Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Edit in response to early answer and comments

The biggest tangible argument for support .Net 4.0 apps is developer productivity - due to language enhancements, but also due to access to a greater amount of pre/built functionality.

I am trying to understand the risk and/or cost to rolling out software that was created and tested by the same company that wrote the operating system. I can certainly agree that it is not wise to make changes to deployed systems if there were no benefit. There are certainly benefits, and I am operating under the (possibly false I suppose) assumption that there is neither a lot of cost OR risk in such a deployment.

Does anybody have an answer about the risk and cost?

End Edit

I am a developer at a fairly large company - the user desktops are all currently Windows XP SP3.

I am trying to make a case for approving the .Net 4 framework for installation on user desktops to support new LOB applications written in .Net 4. The approval process, I am told, is to install the new software and then test each and every other piece of software that is already approved to make sure something doesn't break.

Aside from this hurdle, are there any other arguments I should expect from Admins/Desktop support?

share|improve this question
What's your reasoning for wanting to deploy it? – joeqwerty Jul 22 '11 at 17:57
@joeqwerty - To allow development of new LOB apps in .Net 4 – Jason Jul 22 '11 at 18:00
Can you develop the apps in an environment that already exists on the machines now? – Daniel Baker Jul 22 '11 at 18:14

Our internal developers always want the latest .Net framework, and we typically try to accommodate them. We're in the process of rolling out .Net 4 to our computers which are a mix of Windows XP and Windows 7. We're not seeing any issue.

Cost: If you need to test each and every system with all software installed, I would envision a large cost to deploy. Although this may be the recommended process I think it is overkill. The .Net framework was designed to sandbox previous versions. You can install framework versions 1.1, 1.2, 2.0, 3.0. 3.5, 4.0 all independently of each other. As a developer you probably already know that you need to target which version you want to use the library's from, and you can target any version that is installed. This means that installing the 4.0 framework should have no impact on software that is targeting the other versions. That has been our experience and we've never run into issues with some computers having newer versions of the framework as long as they also have the older versions still being used.

Risk: Very little that I'm aware of.

share|improve this answer
Thank you so much for an actual answer rather than asking me to justify why I need it! – Jason Jul 22 '11 at 21:12
@Jason: Because nobody should have to justify, or qualify, or quantify anything, right? We should all be given everything we ask for, the moment we ask for it. – joeqwerty Jul 22 '11 at 21:54
@joeqwerty: From a purely technical POV, my justification adds little to nothing to the conversation. My need could be highly justified, or purely whimsical but I will have to argue that vs the risk/cost with my IT dept. It is that risk/cost that I need to understand from an admin's POV. The only thing you have added to this conversation is furthering the widely held belief that IT will do what it can to NOT help you, and a good dose of sarcasm. – Jason Jul 22 '11 at 22:14
OK, here's an argument against deploying .NET 4 to all of the desktops: It hasn't been justified. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm giving you my opinion as a sysadmin. If someone comes to me and tells me that I should deploy something I'm going to ask them the reason for the request. I'm not going to just do it because I've been asked to do it... Continued – joeqwerty Jul 25 '11 at 1:35
This isn't about sysadmin vs. developer ideaologies, it's about maintaining the integrity, stability, and security of the IT environment, which is the duty of the sysadmin, not the developer. It's my job to have a justification for what I do, or an explanation as to why I don't. – joeqwerty Jul 25 '11 at 1:35

If you don't have a requirement for .NET4, don't install it.

(The same advice for anything: "If you don't have a requirement for xyz, don't install it.")

share|improve this answer
This is a given. Why do you think I don't have a requirement for .Net 4? – Jason Jul 22 '11 at 18:08

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.