12 replies to this topic

[TwistedMetal]

http://www.filehippo...et_framework_3/

I just downloaded 2.0 about a week ago.

[fredvries]

Ha, so did I.

[JohnDemolition]

no point in getting it, really. there are little to no applications which depend on it.

[Andavari]

JohnDemolition, on Nov 7 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

no point in getting it, really. there are little to no applications which depend on it.

That's what I was thinking initially! However I downloaded and installed it anyways because someone will eventually release an application that utilizes it.

[DJpailo]

How come I cannot download it anywhere from microsoft?

[JohnDemolition]

try downloading it at FileHippo instead.

http://www.filehippo...et_framework_3/

[Jawbax]

JohnDemolition, on Nov 8 2006, 02:56 AM, said:

no point in getting it, really. there are little to no applications which depend on it.

I agree...no point in really jumping the gun. I feel it's the same for Java updates. Why go through all that effort of a menial update if everything works fine the way it is (PS I would call dotnet V3 menial here...). I think sometimes we get too excited with updates regardless of their functionality

[rridgely]

Java updates are important from security a security stand point though. Lots of times the updates are just to keep it from being exploited.

A recent nasty infection caught through the lack of java updates would be vundo.

[Admiral Ross]

Does these apps require a reboot? If so forget about it. Only time I reboot if I lock up hard. I wish there was a way to completelly load xp totally to memory. Gigantic 2gb ram drive or something.

[Andavari]

Admiral Ross, on Nov 9 2006, 10:55 PM, said:

Does these apps require a reboot? If so forget about it. Only time I reboot if I lock up hard.

On my system .NET Framework 3.0 didn't require a reboot, however since it's bloated and installs so many files and registry entries I rebooted on my own for a "safety precaution." Sun Java Runtime also didn't require a reboot on my system, and for that installation I didn't bother to reboot on my own.

[Admiral Ross]

Andavari, on Nov 10 2006, 06:32 AM, said:

On my system .NET Framework 3.0 didn't require a reboot, however since it's bloated and installs so many files and registry entries I rebooted on my own for a "safety precaution." Sun Java Runtime also didn't require a reboot on my system, and for that installation I didn't bother to reboot on my own.

I hate bloated things But, rebooting was smart.

[pwillener]

Does .NET Framework 3.0 still require to be installed parallel with 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0?

[Edit] from the link in the post below

Quote

For customers that already have the .NET Framework 2.0 installed, this .NET Framework 3.0 redistributable package installs only the new Windows Vista components. This ensures that any .NET Framework 2.0-based applications work seamlessly when the .NET Framework 3.0 is installed, with no application migration or updates of any kind required.

[pwillener]

P.S. The redistributable package is available on the Microsoft download site: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...f5-25634c3bf043