Why do we have to install .NET 2.0 on Vista? RRS feed

  • Question

  • This is sort-of a bootstrapper question and sort-of a Vista/.NET question.

    Why do we have to install .NET 2.0 on Vista? Since Vista ships with .NET 3.5 - doesn't that include .NET 2.0?

    thanks - dave
    Cubicle Wars -
    • Moved by Wesley Yao Friday, July 17, 2009 3:58 AM framework deployment (From:MSBuild)
    Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:40 AM

All replies

  • Who or what asked you to install .NET 2.0 on Vista? The bootstrapper? Could you tell the complete story?

    Windows Vista ships with .NET 3.0, not 3.5; yet 2.0 is still included.

    But later there were .NET 2.0 SP1 and SP2. For Windows Vista & 2008, since .NET 2.0 is part of the OS, the Service Packs are applied via Windows Update; for older versions of Windows, there are separate install packages for Service Packs, like the one here:

    If you want to install .NET 3.5, then 2.0 must be installed because they share the same CLR; and 2.0 must have SP1 for 3.5 RTM and SP2 for 3.5 SP1.

    Windows 7 ships with .NET Framework 3.5 but I'm not sure about which service pack before it's RTM.

    Hope this explained the Service Pack story.

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.

    Send us any feedback you have about the help from MSFT at

    The CodeFx Project
    My Blog (in Simplified Chinese)
    Friday, July 17, 2009 5:46 AM
  • The first thing that you need clarify is what asked you to install .net framework 2.0

    In Vista We have .Net framework 3.0. But generally you need to enable it from Control Panel --> Programs --> turn windows Features on or off.

    So if you enable .Net framework 3.0 then 2.0 will also be installed along with it.

    Abhishek Shukla MCP WPF
    Friday, July 17, 2009 6:19 AM