Microsoft .NET Framework

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by beethoven, Dec 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beethoven

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,044
    I needed to burn an ISO file yesterday and since I had not installed a CD burner before, downloaded CDBurner XP. When trying to install, I got an alert that I needed to install Microsoft .Net Framework, so proceeded to also install this and the subsequent security patch.

    I read up on Wikipedia and it seems that many new programs are coded based on this framework. I certainly don't understand enough but was irritated that hardly installed there were a number of requests for outbound connections (while I was not doing anything).

    Do I really need this .Net framework? Doesit have to have permission to connect to the internet or can I leave my block in place? Are there any particular issues that I should be aware of?
     
  2. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    I personally prefer to do without .NET if possible.. One thing you can do if you like, since the new CDBurnerXP Pro needs .NET, you might want to just go back to the previous version, which for me has always worked fine. Less bloat, less worries, and no problems.... :)

    PS- Don't know why .NET should need any internet connection either, that sounds a little odd... perhaps it's only during installation? Otherwise I don't know bout that one...
     
  3. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,633
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    .NET is always been a sore spot for me also however it must make developing apps in it simpler for beginners to experts from what i read. Some of my special Vista-like enhancements for XP Pro require at least the 2 version, reluctant as i am to load ALL those seemingly thousands of registry entries just to get a single program to work. I have noticed of late some developers who previously compiled their products with it suddenly reversing that trend and offering NO .NET REQUIRED newest versions, so thats a little consolation.

    I haven't experienced any calling out via internet issues but in my HIPS the .NET is frequently doing something in the background that makes my HIPS alert to it and thats a regular annoyance like it or not i live with so the programs that require it can run at all.
     
  4. beethoven

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,044
    Ok, but then my conclusion would be that generally speaking .net framework only has to run when I intend to use the software that is relying on it. So in my case as the only prog is the cd burning software, there should be no harm in shutting it off at all other times and to prevent it from connecting to the net?
    Or perhaps as Kerodo suggested, go back to the previous version.
     
  5. majoMo

    majoMo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Posts:
    938
  6. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    I too belong in the no software is installed unless I really need it. And that included .NET Framework. But as I wanted to run Paint.NET and CDBurnerXP, I went ahead and loaded it. To date, I've had no issues and can't remember it ever asking for web access through my ZAF. And after running the new version of CDBurnerXP, I would not want to give it up. It's my fav burner...
     
  7. Defcon

    Defcon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Posts:
    332
    I always see a lot of people on various forums question .NET and don't know whether it is a distrust of extra software, distrust of Microsoft, big download size, or all three.

    As a developer I can tell you it is the best way to build apps for Windows and its only a matter of time before it becomes mandatory. Hell, Vista includes it and many times in the past Microsoft has come this close to including it in the various SP's, and you can bet we developers wish they had.

    It does not contain any spyware call home processes, resident services or whatnot. I don't understand why software is given bad reviews because it happens to use .NET.
     
  8. TairikuOkami

    TairikuOkami Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,509
    Location:
    Slovakia
    You are right Defcon, though I have to admit, that I used to do the same, but I got over it, because ATI CCC needs it too. There are also a security issuees on XP, like installing .NET 2.0 will create a useless, but potentionally dangerous NET account, which can be deleted, .NET aplications will work without it. Well I see it now this way: .NET is just a buch of runtime files needed by aplications, like JRE, codecs or filters are, so there is no point avoiding except your 3 reasons. ;)
     
  9. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    8,647
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    beethoven.

    You could use ImgBurn. I doubt it needs .NET Framework.
     
  10. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Its a shame there is no option to only install the parts of the framework that are required (a bit like in MS office you have the install on first use for options).
    .net is a darn good technology (I develop in asp.net/c# for a living), it does make development easier, it is highly tested (and secure) and also the fact there is an open source version Mono, means that MS must of come up with a good idea (you know the saying, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery).

    Anyhow, I am of the opinion that if an apps needs it and you like the app, install it.
    There is no harm in having lots of registry entries or a few (actually probably a hundred or so :D) megabytes of files on your hdd.
     
  11. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    FYI It is a special limited user account - perfectly safe/secure. It is asp.net, but .net apps do not need it and is safe to delete. There is a command line to add the user if you ever run any asp.net.
     
  12. clambermatic

    clambermatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Posts:
    216
    ".NET" has 3 version, installation of whichever version is solely to the end-users' discretion and each version does not need 'prerequisite version' either. In M$' way of doing things, the latest version3 got advances in security & applications more than v2 and so on. hence the choice is on end-users'.

    IMO... .NET Does NOT call for any outbound connection once downloaded and installed (initial or not).

    Therefore if these does happen, better close your net connection and run your default AV/Malware scanner ASAP! And also include scan repertoires with CureIT or Ewido Micro... as a precaution.
     
  13. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    The framework itself does not having anything that runs as such, its a set of libraries of program functionality that needs an app to do anything useful.

    Possibly the framework installer connects to the internet, but definately not the framework itself.
     
  14. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    V3 is purely Vista-type functionality added to V2 and does not add any extra security/bug fixes that cannot be got via service pack and patches for V2.

    Installing V3 on top of V2 performs an upgrade adding these extra features.
     
  15. clambermatic

    clambermatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Posts:
    216
    I agree with what "nickR" mentioned there. When only a .NET is downloaded from MSN Update site, that's only an installer. Once you run that, it will reconnect to winUpdate site for download of every needed .NET components based on what your rig's needs.

    If your FW starts popping up requests for permission, monitor it closely and better yet... temporarily stop the installation and do a scan for precaution and repeat scan after components are done with.
     
  16. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    yes it is not just simpler but unified and far more powerful than anything before, really is something MS got right (probably because it was developed for developers, by developers and MS developers are generally a good bunch).

    The registry is a database and a program reads from the registry ONLY the entries that are needed. The registry, in part or entirity does not sit resident in memory, so the extra entries will only take up extra diskspace.
     
  17. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    A simple question,
    Can .NET 3.0 (or the recently released 3.5) replace 2.0 entirely?
    I usually install .NET 1.1 (plus SP, hotfix and language pack) and .NET 2.0 (plus hotfixes and language pack)
    I use the offline installers.
     
  18. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,522
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    Net is evil imo.
     
  19. Defcon

    Defcon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Posts:
    332
    .NET 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0 are separate and independent.
    3.0 is a layer on top of 2.0
    3.5 is on top of 3.0

    So 3.x won't replace 2.0

    This is exactly the kind of FUD I was talking about. Do you have any reason to say that other than the fact that its from MS?
     
  20. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    It does seem to add another layer of "bloat" that so far I have been able to completely do without to date.. There have only been one or two apps I've used in 10 years that needed it, and rather than add .NET, I just found alternate apps.. Why install more stuff, more reg entries, more files etc if you don't need it?
     
  21. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,522
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    It is & lends a hand to sloppy inefficient programming.
     
  22. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    So, I should install 1.1, 2.0 and 3.5, right?
     
  23. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Can you explain why you think that.

    In my personal, professional experience as Software Developer (web mostly) using MS technologies over the past 9 years I have found the opposite.
     
  24. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Depends on the CLR versions.

    .net framework 3.5 shares the same clr as 2.0 sp1
    3 same clr as 2.0
    1.1 same clr as 1.
     
  25. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    My head is spinning o_O
    So, the best way would be installing 1.1 (support for 1.0), 3.0 (support for 2.0) and 3.5?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.