jon-

Should we say then 2.0 with SP1, in my idea it is normal that you have
always added the latest Service packs.

I was more trying to show that *new is not forever better. If there is
nothing in it that you need, then you are *mostly* better of with the
existing one. (And that not from a typical English kind of view as you once
wrote).

:-)

-Cor

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@xxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.22306d0c351a1ff69d6@xxxxxx

> Cor Ligthert[MVP] <notmyfirstname@xxxxxx> wrote:

>> > I'm told that the application will run much better if I update to .NET
>> > 3.5. OK, good.....

>

>> Never listen again to person who told you that.
>>
>> A Net 2.0 program should run in 3.5 as good as in 2.0.

>
> Not always. .NET 3.5 includes 2.0SP1, i.e. changes to existing code.
> For instance, the ThreadPool will contain 250 threads per processor,
> not 25. I can see *some* situations where that could improve things.
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxx>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
> World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk

Cor Ligthert[MVP] <notmyfirstname@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Should we say then 2.0 with SP1, in my idea it is normal that you have
> always added the latest Service packs.

Definitely not. Ask sys admins of significant servers whether they
always just blindly accept Windows Update - in my experience they
don't. They accept specific updates that they know are relevant, after
testing that they still work.

I certainly wouldn't assume that the majority of servers using .NET 2
are running SP1 by now, for instance.

> I was more trying to show that *new is not forever better. If there is
> nothing in it that you need, then you are *mostly* better of with the
> existing one.

Indeed. It's certainly a safer bet.

> (And that not from a typical English kind of view as you once wrote).

No idea what you're referring to there, I'm afraid.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk

Jon-

>> (And that not from a typical English kind of view as you once wrote).

>
> No idea what you're referring to there, I'm afraid.
>

You once wrote something as "In Brittain is everything 100 years later".


Cor

Cor Ligthert[MVP] <notmyfirstname@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > No idea what you're referring to there, I'm afraid.

> You once wrote something as "In Brittain is everything 100 years later".

If you say so. Can't remember anything like that, but I'm sure you're
right.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk