What's wrong with .NET?

I'm running XP,SP3.

I've read a few negative-sounding comments lately wherein people will say they don't want to use a program because it requires .NET Framework, and they'd rather not install it on their box (though it comes with 7 and Vista). I didn't want to break into the thread to ask these questions for fear of being OT, so I started this thread.

So, what drawbacks are there to .NET?

A Wikipedia piece had this to say, in part, about .NET's security aspects...

From what I have read, it seems advantageous to have it installed.

Also, I'd like to know if anyone thinks it's okay to remove earlier versions of .NET from my computers? I believe I still have .NET 1, 2, & 3 installed, in addition to 4.

Appreciate any input.

 

I guess there's no harm but suspicious folks just don't like new stuff. And it's just one more way to tie a person down to an OS. And the versions do pile up. I wonder why. Over at the mozillazine forum, it's quite common to see a string of redundant (?) .NETs in the useragent strings of some posters.

 

Yeah, that's been an issue for me too. I've had updates fail 7 times in a row before they would take.

 

There are a couple of drawbacks, although I don't really mind them. First is large use of disk space. Second is possible Windows instability. Last is increased attack surface.

As for your old versions, they are usually installed by programs that need them. If those programs are uninstalled (or will be), then you can remove them.

 

When I ran XP, for a long time I tried to avoid installing .NET at all since I didn't have any apps that needed it. I thought of it as just adding extra unnecessary bloat to the OS. Eventually though, I did install an app or two that required it, so then installed what was needed. In Win 7 it's all there anyway, so I don't worry about it anymore. I haven't had any issues at all with updates so far on my Win 7 x64 install. Older versions are for apps that need them.

 

It's mostly bloat. Once in awhile you'll run across something that needs it but most of the time it just sits there wasting space. To me it's aggravating to have that much bloat that does so little, but like Java, when you do need it you need it. But I've never had any security problems from it.

I've got Vista SP2 and .NET Framework 3.5 SP1. It includes all the previous versions you need. When it installs, it analyzes your system and installs only the components you need. I've also got .NET Framework 4 Client Profile. I think you need both of them. 4 doesn't replace 3.5 SP1.

I assume I'm up to date. Windows Update hasn't sent me a .NET update in over a year. That's usually how I know it needs updating.

 

Yes, I am starting to read about that, like here:
Vulnerability in .NET Framework and Microsoft Silverlight Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2514842)
and more than a few others.

 

Hi Pete
Updating has so far gone well for me.

 

Thank you for answering this question for me, JRViejo.

 

.net 4 is backwards compatible with all versions of .net back to 2.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff602939.aspx

On a personal note:
IMHO Microsoft do a good job of designing and developing it, suffers very few security holes, is very fast for the type of framework it is, it does have a small proportion of bugs and issues, it is also possible for developers to write horridly slow apps, but on the flip side it is not difficult to write fast, secure and easy to maintain code (from my personal experience of developing in .net for many years).

Cheers, Nick

 

I hope you was not misunderstanding my comment about .NET. I was only saying that portable apps should not be dependent on .NET to function since everyone will not have .NET installed. I don't think anything is wrong with .NET. I'm not a knowledgeable programmer either so their could be more viable options, but that is above my level of expertise.

 

I think I must have been thinking of the "Client Profile" version. It's a smaller download package and only updates what you need. Looks like the full version has everything.

 

Here's one example of a useragent string:

Code:

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)

 

I've only once run into anything that required .NET, so I've never bothered with it.

My daughter (not living with us, but might as well be, here quite frequently) insists on having a smartphone, and her first was an antique Blackberry. She had me install the maintenance app on my system so I could repair or reload its OS when necessary. Numerous tech-support problems with RIM (their HQ is local, by the way) and from the provider (our cable co. -- what else is new?), and she tried several other models, eventually got a more current Blackberry. When I went to get the updated maintenance app for it, this version turned out to need .NET, so I simply told her sorry, can't do.