[attachment=13349:A Horde of Visual Studio C++.png]

I only remember installing Visual Studio C#...why is there a horde of Visual C++'s in my Programs and Features section of my control panel?

...and why does any software require so many different entries into the Programs and Features? Why not just "Microsoft Visual C++"?

Are these some kind of necessary libraries for running programs that use C++ or something? What is their purpose? Are they hostile? Do they have weapons?

None of that looks like anything to worry about.

The Visual C++ Redistributable installations are there because games build under Visual C++ require the libraries that usually come with the compiler. The redistributable gives you those libraries allowing you to play games that require them, without having to install the full Visual C++ compiler.

I've seen on more than one occasion that some games package the Visual C++ Redistributable along with their install process, so it's likely that if you didn't install these directly, they were installed by a game or some other program that depends on them and had the redistributable installed along with its installation. I don't think you really have to worry about those, they're not harmful, and they don't carry weapons :)

Ah, I see...thanks for the explanation.

Do I need to have so many of them? Can I just delete all but the latest?

The multiple versions of the runtime don't supersede each other. In other words, some programs depend on the VC++ 2005 Runtime, others on the 2008, and so on; and won't work if the corresponding version is not installed. In any case, these entries are sane and there's no reason you should uninstall any of them.

I find it amusing that one of my main reasons for using C++ is that you dont need extra runtimes and with pretty much any other C++ compiler than Microsoft's this is the case.

I find it even more amusing that even though Microsoft develops both Windows and Visual C++ it still needs to provide extra runtimes to get it working on their own platform ;)

That aside, it is possible to use the latest Microsoft C++ compiler without requiring the latest runtime on the target machine but it seems that not many developers do it.

But yeah, your computer looks normal. Especially for one that has a version of Visual Studio installed.

I find it amusing that one of my main reasons for using C++ is that you dont need extra runtimes and with pretty much any other C++ compiler than Microsoft's this is the case.

I find it even more amusing that even though Microsoft develops both Windows and Visual C++ it still needs to provide extra runtimes to get it working on their own platform ;)

That aside, it is possible to use the latest Microsoft C++ compiler without requiring the latest runtime on the target machine but it seems that not many developers do it.

But yeah, your computer looks normal. Especially for one that has a version of Visual Studio installed.

Why is that 'amusing'? All systems require runtimes for their applications - the only difference is that on systems like Linux, you are usually building the application on that system, so the runtimes are likely already there.

Exactly.. and on Windows you are building on that system... but still need a runtime lol

Take a look at GCC on Windows (Mingw). This doesn't need a user to install yet another runtime package does it? It uses the one that comes with Windows (or as a DLL or statically linked in with the .exe).

In other words... software written in Microsoft Visual C++ dont quite offer an "out of the box experience" like it's competitors.

Ehmm... under Linux you still need the gcc runtime (libstdc++) in the correct version for your program to run.

A mingw compiled program under Windows also needs the correct dll for the mingw runtime.

Also, you can ship your VC++ program with the correct version of the runtime dll as a side-by-side assembly, so no need to install it manually (yes, there are rare cases where this does not work, I know).

Or you can statically link it and not have to redistribute it at all.

Or you can statically link it and not have to redistribute it at all.

That can make patching tedious, though.