Windows cleaning–Dot Net and Java versions?

Topic

New Reply

I’m somewhat irritated that I cannot seem to find the answer to what should be a simple question:

In cleaning up a system, I run into multiple versions of both .Net and Java. When a new version is installed, they generally leave the older versions also installed, with no word one way or ther other as to whether the new version supersedes the older ones, making them unnecessary, or whether we should just keep additional versions accumulating on a machine indefinitely.

I search of the Lounge has been fruitless on this point so far.

I do like to keep my systems purged of unnecessary software, with the Registry as clean as possible to avoid potential problems as well. Thus, periodically I uninstall unneeded appications and both clean and compress the Registry files to keep performance at a maximum and problems at a minimum.

If anyone could point me to any references for these two items, I would be very grateful.

Thanks!

David

Reply | Quote

Replies

With Java, it’s best to uninstall any older versions prior to installing the newest version.

With .NET it’s a tad bit more complicated, uninstalling a prior version may render a newer version unusable, or it
may simply complain that it’s needed and request you reinstall it over again. In otherwords it may take some experimentation.
With the newer operating systems like Windows 7 and Vista it might be a non issue, as these are included. But with XP
some applications demand this specific version, while others may require the latest version. Confusing? It’s Microsoft.

Reply | Quote

Java,

I’ve used this utility in the past to clean up old installations, JavaRA

http://raproducts.org/javara.html

But you can always use the standard instructions too,

http://www.java.com/en/download/help/uninstall_java.xml

From memory the newer Java JRE installers actually remove the old version(s) on installation but I haven’t tested this yet.

Unfortunately CLiNT is right on the money with .Net framework as it can be a royal pain on XP. Unless you’re really keen I would leave the beast to lay

Reply | Quote

Java is an outside program. The new ones replace the old ones, so you can safely delete the older versions.

Dot Net however is “Windows”. Leave all the versions alone, and keep it up to date. You should now be at level
3.5 with updates.

Look elsewhere to save disk space. Running DiskCleanup and Defrag, all part of windows, will go a long ways
toward keeping your system running well and should be run on a Weekly Maintenance routine.

Using this shortcut to run Disk Cleanup, will give you a much improved cleanup.

%SystemRoot%System32Cmd.exe /c Cleanmgr /sageset:35 & Cleanmgr /sagerun:35

Just copy and paste the above line into a New Desktop shortcut.
On the first run, Select everything but, “Office Setup files”, “Setup Logs” and “Compress old files”.

It’s actually pretty simple to keep your computer clean, just using what’s already built into Windows.

Good Luck and Happy Computing!
The Doctor

Reply | Quote

Dot Net however is “Windows”. Leave all the versions alone, and keep it up to date. You should now be at level
3.5 with updates.

.NET 4.0 has been released. See Microsoft .NET Framework[/url].

Probably not anything “in the wild” that requires it yet.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

.NET 4.0 has been released. See Microsoft .NET Framework.

Probably not anything “in the wild” that requires it yet.

Joe

I seem to have read somewhere (don’t recall where) that .NET Framework 4.0 will not work on Windows XP, but is for Vista and Windows 7 only.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I seem to have read somewhere (don’t recall where) that .NET Framework 4.0 will not work on Windows XP, but is for Vista and Windows 7 only.

According to the System Requirements at Download details: Microsoft .NET Framework 4 (Web Installer) it will work on XP SP-3.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

According to the System Requirements at Download details: Microsoft .NET Framework 4 (Web Installer) it will work on XP SP-3.

Joe

Thanks. Good to know.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I personally only install .NET when doing a slipstreaming project. I presume it’s required for lots of other things, but I’ve never needed it for anything else.

GM

Reply | Quote

I personally only install .NET when doing a slipstreaming project. I presume it’s required for lots of other things, but I’ve never needed it for anything else.

If you run an application that uses .NET, you’ll never be aware of it. The application will just use .NET.

Many times applications that require .NET include a version of .NET as part of the install.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

If you run an application that uses .NET, you’ll never be aware of it. The application will just use .NET.

Many times applications that require .NET include a version of .NET as part of the install.

Joe

Yes, I was expecting .NET to show up on my system sooner rather than later, but nothing yet.

Maybe my PC needs to get out more, and find a real job.

GM

Reply | Quote

The question about old versions of Java has popped up a lot in other threads recently. Many people run Secunia PSIfor example and even though they have upgraded their Java, it still shows as insecure. That’s because Sun has seen fit to ignore old versions of Java on your PC and simply installed yet another version on your PC. This still leaves the old versions active and insecure. Use Add Remove Programs in XP or Programs and Features in Vista and Win 7 (both in control panel) to uninstall ALL old versions of Java manually, then install the latest version from this link.

Adobe flash used to do this but seems to have cleaned up their act recently so that only newest, more secure versions are left when an update is requested.

Reply | Quote

Leave all the .net versions as they are. Some apps need the legacy versions, so uninstalling may have unexpected results.

Terry

Reply | Quote

.NET Framework is present in Windows 7 from the day you install it. So you do need to keep it updated for this version. Previously, it was an add-on, so if you have it, keep it updated and do not remove older versions. I use Paint .NET, and it definitely needs .NET Framework to work properly. There are other programs which use .NET Framework and do not announce it so loudly.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Just wondering if you’ve installed .Net 4 yet? W Update offers it but I’ve held off installing it in case there might be issues…

Reply | Quote

Just wondering if you’ve installed .Net 4 yet? W Update offers it but I’ve held off installing it in case there might be issues…

I’ve installed it on several systems with no problems. You really do not HAVE to install it until you have an application that needs it. I’ve installed it just so I don’t have to do it later.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Just wondering if you’ve installed .Net 4 yet? W Update offers it but I’ve held off installing it in case there might be issues…

Susan Bradley (Windows Secrets columnist) doesn’t seem to like .NET Framework very much, and she recommends not installing it at all unless you have applications which use it. Same for Woody Leonhard (Windows patch and MS Office guru).

I have .NET Framework on both of my laptops (Windows XP Pro SP3 32-bit and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit) with all available updates to all versions of .NET Framework, and I must say that the update process can be a bit buggy and sometimes does break something. But the advantages of speed and efficiency in programs like Paint .NET, Nitro PDF Reader and Primo (Nitro’s free PDF Editor), as well as a few other programs which use .NET Framework, is pretty amazing, especially in 64-bit Windows editions on capable hardware. OpenOffice.org and Eudora OSE (successor to those Open Source Eudora Betas over the past few years) take a different approach, using the Java Runtime (JRE). JRE exists in a 64-bit version, but these programs do not use the 64-bit JRE as yet. The .NET Framework programs do use the 64-bit .NET Framework 4.0, and these programs on my core-i5 based Toshiba Satellite perform very fast and smoothly. Image editing is particularly nice compared with any 32-bit program I have yet seen.

So, if you want to try the new .NET Framework with application programs which can take advantage of it, I would recommend giving it a try, especially if you have capable hardware. But be aware that the update is HUGE, and takes some time to install, even into a fast computer with a good broadband Internet connection. And there may be Windows glitches after any .NET update, as Susan Bradley has noted in the paid editions of Windows Secrets Newsletter. Weigh the pros vs.the cons before updating .NET Framework. And let us know in The Lounge what your experiences are if you do take the plunge.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Susan Bradley (Windows Secrets columnist) doesn’t seem to like .NET Framework very much, and she recommends not installing it at all unless you have applications which use it. Same for Woody Leonhard (Windows patch and MS Office guru).

Amen

I have a corporate customer that has several programs that depend on .NET. As the programmers have little control over what microsoft is going to “fix” in the next update they may end up with code that doesn’t work if they are calling functions that are changed. I have come to thoroughly HATE .net and the programs that depend on it.

One example.

Quickbooks uses .NET 1.1 and NET 2.0. On the last round of updates from about 6 weeks ago, there were two updates that would fail to install on any machine that had Quickbooks 2010 installed. I finally decided to hide them instead of doing the whole installation repair that is very time consuming.

At the same time I was setting up a new machine for the customer. I ran all updates (this included all .NET updates) and got it stable before installing any programs. I then installed MS Office 2003 and got it updated and stable. Next I installed Quickbooks 2010 and would you believe it, Quickbooks would crash on close every time. I finally removed the last two .NET updates that the other machines would not let me install and Quickbooks was stable.

Obviously quickbooks somehow blocked an incompatible .NET update, HOWEVER, this same company has ANOTHER piece of software that uses .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.5, what happens when THEY need the functions in 2.0 that Quickbooks blocked??

This company has 24 workstations and I have spent more time fixing .NET problems than anything else…

>Ok, I am through ranting now<

The condensed version of the above is that in the case of .NET less is more…. if you don't need it, don't install it… If you do need it the program that uses it will either ask for it or install it when you install the program…

Reply | Quote

@mercyH —

As I said in my previous post, I am only a Home User. Business Users (like yourself and Susan Bradley) live in a different world when it comes to .NET Framework. I have read numerous complaints about the updates breaking stuff in corporate and enterprise networks. I was not aiming my comments at these business users.

And there may be a lot of Home Users who will find that .NET Framework updates will break stuff. I haven’t had any serious problems in a long time, but your mileage may vary.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I hear you loud and clear Bob. There is a difference, however I would not install the stuff unless I had a program that needed it. I see no way it can improve the performance of windows or any other program that doesn’t need it.

Reply | Quote

I hear you loud and clear Bob. There is a difference, however I would not install the stuff unless I had a program that needed it. I see no way it can improve the performance of windows or any other program that doesn’t need it.

I agree. But especially in 64-bit Windows 7, Paint.NET is one of the fastest and smoothest image editors I have ever used. This is partly due to the powerful graphics hardware on my Toshiba Satellite, but .NET 64-bit does seem to contribute to the efficiency of this program and Nitro PDF Reader Free Edition. Both programs are themselves true 64-bit programs. I use both programs frequently.

If you do not have .NET dependent programs, then having .NET Framework will not improve the performance of any program or Windows itself. In fact, the presence of .NET Framework may even hurt system performance in some cases. So if you don’t have a program which needs it, I agree it is best not to have .NET Framework. And it is true that certain programs, like Quick Books, will not like any .NET patch or upgrade, so this is also a downside of using .NET Framework.

Nonetheless, those of us who have Vista or Windows 7 are stuck with .NET, as it is baked in to these Windows versions. So we must get the updates. That’s for security reasons, not for performance reasons. No reason to upgrade to .NET 4.0, however, for those who are not running programs which need it.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

.Net 4 was automatically downloaded and installed on my XP (SP3) system by Microsoft Update. No problems since this happened. (Yes, I know many believe that MS Update should not be left to its own devices, preferring to choose what to update and what to leave alone; I am not one of “them” and have to date never had any issue arising from an automatic MS update/patech etc–I’ll keep my fingers crossed!).

My Rig: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core CPU; ASUS Cross Hair VIII Formula Mobo; Win 11 Pro (64 bit)-(UEFI-booted); 32GB RAM; 2TB Corsair Force Series MP600 Pro 2TB PCIe Gen 4.0 M.2 NVMe SSD. 1TB SAMSUNG 960 EVO M.2 NVME SSD; MSI GeForce RTX 3090 VENTUS 3X 24G OC; Microsoft 365 Home; Condusiv SSDKeeper Professional; Acronis Cyberprotect, VMWare Workstation Pro V17.5. HP 1TB USB SSD External Backup Drive). Dell G-Sync G3223Q 144Hz Monitor.

Reply | Quote

I have one very nice security program that absolutely will not install unless .net framework is installed. So I carry all the versions on my Utilities CD and Flash drive, just in case I need them. Installing them from a portable disk, is SO much faster than downloading them. Sort of like, Media Player, Service Packs, Adobe Reader, java run time, KLite Codecs, etc.
It’s always good to have those things on a portable drive when you need them.

Cheers Mates!
The Doctor

Reply | Quote

I have one very nice security program that absolutely will not install unless .net framework is installed. So I carry all the versions on my Utilities CD and Flash drive, just in case I need them. Installing them from a portable disk, is SO much faster than downloading them. Sort of like, Media Player, Service Packs, Adobe Reader, java run time, KLite Codecs, etc.
It’s always good to have those things on a portable drive when you need them.

Cheers Mates!
The Doctor

All very good advice. I would add that if you really want reliability in those portable apps (given that flash drives can and do fail), consider using a portable hard drive instead. And if you go with a so-called “pocket drive”, DO NOT carry it in your actual pocket unprotected! Get a Hard Case for your portable drive. It will last a lot longer that way, and you can have over 640GB of apps, settings, and files with you wherever you go. Maybe even your own little operating system if you like playing around with portable Linux.

Another thing I keep on my Western Digital Portable Drive is a full image backup for each of my laptops. You never know…

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote