.NET version

[alexo]

My .NET 3.5 SP1 framework got hosed and refuses to reinstall.

While I am trying to solve the problem, I have this question: can PDN be persuaded to use version 4 of the framework?

I am running on XP pro SP3.

Thanks,

Alex.

[pyrochild]

My .NET 3.5 SP1 framework got hosed and refuses to reinstall.

Have you tried repairing it?

While I am trying to solve the problem, I have this question: can PDN be persuaded to use version 4 of the framework?

Yes. If you open the file Program Files\Paint.NET\PaintDotNet.exe.config in a text editor, you'll see two lines of the form <supportedRuntime version="v4.0" sku=".NETFramework,Version=v4.0,Profile=Client"/>. One refers to .NET 3.5, and the other (shown) to .NET 4.0. You computer will try to use the runtimes in the order listed, so swapping the lines will force it to use .NET 4.

I highly recommend you get .NET 3.5 working, however, as this hack can cause other problems and will be reverted if you update Paint.NET anyway.

[alexo]

Thanks pyrochild.

Have you tried repairing it?

I uninstalled it completely and now it does not want to reinstall.

I highly recommend you get .NET 3.5 working

You and me both. Unfortunately, my computer does not concur.

I opened a thread on the MSDN forums, hopefully I'll get some useful answers.

Edited October 12, 2010 by alexo

[Arlo]

So for all intents and purposes, if I'm not willing to revert to NET Framework 3.5 (and honestly, why on Earth would I want to do that? I have programs that run on 4.0), then I can't install your program and expect it to run effectively. Is that right?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the foggiest idea why a program that is so deeply bound up with NET Framework that it actually uses the "NET" part in its name relies on an outdated version of said Framework.....

Shame.... I was looking forward to trying this out.....

[Sarkut]

Is that right?

No.

I have NET 4.0, Paint.NET runs just fine.

[pyrochild]

So for all intents and purposes, if I'm not willing to revert to NET Framework 3.5 (and honestly, why on Earth would I want to do that? I have programs that run on 4.0), then I can't install your program and expect it to run effectively. Is that right?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the foggiest idea why a program that is so deeply bound up with NET Framework that it actually uses the "NET" part in its name relies on an outdated version of said Framework.....

Shame.... I was looking forward to trying this out.....

You don't have to "revert" to anything. .NET versions coexist peacefully on your computer.

[Rick Brewster]

So for all intents and purposes, if I'm not willing to revert to NET Framework 3.5 (and honestly, why on Earth would I want to do that? I have programs that run on 4.0), then I can't install your program and expect it to run effectively. Is that right?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the foggiest idea why a program that is so deeply bound up with NET Framework that it actually uses the "NET" part in its name relies on an outdated version of said Framework.....

Shame.... I was looking forward to trying this out.....

You're misunderstanding the way .NET versioning works. Each version installs "side by side", and newer versions do not forcibly usurp older ones. Newer versions are as compatible as possible with older versions, but there are changes that are introduced which break compatibility. Sometimes this is on purpose in order to fix design inadequacies. Sometimes this is for security reasons. And of course, sometimes it's just a bug. In any case, if an application targets a specific version of .NET then it will require that version to be installed in order to ensure that it's running on the version of .NET that the developer designed and tested it for. The framework is then removed as a "moving target".

Newer versions of the framework are released for the benefit of developers who write applications for them, not so that end-users can install them and suddenly have all of their .NET 3.5 SP1 apps "upgraded" to use .NET 4.

When .NET 2.0 came out and Paint.NET was still requiring .NET 1.1, this was brought up by a particularly irate forum user who simply wanted Paint.NET to run on .NET 2.0 for the sake of not needing .NET 1.1 installed. I had to point out that if I allowed Paint.NET to run on whatever framework version happened to be available, then he would see crashes or his .PDN files would not work with other users (yes, I verified this). When I tested Paint.NET v3.5.x with .NET 4, I also came across a few changes in WinForms that I had to fix up for the next version of Paint.NET. However, for Paint.NET v3.5.5, only minimal testing has been done with .NET 4 and you may see errors or crashes.

.NET 3.5 SP1 and .NET 4 can live peacefully together. Any of your .NET 4 apps will continue to use .NET 4, and your .NET 3.5 SP1 apps will be happiest running on the version of .NET that they were designed and tested to work with. The disk space requirements shouldn't even be an issue these days.

.NET 3.5 SP1 is not "outdated" simply because .NET 4 has been released. Like I said, you're misunderstanding the way .NET's versioning works. (And that's not a dig against you -- .NET versioning doesn't work the way most people expect versioning to work, in general.)