Anything Bad About .Net Framework

DasFox · #1 February 5th, 2008, 01:49 AM

I know that a lot of people develop for the .Net Framework, so in order to install software designed with the .Net then you need to install it.

Personally I have never liked installing the .Net Framework, it has always seemed like a lot of extras to put into the system just to use some software, so I have alway shyed away from installing it, but I wonder if there aren't really any problems with 2.0 or 3.0 and I shouldn't worry about it, especially if there is software I want to use that requires it.

Defcon · #2 February 5th, 2008, 03:51 AM

short answer, No.

chrisretusn · #3 February 5th, 2008, 04:13 AM

Well if you have software that you want to use and it requires .NET then you have little choice. I personally have not had any problems with .NET, I have all versions installed up to 3.0. I don't really need up to 3.0 though. The couple of .NET applications I use only require 2.0 so I could get away with just an installation of .NET Framework 2.0 which I might add, also installs 1.0 and 1.1. If you install the latest (3.5) your will get all previous versions along with SP1 for .NET 2.0 and 3.0. (and MSXML 6.0).

It's a lot of stuff installed but does not seem to affect system operation, that's my experience anyway. Nothing bad to say about it at all.

Paranoid2000 · #4 February 5th, 2008, 04:46 AM

Longer answer... it depends on your attitude to bloatware and system maintenance.

When I monitored a .NET Framework install on my system, it added over 1MB of data to the Windows Registry. Since Windows Registry buildup is a key source of system slowdown over time, additions of this size should be a concern. Most software adds less than 50KB (and a lot add less than 1KB) - only Microsoft Office (2000 in my case) shows as adding as much data (1.1MB) to the registry.

Uninstalling normally (via Add/Remove Programs) rarely cleans up more than a fraction of such data so unless you are using third party software (like Total Uninstall) to monitor system changes, then this amounts to a permanent addition to your system which only a Windows reinstall will cure.

Also .NET applications tend to show far higher memory and CPU usage compared to native code. Mark Russinovich did a comparison between Windows Notepad and a .NET equivalent - more discussion on it can be found here. This may not be an issue for applications used infrequently but for those run often (ATI's Catalyst Control Centre being the biggest example), this can result in significant performance degradation.

Another point to consider is security - a minimalist system will always have an advantage since less software = less potential vulnerabilities. For .NET Framework's case, Secunia list known vulnerabilities for 1.x (8 currently), 2.x (3 currently) and 3.x (0 currently). If you are careful about the .NET applications you use, then this should be a minor downside but a downside nonetheless.

Now most of these arguments can be made about Java also (Java apps need more memory, run slower, Java Runtime Environment has had security vulnerabilities) but at least with Java, you gain cross-platform compatibility across Windows, Linux and OSX. .NET offers no such benefit (yes, I'm ignoring Mono on Linux since Microsoft can likely shut it down).

NGRhodes · #5 February 5th, 2008, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisretusn

If you install the latest (3.5) your will get all previous versions along with SP1 for .NET 2.0 and 3.0. (and MSXML 6.0).

3.5 only contains 2.0 service pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.0 service pack 1

1.1 is not included.

Also 2.0 and 3.0 (which includes 2.0) run an older CLR which means you COULD need these installed separately if the application is reliant on old pre-sp1 features.

So for completeness you would need to install 1.1 and 3.0 as well !

NGRhodes · #6 February 5th, 2008, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

Since Windows Registry buildup is a key source of system slowdown over time"

Please explain why you think this, do you have any data to show ?
The registry is a database, only what is needed is loaded, extra useless keys only waste [a very small amount of disk] space.

Only time its an issue is when these registry entries as causing specific problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

Also .NET applications tend to show far higher memory and CPU usage compared to native code. Mark Russinovich did a comparison between Windows Notepad and a .NET equivalent - more discussion on it can be found here. This may not be an issue for applications used infrequently but for those run often (ATI's Catalyst Control Centre being the biggest example), this can result in significant performance degradation.

Our benchmarks and tests show that .net apps scale really well (web stuff scales far better than our pre-.net code), (even if memory load is high, overall performance does not suffer), we have not experienced high CPU loads, our stuff is far more complex than a notepad app (all server based stuff), including business, websites and web services.
The .net framework is very well optimised as it is a common base and if you are experienced with developing with .net you can nearly always write your code to perform as well as non .net equivalent. Then you get the advantage of working with a big API that others use, so is well tested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

Another point to consider is security - a minimalist system will always have an advantage since less software = less potential vulnerabilities. For .NET Framework's case, Secunia list known vulnerabilities for 1.x (8 currently), 2.x (3 currently) and 3.x (0 currently). If you are careful about the .NET applications you use, then this should be a minor downside but a downside nonetheless.

Our servers get internally and externally penetration tested regularly and yet to fail on any .net issues. IMHO .net is shockingly secure for an MS product !!

I agree with the minimalist approach, why install something you will never need, have to keep tabs for updates and services packs.
Also it bugs me why .net cant have an install on demand feature (like with office), where only the components needed get installed, this would reduce the area of potential risk vastly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

Now most of these arguments can be made about Java also (Java apps need more memory, run slower, Java Runtime Environment has had security vulnerabilities) but at least with Java, you gain cross-platform compatibility across Windows, Linux and OSX. .NET offers no such benefit

IMHO Java is better for certain things and .net is better for others, though similar in being Runtime environments, the architectures are different enough to complement each other, we use Java and .net here (as we use SQL Server and Oracle, Windows and Redhat) as each is better suited to certain things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

(yes, I'm ignoring Mono on Linux since Microsoft can likely shut it down).

Actually the MS- Novel deal means that Microsoft cannot.

Paranoid2000 · #7 February 5th, 2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

Please explain why you think this, do you have any data to show ?

Process of elimination when working with old Windows installs compared to a new one. Once you've stripped out startup processes, services and unneeded files, the only thing left that could explain lacklustre performance is the Registry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

The registry is a database, only what is needed is loaded, extra useless keys only waste [a very small amount of disk] space.

It's not that simple - there are many areas where excess keys (even useless ones) will have a performance impact. Consider all the autorun keys (HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run, etc) - every entry there will trigger a search for a file, even if that file is not present. Orphaned ShellEx keys will cause a slowdown in displaying the right-click menu in Windows Explorer. The most obvious example though is if you try opening a file with no associations - that triggers a search through the whole HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive to gather existing associations before bringing up the program selection dialog (and this is one area where many uninstalls seem to leave orphans behind).

A more subtle issue is that leftover keys (TypeLib and ClsID in particular) will slow down searches for valid ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

Our benchmarks and tests show that .net apps scale really well (web stuff scales far better than our pre-.net code), (even if memory load is high, overall performance does not suffer), we have not experienced high CPU loads, our stuff is far more complex than a notepad app (all server based stuff), including business, websites and web services.

YMMV yet you do note high memory usage - and you presumably are in the position of being able to specify (and purchase) hardware to meet the needs of your software. For someone with a set amount of memory, excessive usage would mean higher swapfile use and slower overall performance. ATI's Catalyst Control Centre is a key example here with users reporting 30-50MB constant usage and boot times slowed by 20-120 seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

The .net framework is very well optimised as it is a common base and if you are experienced with developing with .net you can nearly always write your code to perform as well as non .net equivalent. Then you get the advantage of working with a big API that others use, so is well tested.

You can gain that advantage with other development tools (like Delphi) without the memory hit or the need for users to install extra components.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

Actually the MS- Novel deal means that Microsoft cannot.

Only from patent lawsuits. There are plenty of other ways for Microsoft to make things difficult (as with Samba) since they control .NET and are under no obligation to support Mono. Even if C# is covered by an ECMA standard, there is nothing to stop MS from adding proprietary extensions (as they tried with Java) limited to Windows systems.

NGRhodes · #8 February 5th, 2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

It's not that simple - there are many areas where excess keys (even useless ones) will have a performance impact. Consider all the autorun keys (HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run, etc) - every entry there will trigger a search for a file, even if that file is not present. Orphaned ShellEx keys will cause a slowdown in displaying the right-click menu in Windows Explorer. The most obvious example though is if you try opening a file with no associations - that triggers a search through the whole HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive to gather existing associations before bringing up the program selection dialog (and this is one area where many uninstalls seem to leave orphans behind).

Would be interesting to know if any reg keys by .net are...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

For someone with a set amount of memory, excessive usage would mean higher swapfile use and slower overall performance. ATI's Catalyst Control Centre is a key example here with users reporting 30-50MB constant usage and boot times slowed by 20-120 seconds.

Interestingly even with high memory usage, running in low ram conditions (we were stress testing), the worst scaling code we has is not .net (.net is equal fastest), it was the code that consumed the least amount of ram, I suspect it was due to the quality of the code (rather than the framework/language used), and i suspect this is the issue with the ATI catalyst stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

You can gain that advantage with other development tools (like Delphi) without the memory hit or the need for users to install extra components.

Of course, horses for courses though, like .net and Java, Delphi has its Pros and cons. Think I'd rather use Delphi than one of the older versions of VB !

Did you know the Chief C# architect is also the original Delphi developer ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid2000

Only from patent lawsuits. There are plenty of other ways for Microsoft to make things difficult (as with Samba) since they control .NET and are under no obligation to support Mono. Even if C# is covered by an ECMA standard, there is nothing to stop MS from adding proprietary extensions (as they tried with Java) limited to Windows systems.

FYI agreement is currently until 2012

Peter2150 · #9 February 5th, 2008, 08:19 AM

Dasfox

I resisted net framework only because of it's size for a long time. Then a key program I use, went to it and I had no choice. It hasn't caused any problems at all here.

Pete

glentrino2duo · #10 February 5th, 2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

3.5 only contains 2.0 service pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.0 service pack 1

1.1 is not included.

Also 2.0 and 3.0 (which includes 2.0) run an older CLR which means you COULD need these installed separately if the application is reliant on old pre-sp1 features.

So for completeness you would need to install 1.1 and 3.0 as well !

Actually, 2.0 SP1 and 3.0 SP1 are full updates of 2.0 and 3.0 respectively. So if you install 3.5, you do not need 3.0 at all. if you have apps that rely on 1.1, then you need to install that also.

reference: http://blogs.msdn.com/heaths/archive...detect-it.aspx

chrisretusn · #11 February 5th, 2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

3.5 only contains 2.0 service pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.0 service pack 1

1.1 is not included.

Also 2.0 and 3.0 (which includes 2.0) run an older CLR which means you COULD need these installed separately if the application is reliant on old pre-sp1 features.

So for completeness you would need to install 1.1 and 3.0 as well !

Not true. I installed .NET Framework 3.5 on a fresh installation of Windows XP SP2. It installed 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 under a previously non existent Framework directory. Add or Remove Programs shows 2.0 SP1, 3.0 SP1, 3.5, MSXML Parser 6.0.

There was also one prerequisite before 3.5 would install, Windows Installer 3.1 had to be installed.

MikeNAS · #12 February 5th, 2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter2150

Dasfox

I resisted net framework only because of it's size for a long time. Then a key program I use, went to it and I had no choice. It hasn't caused any problems at all here.

Pete

What is that key program? I don't have .NET Framework in my XP SP3 RC setup but in Vista setup I have it.

Firebytes · #13 February 5th, 2008, 01:49 PM

I have .NET installed due to my use of Paint.NET and have never had any issues with it at all. (knock on wood)

DasFox · #14 February 5th, 2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firebytes

I have .NET installed due to my use of Paint.NET and have never had any issues with it at all. (knock on wood)

LOL, that's all I was thinking about using it for at the moment.

I used Gimp in the past as a Linux users but the latest version for Windows really sucks. Personally just to have a paint program I find installing .Net extreme, and I'm not wanting to go there yet.

NGRhodes · #15 February 6th, 2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glentrino2duo

Actually, 2.0 SP1 and 3.0 SP1 are full updates of 2.0 and 3.0 respectively. So if you install 3.5, you do not need 3.0 at all. if you have apps that rely on 1.1, then you need to install that also.

reference: http://blogs.msdn.com/heaths/archive...detect-it.aspx

Yes you are right, I had a complete Blonde moment there.
They are byte compatible with previous versions.

I do know of some documented problems, but I think these are bugs and not feature difference.

NGRhodes · #16 February 6th, 2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisretusn

Not true. I installed .NET Framework 3.5 on a fresh installation of Windows XP SP2. It installed 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 under a previously non existent Framework directory. Add or Remove Programs shows 2.0 SP1, 3.0 SP1, 3.5, MSXML Parser 6.0.

There was also one prerequisite before 3.5 would install, Windows Installer 3.1 had to be installed.

Strange as 1.1 is not included according to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

Quote:

Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 contains many new features building incrementally upon .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0, and includes .NET Framework 2.0 service pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.0 service pack 1.

glentrino2duo · #17 February 6th, 2008, 09:15 AM

I agree 3.5 does not contain 1.1. please see the link in my earlier post.

chrisretusn · #18 February 6th, 2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickr

Strange as 1.1 is not included according to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

Quote:

Originally Posted by glentrino2duo

I agree 3.5 does not contain 1.1. please see the link in my earlier post.

Well I only know what I see.

I installed 3.5 on a virgin XP SP2 install. Prior to the installation C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET did not exist. After the installation of 3.5 it now does. The only program I installed prior to 3.5 was Windows Installer 3.1 as required by the 3.5 installation program.

After the install of 3.5 the following folders now exist:
C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705
C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322
C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.0
C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5

Here is the Add or Remove Programs list for that computer with Show Updates checked. (Wrapped in code tags to maintain spacing.)

Code:

Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro                   Size  47.96MB
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1          Size 186.00MB
    .NET Framework WinForms                  Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework 2                         Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework CRT                       Installed On 1/23/2008
    Dr. Watson                               Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework 1                         Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework CLR                       Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework ASP .NET                  Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework CA                        Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework PreXP                     Installed On 1/23/2008
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1          Size 245.00MB
    .NET Framework WF x86                    Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework WF                        Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework WCS                       Installed On 1/23/2008
    NET Framework WPF 1                      Installed On 1/23/2008
    NET Framework WPF 2                      Installed On 1/23/2008
    NET Framework WPF 3 x86                  Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework XPS                       Installed On 1/23/2008
    .NET Framework WCF                       Installed On 1/23/2008
    NET Framework WPF 3                      Installed On 1/23/2008
    NET Framework WPF 2 x86                  Installed On 1/23/2008
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5                         Size  25.09MB
Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable            Size   5.21MB
MSXML 6.0 Parser (KB933579)                          Size   1.31MB
SnagIt 8                                             Size  26.42MB
Windows Imaging Component                    Installed On 1/23/2008
Windows Installer 3.1 (KB893803)

Only components not installed by .NET Framework 3.5 are: (In order installed)
Windows Installer 3.1 (KB893803)
Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro
Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable
SnagIt 8

glentrino2duo · #19 February 7th, 2008, 01:15 AM

@chrisretusn, "you don't know what you don't see."

I verified your claim and installed 3.5 on a fresh XPSP2 install. It did create the 1.1 folder alright but, actually, if you look into that folder, it's almost empty as it contains only two .config files (same with 1.0 folder). In short, 1.1 isn't really installed which is why it doesn't show in the Add/Remove Programs, as oppose to 2.0 SP1, 3.0 SP1.and 3.5.

here is what 1.1 folder should look like if you really have 1.1 installed:

chrisretusn · #20 February 7th, 2008, 05:52 AM

@glentrino2duo, how about that. Guess I should have opened the v1.1.4322 folder.

I stand corrected.

lucas1985 · #21 February 7th, 2008, 01:06 PM

So, installing 1.1 + SP1 + hotfix and 3.5 is the short way of having all the versions of .NET Framework installed?

WSFuser · #22 February 7th, 2008, 07:03 PM

Yeah it is.

glentrino2duo · #23 February 7th, 2008, 07:15 PM

You can even make a custom 1.1 installer with all hotfixes and language packs using this excellent utility.

lucas1985 · #24 February 7th, 2008, 08:27 PM

Great, thanks to both

DasFox · #25 February 7th, 2008, 10:25 PM

Boy talk about going "OFF TOPIC" here, LOL....

Ahh my question please?

--> Anything Bad About .Net Framework?

THANKS

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search