Windows 7 - NET Framework 3.5 SP1?
Asked By Bill in Co on 18-Jul-12 05:42 PM
Here is a question relating to the SP1 vs non SP1 versions of .NET 3.5:
Did anybody notice this note at the MS website (listed below) specifically
relating to SP1, and not the plain vanilla NET 3.5?
IMPORTANT: After installing the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 package (either the
bootstrapper or the full package) you should immediately install the update
KB959209 to address a set of known application compatibility issues.
[my question - as a result of fixes in SP1, or not?]
In addition, on Windows Vista x64 and Windows Server 2008 x64, install the
update KB967190 to address a file association issue for XPS documents.
So my question is, does this perhaps imply that these steps would not be
necessary with the plain old vanilla .NET Framework 3.5 (since there is no
such note at that site)? (if so, I'd skip the SP1 update, personally)
Char Jackson replied to Bill in Co on 18-Jul-12 06:32 PM
The only way I'd recommend skipping SP1 is if you do not already have
Bill in Co replied to Char Jackson on 18-Jul-12 08:11 PM
I do not, and will not, until some app I need needs it, which may happen.
But that still does not answer the question I asked about SP1 vs the plain
vanilla NET Framework 3.5, and the possible ramifications of such. Or who
knows, maybe the potential problem exists with the pre-SP1 version too, but
there iseems to be no way to know, unless someone here is clairovoyant, or
knows more about this. ????
But besides the carte blanche mindset that "updates are always a good
thing", why would not you, considering the Warning notice I mentioned in
above for SP1?
The older (pre SP1) version does NOT have that warning notice (relating to
known application compatibility issues). Or maybe it was not discovered
until that came out. Again, how are we to know?
Char Jackson replied to Bill in Co on 18-Jul-12 09:12 PM
OK, so you are in good shape.
I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are asking or what your concerns
are. Maybe someone else can figure it out. If you do not have this
software installed, it is all moot anyway.
Same as above.
Does it matter?
Paul replied to Bill in Co on 18-Jul-12 10:15 PM
Is the pre-SP1 version considered "supported" in the sense that
they continue to maintain it separately. Or, would they insist
you install the Service Pack ? That's probably the easiest explanation.
Bill in Co replied to Paul on 19-Jul-12 12:05 AM
I do not know about whether it is "supported" or not, except to say that you
can apparently download either. Presumably if you have automatic updates
turned on it will direct you to install the SP1, and if you do not (and I
do not), it will not, and will leave you alone.
I am not worried about "security updates" here (if that is what you meant),
but I would most certainly be concerned if one version (the SP1 version)
correct some known compatibility issues", VS one (the original non SP1) that
does not, at least as shown on their download sites that I posted. In which
case - I'd stick with the latter. Do you know what I mean?
Paul replied to Bill in Co on 19-Jul-12 01:23 AM
(and their Service Packs) remain supported. For all 3.x versions prior to
.NET Framework 3.5 SP1, support will end on July 12th, 2011.
We strongly encourage customers to migrate to .NET Framework 3.5 SP1
before July 12th, 2011."
I suppose that gives them a reason to not update the page for 3.5 non-SP1.
3.5 SP1 is about 50MB larger than 3.5, so it is probably not a "bug fix"
but includes new code and functions.
Their pushing of .NET is not about security anyway. I have pending downloads
waiting for me in Windows Update, and it is because Microsoft wants me to have
a copy. So they can tell developers "99.7% of all users, can run your .NET
code packages". If you have 2.0 installed, because your ATI video card needs
it for the control panel, you will still be presented with 3.5 or 3.5SP1, in
Windows Update, and then you are getting "new layers" of the .NET stack.
And it is not because they detected a program that needs the higher layers
of the stack. You get them anyway.
Windows Update has not "computed a need for it", it merely wants
to push .NET. If I were to accept 3.5 download right now, Windows
Update would only turn around and offer me 4.0 on the next check.
And the next time an actual security fix is needed for .NET, it
means I will have more of those waiting for me as well.
The reason I do not have Java installed here (Java being analogous to .NET),
is the "dribbling" security model. Java is just as bad as keeping Flash
or Acrobat Reader up to date. And it is the reason I do not want any
additional discretionary downloads from Microsoft. I do not want to
accept anything, which only increases the amount of "stuff that can break".
If that .NET stack had a web exposure, and could be accessed with browser code,
think of the fun. I do not trust Microsoft, when it comes to
minimizing attack surface. They just love to build a rickety structure
and slap bandaids on it (to the tune of 13 Windows Update patches this month).
Bill in Co replied to Paul on 19-Jul-12 04:27 PM
I am with you on many (most) of these "updates". Thanks, but no thanks. :-)
And I have got the automatic updates turned off.
But you raised an interesting point: perhaps both the regular and the SP1
versions of .NET "should" have that same notice - it is just that since the
regular one is out of date, so they are not going to update that web page
with that notice. At this point I have only got .NET 1.1 and .NET 2
installed, but there was one app I was looking at that required NET 3.5, so
that is why the questions.
As for Java, I have an older version installed, as it is needed by a couple
of apps I have. But I have not updated it, either. Ditto on Acrobat Reader
(I am now using version 8), and Flash (version 10 or 11, cannot recall).
And the only reason for going this far with any of these was that some apps
would not work right without it.
Paul replied to Bill in Co on 19-Jul-12 11:45 PM
Since you have installed 3.5, I see no problem with you maintaining it, just
like I accept all maintenance for the 2.0 SP2 I am using.
Where I draw the line, is "accepting new layers of the cake", when I am not
So if the current state of affairs is 3.5 SP1 plus several critical additional
downloads, then I'd do that. But if Windows Update offers 4.0, just say no.
Now, if I happened to download some .NET application that needed 4.0,
at that point I'd have to consider whether it was worth it or not.
I will not be downloading 4.0 in advance, because it just wastes more time
being maintained, primped and polished. (.NET has some service that
runs occasionally, that does some kind of "pre-compiling" of .NET apps,
and I consider stuff like that to be a pure waste. Especially when .NET
can do "just in time" compile when you double click an application, instead.
If that service was never allowed to run, I doubt you would notice. And that
service tends to run again, after changes to .NET in WU.)
Bill in Co replied to Paul on 20-Jul-12 01:43 AM
I have not installed it (NET 3.5) yet. I am only going to do that if I
ultimately decide to use an app that requires it (which is still up in the
air for me at this time).
To me it would depend on that those (so called) "critical downloads" "cost
Just for one example, I looked at one item mentioned about 3.5 SP1 that said
that 3.5 SP1 installed something extra in Firefox (which might come in handy
if Firefox was being used with some .NET app), but, unfortunately, MS left
out the uninstaller for this, if you did not want it. But sure, you could
use the hotfix mentioned to correct that, but why go through all this
rigarmole, UNLESS 3.5 SP1 truly brought something useful to the table that
was actually needed by the app.
I do not know. I am still thinking about this whole thing, though, and might
reconsider. (The list of code improvements added to SP1 was a bit
technical, but looked noteworthy - so who knows).
I have got that thing permanently turned off!
Right. Same here. And now NET is up to version 4.5, as I recall.
Or wait a minute, maybe NET 4.5 cannot be used on WinXP, I seem to recall
reading somewhere, but my memory might be off.
glee replied to Bill in Co on 20-Jul-12 07:51 AM
It did not "leave out" an uninstaller. The .NET Framework Assistant for
Firefox, installed with .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, is a Firefox Add-on
added at the computer level so that its functionality can be used by all
users at the computer level instead of at the user level. As a result,
the Uninstall button is unavailable in the Firefox Add-ons menu because
standard users are not permitted to uninstall machine-level components.
The update (hotfix you mention) installs the .NET Framework Assistant on
a per-user basis. so the Uninstall button will be functional in the
Firefox Add-ons menu.
The update is already part of Windows 7 and is not needed there.
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
Bill in Co replied to glee on 20-Jul-12 06:14 PM
Yeah, that is what it was. I remember now.
I have no idea if I am a "standard user", since I am the ONLY user here. I
would think and hope that just booting up into XP I have these privileges.
I have access to most anything (just logging in as Bill, and not
I have never HAD to log in as Administrator, except for some obscure things,
like thoroughly cleaning the TIF (including the index.dat). That is, I
have done it on rare occasions when I want to delete the TIF to get it to
rebuild my TIF (including the index.dat file).
So - I am not sure if I would need that hotfix or not, to have the access
you are talking about. Can you tell me?
Thanks for the informative correction, Glen. And after all this, one app I
was looking at does require SP1, so the whole issue becomes moot, if I am
going to install it, anyways. (meaning, either get the SP1 version, or
do not bother)
glee replied to Bill in Co on 21-Jul-12 09:18 AM
You misunderstand.... it installs at a computer level rather than a user
level, so no users have the Uninstall button available in Firefox.
Firefox does not care what level user you are, it is not part of
Windows... so an add-on at the computer rather than user level will not
have the button for any users in Firefox. That's what I take away from
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
Bill in Co replied to glee on 21-Jul-12 02:45 PM
Got it. Thanks.
I am still not sure what the .NET Framework Assistant Add-on, added to
Firefox, of all things, brings to the table, but I could probably go look
that up. I tend to simply think of .NET Framework being used solely by
dedicated apps that depend on it (i.e., cannot run without its libraries),
not browser plug-ins.
Yousuf Khan replied to Bill in Co on 22-Jul-12 08:21 PM
I just noticed this thread, seems almost related to my own thread asking
which version of dotNET is really necessary? I think considering that my
Windows 7 runs only the dotNET 4 Framework, and that all existing dotNET
software that I have installed on my system works just as well on
Windows 7 as it does on Windows XP, so it seems reasonable to say you
do not need any previous versions of dotNET Framework. Just get rid of
3.5 & 3.5 SP1, and all previous versions and just work install 4. If
dotNET 4 by itself is good enough for Win7, then it should be good
enough for XP too!
You'll be able to bypass all security updates for previous versions of
dotNET, and just have dotNET 4 updates to worry about from now on.
Bill in Co replied to Yousuf Khan on 22-Jul-12 08:45 PM
I want to correct that. At this point I am now convinced I would install NET
3.5 SP1, if I am going to update this. (The app I was looking at requires
it, I found out. But I am still thinking about this whole thing).
Windows 7 runs ONLY NET 4 Framework ??? How is that possible?
(I am pretty sure if you had some apps depending on NET 2.0 or 3.5, they'd
work if you had NET 3.5 installed. Or else I am missing something).
For me, I just do not want the added bloat on my HD if I do not need it. it is
large enough as it is.
Well, for me, using WinXP, I have no desire to install an even larger and
more bloated version of .NET (although I think I read on some website that
the installation file for 4.0 might be smaller than with 3.5 SP1, but I
doubt if that is the whole story! Meaning, if you install ver 4.0, you will
end up using more disk space). My HD is not quite full yet, but it is
creeping up there, and it just takes longer and longer to image and/or
restore it with each such addition. And the .NET additions are not
inconsequential in size (we are talking several hundred MB - perhaps around
0.5 GB net, or so)
BUT you may have some apps you want that require .NET 4, so for you maybe
it is best to install that version.
Yousuf Khan replied to Bill in Co on 22-Jul-12 10:21 PM
I am sure it probably only means it requires 3.5-SP1 *or* higher.
I do not know, but it looks like it works with only 4.0 installed. I
tried a few programs that require dotNET, and no complaints about the
version at all. The Windows Update does not even offer lower versions of
dotNET for download on Windows 7!
I am learning all of this for the first time too. I have been puzzled for a
long time about why dotNET seems so stable under Windows 7, and it is
such a nightmare on XP. It looks like the answer might be that they have
gotten rid of all of the crappy previous versions of it.
I would not have even learned any of this, if it had not been for yet
another frustrating failed XP update of dotNET 3.5 and lower. I then
went exploring to see why Win7's dotNET is so stable and easy to update.
Well, if you add 4.0, then you can rid of all of the previous versions,
and you will save the disk space they used to take up too. According to my
Win 7 PC add/remove programs, I have two related packages installed:
dotNET Framework 4 Client Profile - 38.8MB
dotNET Framework 4 Extended - 51.9MB
It looks like only the Client Profile is sufficient too, as my Win 7
laptop only has that installed.
No, I do not have anything that is specifically for 4.0, according to that
script that Paul linked to in the other thread, all of these programs
only require 2.0!
Bill in Co replied to Yousuf Khan on 22-Jul-12 11:42 PM
But I'd prefer to just stick with the minimum. Less Is More. :-)
I know that adage is lost on a few newagers, but, C'est La Vie. :-)
And possibly that Windows7 is a newer OS, and they have made the installation
of .NET less bug prone as a part of the development of Windows7.
Yeah, but that is only PART of the story. The real story is what it has
added to the HD, scattered throughout various locations.
Yousuf Khan replied to Bill in Co on 23-Jul-12 02:08 AM
Yes, but that is precisely why you should go with 4.0 instead of 3.5! In
the other thread, I was initially thinking of going with only 3.5 rather
than 4.0 as well. But with 3.5/3.5SP1 you get 2.0 and 3.0 installed
alongside as non-optional prerequisites. With 4.0, nothing before it is
That was my original guess as well. But now that I think about it, why
should installing anything under XP be any more or less difficult than
under W7? it is basically the exact same installation mechanism, which
has not changed since the days of Win2K. Hardly any other program has
these kinds of install/update difficulties in XP vs. 7. A few device
drivers might be the only common examples of programs that have
installation difficulty because they are designed to only work in either
XP or 7; but those device drivers warn you ahead of time that they are
incompatible with the current OS, and do not allow you to install them at
What can possibly be scattered during installation? Anything that gets
scattered at installation is being put into various folders
deliberately, such as the Windows and System32 folders, for example.
Paul replied to Yousuf Khan on 23-Jul-12 02:45 AM
Microsoft is constantly playing with the delivery of these things.
But, when doing so, there are usually caveats. If you wish to install
a lighter weight profile, it only works if some other thing has not been
installed first. And so on. Who can keep track of all the options ?
(I guess some of these options, are for IT people, who get paid
to keep track of such things.)
A while back, there was a lightweight option, but if you used it,
the documentation said you would be pestered by Windows Update to then
install the full version.
I am up to 2.0 SP2, and I am done with .NET. The bus stops there.
Bill in Co replied to Yousuf Khan on 23-Jul-12 02:47 AM
And I am still thinking that way. :-) I do not need (or want) 4.0. More
Well, I have already got 1.1 and 2.0 installed, and want to keep them (since I
have/had some apps that need them).
Version 3.5 SP1 "simply" updates those versions. But again, I do not see
the need for 4.0.
Because whoever wrote the newer OS may have taken into account the problems
installing .NET with earlier OS's and made some changes so such
installations would be more "transparent" and glitch free. Like in removing
some bugs as they update the OS's. More below...
I am not just talking about running the installer. it is all the potential
ramifications of doing so afterwards: - the interactions with the OS, that I
was thinking about. (But I am not sure about all this, as it is a bit out of
And that is an interesting point.
If you look around on your HD, you will find some of them, but not all of
them, like the respective .MSI installers, I think, scattered in various
folders, some of which you have noted. Don't forget other possible candidates
like Common Files, Application Data, etc, etc.
I am pretty sure that if you install ver 4 (and keep existing 1.1 and 2.0),
your used disk space is going to be greater than installing ver 3.5. I am
not positive, but it just makes sense, as each succeeding version gets more
bloated, as one would naturally expect.
Bill in Co replied to Paul on 23-Jul-12 02:55 AM
At least until an app comes along that requires 3.5, and one that you cannot
live without. :-)
If you are going to upgrade, I still think it is safer to stop at 3.5 SP1, BUT
only IF you have to go "that far" to begin with (as in, some great app needs
But so far, I am still doing fine with just 1.0, 1,1, and 2.0 over here, like
you, evidently. But, time will tell....
Yousuf Khan replied to Bill in Co on 23-Jul-12 09:42 AM
I have never seen 3rd party applications leaving their MSI installers
behind inside the machine, except in the temp folders, where they are
easy to delete. Usually they leave their installers behind on their
install CD/DVD's. Microsoft's own Windows programs are an exception, as
they are usually part of the OS, and often times keeping the installers
behind helps in going back to original specs, in case something gets
corrupted. And Microsoft usually puts those installers in standard
folders which are only used by Microsoft and nobody else.
Well no, I have already uninstalled 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. I am only
going to be running with 4.0 from now on. Windows Update does present
those previous versions as options that are available for installation
on XP (but not on 7), but since they are optional, I am not going to
install them again.
Bill in Co replied to Yousuf Khan on 23-Jul-12 04:18 PM
I probably should have said "one" above, in place of "you", since you have
done things a bit differently than I would have. I was thinking of two
cases for a WindowsXP user, both having 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 already installed.
And that was to either install 3.5 SP1, OR install 4.0. (while keeping the
older versions already installed)
Presumably you do not have any older stuff then that explicitly depends on
.NET 2.0 or 1.1 libraries. I guess I feel I would not have been so sure.
Well, actually, I am pretty sure I do have at least some app(s), but I
have not checked. (I think I can vaguely recall installing some app some
time ago that also installed one of those .NET frameworks, or made me go to
the MS website to do so).
Yousuf Khan replied to Bill in Co on 24-Jul-12 11:56 AM
Well, I am pretty sure I do not have anything from the 1.x days. But that
program file scanner that Paul suggested in the other thread, shows me
that most, if not all of my executables depend on the 2.0 API. Since all
of these executables are also installed on my Windows 7 machines, and
running flawlessly with nothing but the 4.0 API installed, I figured
that the 4.0 API is also quite sufficient for XP.
Hot-Text replied to Bill in Co on 28-Jul-12 02:07 PM
you need XP Tweak to see Administrator,
Log-in as Administrator
Hot-Text replied to Yousuf Khan on 28-Jul-12 03:58 PM
+ 7-securiy updates
and 1-microsoft update
Welcome to the directory listing of
Type: File/Directory name: Size:
./ 0 Bytes
../ 0 Bytes
AllNet.png 14.1 KB
Net1and2.png 30.2 KB
Net3-0.png 17.8 KB
Net3-5-sp1.png 11.5 KB
Net4-on-xp.png 28.9 KB
7 items 102 KB
List created in 0.280 milliseconds.
Hot-Text replied to Yousuf Khan on 29-Jul-12 06:06 AM
Was optional before 3D View in games and videos at one time.......
WPF runtime libraries are included with all versions of Microsoft Windows
since Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008.
Users of Windows XP SP2/SP3 and Windows Server 2003
can optionally install the necessary libraries.
As of 2011 Microsoft has released four major WPF versions:
WPF 3.0 (Nov 2006), WPF 3.5 (Nov 2007), WPF 3.5sp1 (Aug 2008),
and WPF 4 (April 2010)
J. P. Gilliver (John) replied to Hot-Text on 29-Jul-12 07:18 AM
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Hot-Text
From the above Wikipedia article: "WPF, previously known as "Avalon",
was initially released as part of .NET Framework 3.0."
So WPF is only _part of_ .NET. Or to put it another way, having WPF
(which may be included in Vista onwards) does not mean you have got all the
.NET you need. Unless you know otherwise (-:.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
being asked if he was tired of being described as impeachable), on Desert
Island Discs, 2012-1-29.
Hot-Text replied to J. P. Gilliver (John) on 29-Jul-12 07:57 AM
But as you buy Software that .NET Framework
(Drives & liberty) you need to make that Software run be will added,
And if (Drives & liberty) do not have a .NET Framework,
The Software will send to get the .NET Framework it needs,
and if it needs Framework 1.0, 2.0 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0
If it needs Framework 3.0 to
(Drives & liberty) and all you have 1.0,
before you are done you will have 1.0 and 3.0..