Anything Bad About .Net Framework

For me, nothing really bad about it. The hdd space consumption and even the registry hive size aren't something a computer user would seriously worry about. It's simply a runtime framework that a dependent program access when needed. So it all boils down to whether you need it or not. If you want/need such programs as Paint.NET, CDBurnerXP (it has a non-.net alternative runtime though), etc., then you are left with not much choice but to install .NET.
Now, if you are a programmer/developer like me, Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 Express editions, which are .NET 3.5 dependent, are great tools. If you develop for the web, an alternative to .NET is PHP, but then it will be a different topic (in fact, a hotly debated topic in programming forums).

 

.net really is a joy to program with in Visual Studio. I develop .net and PHP professionally. But its like comparing apples and pears... they are very good at different things.

 

agreed! I use vs2008 express most of the time and php occassionally.

 

I can't say anything "bad" about .NET Framework. I have had it installed for quite some time now. On my primary system I have .NET Framework 3.0 installed. I have applications that require .NET Framework 1.1 or 2.0.

It does take up some real estate on the hard drive but with 80GB and 230GB hard drives that is not an issue. I never worry to much about the registry hive size. I am of the opinion that the size of registry is not a major factor in slowing down a system.

I don't program using .NET or in windows for that matter but since I use programs that require .NET Framework I really have no choice. In the next couple of days I will be reinstalling windows and I will install only the 3.5 redistributable. It includes everything needed to run the .NET Framework applications I have. Including the 1.1 applications all of which are running on my test system.

 

I always thought the "redistributables" where exactly the same downloads, and sizes, just meant to transfer to other boxes without connections is all.

So what's with the 3.5 download at 2.7mb, and the redistributable at 197mb?

Does the 2.7mb download anything?

THANKS

 

I believe the small installer (2.7mb) downloads the files it needs.

The larger installer contains the x86, x64, and IA64 files plus it has .NET 2.0 SP1 and .NET 3.0 SP1.

 

Ok I only want 3.5 for x86 not all the others and the updates...

 

This is a bootstraper program, meaning that it will download and install what you need for your system to run .NET Framework enabled programs for all versions 3.5 and below. I would hazard to guess that it will also download and install the SP's for 2.0 and 3.0.

The redistributable version is primarly for IT's so that can deploy it accross many systems with out having to connected to the internet.

 

Apologies for the delayed reply. I didn't wish to post further unless I had something concrete to add, and have only just noticed that I have an installation log covering .Net Framework (though the framework has since been removed).

This was created during the install of Supreme Commander (its multiplayer GPGNet requires it) so I have edited the file to remove keys referring to Supreme Commander itself and anything related (THQ, Gas Powered Games, GPGNet, BugSplat, MicroQuill) so I can be reasonably sure that what remains is .NET Framework specific.

The file is an Uninstall .reg file (courtesy of Total Uninstall) so running it (decompress the .zip to get a .txt file, rename this from .txt to .reg first) will remove the entries listed. Since this was created on my system, I cannot guarantee that it won't cause problems on others though so please take precautions (backup!) before using the file in this way.

Loads, though trimming out entries that I could flag as being non-.Net Framework related trimmed it down to 478KB. See attached file.

Quite possibly due to inappropriate use of packers on data/executable code? These save space but consume CPU and if used inappropriately (on very frequently accessed data for instance) could cost more than they save. That applies to many other memory optimisation techniques also.

Yup - I guess the Borland/Inprise rebranding took its toll.

 

Cheers for the info, will have a look at the log later.

 

its a case if there's a program that is made with it you need then you got to have it on. it dosent slow you down in my opinion.

@Defcon
going off topic? it's now at Defcon 3 lol