.Net. To install or not to install?

[H3LL]

.Net Framework. Install or not install?....That is the question.

I have just downloaded a free program that requires the .Net framework. The program gets quite good reviews, but is not the only one of its type and others do not require an extra 23MB of my hard disk space.

I'm hesitant but I've been quite happy with Java sitting, smoking it's pipe and relaxing in the background and never gave it a second thought as is quietly updates itself every now and then. So is it unreasonable to think otherwise of .Net?

suggestions.


.

 

[Wavicle]

Install it.

.Net is very similar to the JVM, and gives applications most of the benefits and security of the JVM. The big difference between the two is that .net never promised Write Once Run Anywhere, hence callouts to native libraries in .net are a bit easier because there's no concern over "breaking platform independence." Behind all the market-speak, .net was designed to give developers all the stuff they loved in Java while giving users a better experience than Java on Windows.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

.Net Framework. Install or not install?....That is the question.

I have just downloaded a free program that requires the .Net framework. The program gets quite good reviews, but is not the only one of its type and others do not require an extra 23MB of my hard disk space.

I'm hesitant but I've been quite happy with Java sitting, smoking it's pipe and relaxing in the background and never gave it a second thought as is quietly updates itself every now and then. So is it unreasonable to think otherwise of .Net?

suggestions.


.

Personally, I wouldn't think twice about installing the .NET Framework (But maybe that's because I'm a .NET developer).

Seriously though, there is nothing to be concerned about. More and more programs will require the Framework, and it is very, very similar to the Java Runtime; It will only run when it's needed, when a .NET program is executing. It's quickly becoming a core component of Windows.

In fact, in Windows Server 2003, it's there by default. This will happen with all new version of Windows, and I wouldn't be surprised if gets bundled into an upcoming Service Pack for existing versions of Windows.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Install it.

.Net is very similar to the JVM, and gives applications most of the benefits and security of the JVM. The big difference between the two is that .net never promised Write Once Run Anywhere, hence callouts to native libraries in .net are a bit easier because there's no concern over "breaking platform independence." Behind all the market-speak, .net was designed to give developers all the stuff they loved in Java while giving users a better experience than Java on Windows.

This is true, but the .NET Framework does essentially have the same 'Write Once Run Anywhere' underlying architecture. Any application that does not rely on the 'Windows specific' .NET packages can be platform independent... And it is in the plans for Microsoft to release the .NET Framework for both Mac and Linux.

 

[kevin]

I've got .Net 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 on my machine. I've got software that requires each version.

 

[tygirwulf]

Install it. More and more nice apps are being written that require it, and in my case, most of those apps are the only one of their kind. Is 23mb that big these days?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

There is nothing wrong with .net just install it i am, suprisingly, quite fond of it.

 

[Soapy Sam]

"Is 23 MB that big these days?"

Apparently not.
I just have this feeling that it ought to be.

(Takes up flint axe and continues polishing).

 

[Wowbagger]

I must also say "Install It!" I have been using it for years, in all its versions. I now develop practically everything with it (when the target platform is only Windows, of course), and I have yet to see any harm come from it!

Despite its initial ugly marketing strategy (put the word ".NET" after everything, even if it doesn't use it), I think Microsoft is on the right track with it. You will find more and more essential programs requiring it.

 

[xenxabar]

Didn't Micro$oft include it in either SP2 or other automatic updates? I also say definitely install it. It's really not much different from the vbrun Dlls that were distributed with applications written in Visual Basic 6 and earlier. The .Net Framework is much more robust and therefore much bigger (24MB vs. < 1MB), which is why most software distributions do not include it.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Didn't Micro$oft include it in either SP2 or other automatic updates? I also say definitely install it. It's really not much different from the vbrun Dlls that were distributed with applications written in Visual Basic 6 and earlier. The .Net Framework is much more robust and therefore much bigger (24MB vs. < 1MB), which is why most software distributions do not include it.

It's in the list of automatic updates, but it's an 'Optional' update, not Critical.

 

[tygirwulf]

"Is 23 MB that big these days?"

Apparently not.
I just have this feeling that it ought to be.

(Takes up flint axe and continues polishing).

I have some 920gb of hard drive space. 23mb is hardly noticeable. No doubt you remember the days when drive space was meaured in kilobytes, eh?

(zips away in her MINI)

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I have some 920gb of hard drive space. 23mb is hardly noticeable. No doubt you remember the days when drive space was meaured in kilobytes, eh?

(zips away in her MINI)

my *BEEP* is bigger than your *BEEP*

tf
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 46G 18G 26G 41% /
ts:/mnt/music 46G 17G 30G 36% /mnt/music
ts:/mnt/raid1 551G 471G 52G 91% /mnt/raid1
ts:/mnt/raid2 688G 666G 23G 97% /mnt/raid2
ts:/mnt/raid3 826G 802G 24G 98% /mnt/raid3
/dev/hda3 183G 98G 77G 57% /mnt/data
Total: 2337 2067 229

 

[H3LL]

That's a big yes for .Net it would seem.

Got it, installed it and ran the app. It wants an earlier version.

My 'hardly noticeable' 23MB just grew to 42MB.

42 is a much more interesting number anyway.

Thanks for all the advise.

.