> Where does this "everybody has the .NET runtime" myth come from?

The only people who don't have it are those that still have XP, have not 
installed all the Windows Upates, and have never installed a program that 
needed the .net runtime.  It can't be that many compared to the number of 
people without the Borland runtime :-)

> My brand new Vista laptop still doesn't have the .NET runtime.

Did you uninstall it somehow? Vista comes with .net 3.0.

Post a reply to this message

>> Where does this "everybody has the .NET runtime" myth come from?
> 
> The only people who don't have it are those that still have XP, have not 
> installed all the Windows Upates, and have never installed a program 
> that needed the .net runtime.  It can't be that many compared to the 
> number of people without the Borland runtime :-)

I would think the number of people with the .NET runtime *is* far, far 
larger than the Borland runtime. But still, I've yet to come across any 
PCs which have the .NET runtime "already". All the machines at work had 
to have it added, and my PC at home only has it because VS requires it 
for some reason.

I'm also pretty certain that the .NET runtime is *not* automatically 
installed by Windows Update. You can _request_ it from Windows Update, 
but it's listed as "optional software" rather than a required update. 
(Of course, updates to any version of the runtime you've already 
installed get added automatically. But not the runtime itself.)

And what do you mean "still have XP"? Last time I checked, virtually 
*everybody* is "still" using XP. (Except for the tiny few who bought a 
new PC recently.)

>> My brand new Vista laptop still doesn't have the .NET runtime.
> 
> Did you uninstall it somehow? Vista comes with .net 3.0.

I rephrase: The .NET runtime is not listed in add/remove programs. I 
presumed this to mean it isn't installed.

Post a reply to this message

> I'm also pretty certain that the .NET runtime is *not* automatically 
> installed by Windows Update. You can _request_ it from Windows Update, but 
> it's listed as "optional software" rather than a required update. (Of 
> course, updates to any version of the runtime you've already installed get 
> added automatically. But not the runtime itself.)

Oh ok I hadn't checked what category it came under, I just remember seeing 
it on my XP box a long time ago.

> And what do you mean "still have XP"? Last time I checked, virtually 
> *everybody* is "still" using XP. (Except for the tiny few who bought a new 
> PC recently.)

Recently I've seen a lot of people show up with Vista laptops, I guess most 
people get them replaced every few years so it's not surprising.  Anyway I 
kind of meant the original un-updated XP, the service pack updates include 
.net anyway.

BTW, according to Wikipedia 22% use Vista and 68% use XP, and you can guess 
which way both those numbers are heading...

> I rephrase: The .NET runtime is not listed in add/remove programs. I 
> presumed this to mean it isn't installed.

Ah ok, yes it *is* installed, but I assume you cannot uninstall it (because 
presumably some parts of Vista were written to make use of it).

Post a reply to this message

> Anyway I kind of meant the original un-updated XP, the service pack 
> updates include .net anyway.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect too. The Windows Update server had to 
install SP3, reboot the PC and then install the .NET framework - which 
doesn't like a lot of sense if SP3 *includes* it.

> BTW, according to Wikipedia 22% use Vista and 68% use XP, and you can 
> guess which way both those numbers are heading...

Yes, I expect Vista usage to increase over time. (Or will it? Maybe 
everybody will just move to Windows 7?) My point is *today* few people 
use it.

>> I rephrase: The .NET runtime is not listed in add/remove programs. I 
>> presumed this to mean it isn't installed.
> 
> Ah ok, yes it *is* installed, but I assume you cannot uninstall it 
> (because presumably some parts of Vista were written to make use of it).

Interesting. So it's installed but just not listed? Is there a 
scientific way to confirm this?

I should have realised eventually I would have no choice in the matter...

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:4adc6da2$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Interesting. So it's installed but just not listed? Is there a scientific 
> way to confirm this?
>

Look in Control Panel under Administrative Tools. If you have any of the 
.NET frameworks installed, there should be an icon (or more) for it there. 
IIRC, the only thing you'll see in Add/Remove programs is the service packs, 
if any, that you have installed for the frameworks.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:46:08 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> Interesting. So it's installed but just not listed? Is there a  
> scientific way to confirm this?

Check your "Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework" folder (and "Framework64" if  
applicable). Each installed .NET version has its own subfolder there.

Alternatively, just run Windows Update and see which ones you have not yet  
installed.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

> I'm pretty sure this is incorrect too. The Windows Update server had to 
> install SP3, reboot the PC and then install the .NET framework - which 
> doesn't like a lot of sense if SP3 *includes* it.

Oh ok, I don't remember so I might be wrong, I thought I read that from XP 
SP2 onwards .net was included.  Might the SP install just have deferred the 
installation of .net until after the reboot?

> Yes, I expect Vista usage to increase over time. (Or will it? Maybe 
> everybody will just move to Windows 7?)

I assume Windows 7 will include .net, so the % of machines with .net 
installed should continue to rise.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm pretty sure this is incorrect too. The Windows Update server had 
>> to install SP3, reboot the PC and then install the .NET framework - 
>> which doesn't like a lot of sense if SP3 *includes* it.
> 
> Oh ok, I don't remember so I might be wrong, I thought I read that from 
> XP SP2 onwards .net was included.  Might the SP install just have 
> deferred the installation of .net until after the reboot?

Nope. I sometimes have to do this manually if WUS doesn't work for some 
reason, and just installing SP3 is insufficient. No amount of rebooting 
helps. You have to also manually install the .NET framework, which is a 
seperate [240 MB] download.

>> Yes, I expect Vista usage to increase over time. (Or will it? Maybe 
>> everybody will just move to Windows 7?)
> 
> I assume Windows 7 will include .net, so the % of machines with .net 
> installed should continue to rise.

Oh, sure. I meant will Windows Vista continue to increase once Windows 7 
is out. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> Oh, sure. I meant will Windows Vista continue to increase once Windows 7 
> is out. ;-)

Probably, for a while.  Especially in large companies there is always a big 
delay between a new OS being released and that OS starting to be used.  From 
my experience a lot of places are starting to roll out Vista on new 
machines, I suspect that trend will continue for at least another year or so 
until they have tested Windows 7 sufficiently.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Oh, sure. I meant will Windows Vista continue to increase once Windows 
>> 7 is out. ;-)
> 
> Probably, for a while.  Especially in large companies there is always a 
> big delay between a new OS being released and that OS starting to be 
> used.  From my experience a lot of places are starting to roll out Vista 
> on new machines, I suspect that trend will continue for at least another 
> year or so until they have tested Windows 7 sufficiently.

Certainly the company I work for has vowed to not even touch Vista. They 
were going to wait 3 years, but not I think they're looking at going 
straight to Windows 7.

Weird really. As soon as a new server OS comes out, they can't install 
it fast enough. But desktop OS, they tend to wait until it's a few years 
old before even testing it.

Post a reply to this message