What version of .Net do you have?

[IBBoard]

So far, we've stuck with only requiring .Net 2.0 because a) it is a (comparatively) small download and b) it is part of one of the Windows XP service packs. Various other common utilities (including some proprietary graphics drivers and computer games) also require .Net, and so v2.0 seemed like the best choice because people are likely to have it.

I'm slowly questioning whether we need to stick with .Net 2.0. .Net 2.0 was released nearly six years ago now, and they've now got v4. Vista and Windows 7 are also slowly beating WinXP out of the game. From a developer's point of view then 2.0 has the main useful feature (strongly typed collections - also called "generics"), but later versions add other niceties and improvements. HeWhoWatches even asked about newer Mono versions in late 2010.

The choice of .Net runtime shouldn't just be about the developers, though, and we need to think of the end users. Developers may update comparatively quickly and be near the cutting edge, but end users aren't always.

So, what versions of .Net do you have installed? If you don't know then there are some apps around that'll tell you (including http://www.asoft.be/prod_netver.html).

[clutch110]

I am on Windows 7 everywhere and using the 4.0 framework. Not sure what Mono supports these days but I generally avoid running .Net apps in Linux.

Clutch

[snowblizz]

Seems like 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
but I might not be a typical user

I think most service packs and Windows Update pushes the .Net framework on people?

Also, would it be possible to make a .Net2.0 compatible version of a higher one? Oh never mind while typing I realised that would be like asking people to run VBA-07 in Excel 2003, just won't work.

[IBBoard]

It depends what you've got installed. Windows 7 comes with everything up to v4.0, I believe. Vista was only up to 3.0 and XP had nothing until SP2, which generally bundled .Net 2.0. I don't *think* WinXP ever went beyond 2.0 in the SPs, but I wouldn't be surprised if seemingly innocent programs install it (IIRC the Catalyst drivers from ATI required .Net for the control centre).

As I said in some of my original explanations somewhere on the site, when I was writing apps to help with Dawn of War then people complained about me requiring .Net 1.1, even thought it was fairly common at the time and 2.0 was out but not standard.

Looking at the site stats, the main WarFoundry site sees fewer XP visitors than OSX (20.5% vs 21%), the main HWT sees 25% WinXP and 36% of what it identifies as "Win 2008" (but that's probably just a misidentification) and 30% vs 35% on the forums. XP is definitely outnumbered by Vista and 7 on our sites, so we should be safe, but it'd be good to check with anyone still using XP.

As for Mono, I thought about that after I'd posted. If you've got OS X or Linux (or even Windows but not .Net) then tell us what version you've got as well I should be able to find out from distro release numbers, but not all browsers will report that. Mono support is good these days, and they got some C# 4 features out (like "compiler as a service") before MS did. That said, most distros won't have the latest builds. They do update more frequently than Windows, though, so you're still more likely to have Vista era distros than XP era.

.

So, what .Net versions do you have installed on Windows and what Mono versions do you have on Mac/Linux? Thanks.

[snowblizz]

Quick update, I checked my dad's XP laptop (since it hanged in the middle of a MS automatic software update, in the crucial "don't you dare shut it down NOW" phase) and even don't-know-nuthin-aboot-them-new-fangled-pooters dad has managed to get the automatic updates to push .NET4.0. At least that's how it looks.

[IBBoard]

Fair enough - it looks like targeting 3.5 should be reasonable from this little sample, then 3.0 was a minor upgrade IMO and didn't introduce a huge amount, 3.5 is where some of the useful features are at, and 4.0 could be useful but is much more about parallelisation and minor tweaks to other bits.