.NET Framework 4.0: Impact On Startup?

Discussion in 'Windows XP General' started by (PeteCresswell), Apr 18, 2012.

  1. I finally got my boot time to network availability down to a
    little under 1:30.

    Then I installed a transcoder called HandBrake - which included
    ..NET Framework 4.0 and the time to network availability shot up
    to a truly heinous 3+ minutes.

    OK.... So I uninstalled HandBrake, leaving .Net 4.0 in place.

    Oops.... boot time still bad... down to 2:45, but that's still
    too long.

    Looking at Add/Remove Programs, I see that I have 4 or 5 versions
    of .NET:

    - 2.0 SP2

    - 3.0 SP2

    - 3.5 SP1

    - 4.0 Client Profile
    - 4.0 Extended


    So... 2 Questions:

    - Is .NET 4 a likely offender?

    - Would it make any sense to delete all except
    the two 4.0 versions?
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 18, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. (PeteCresswell)

    Paul Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > I finally got my boot time to network availability down to a
    > little under 1:30.
    >
    > Then I installed a transcoder called HandBrake - which included
    > .NET Framework 4.0 and the time to network availability shot up
    > to a truly heinous 3+ minutes.
    >
    > OK.... So I uninstalled HandBrake, leaving .Net 4.0 in place.
    >
    > Oops.... boot time still bad... down to 2:45, but that's still
    > too long.
    >
    > Looking at Add/Remove Programs, I see that I have 4 or 5 versions
    > of .NET:
    >
    > - 2.0 SP2
    >
    > - 3.0 SP2
    >
    > - 3.5 SP1
    >
    > - 4.0 Client Profile
    > - 4.0 Extended
    >
    >
    > So... 2 Questions:
    >
    > - Is .NET 4 a likely offender?
    >
    > - Would it make any sense to delete all except
    > the two 4.0 versions?


    Did you have a copy of Bootvis at one time ? Or was that someone else ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootvis

    Bootvis can give a breakdown on startup times.

    http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/bootvis/bootvis_before.gif

    DotNET is in theory, a library for the usage of DotNET executables.
    But with Microsoft, you can never be sure they haven't jammed something
    else in there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

    "The size is around 54 MB for .NET 3.0, 197 MB for .NET 3.5, and
    250 MB for .NET 3.5 SP1."

    "The .NET 3.5 SP1 full installation package includes the full runtime
    installation packages for .NET 2.0 SP2 as well as .NET 3.0 SP2 for
    multiple operating systems"

    "The size issue is partially solved with .NET 4 installer (x86 + x64)
    being 54 MB and not embedding full runtime installation packages
    for previous versions."

    And rather than being "versions", DotNET is in layers, and each new
    version is a new layer for the cake. While you might consider removing
    1.0 or 1.1 if you're no longer using it, you can leave 2.0+ where they are,
    as they're a part of the layer cake. The 4.0 installer, if no other installs
    had been done, might have installed a lighter weight set of layers.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/DotNet.svg/513px-DotNet.svg.png

    Paul
     
    Paul, Apr 18, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Per Paul:
    >Did you have a copy of Bootvis at one time ? Or was that someone else ?
    >
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootvis
    >
    >Bootvis can give a breakdown on startup times.
    >
    >http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/bootvis/bootvis_before.gif
    >
    >DotNET is in theory, a library for the usage of DotNET executables.
    >But with Microsoft, you can never be sure they haven't jammed something
    >else in there.


    No, it wasn't me with Bootvis. But a couple years back I had
    *something* that recorded how long each entity took during boot
    time. Been trying to recollect, but no luck so far.

    After removing the problem app and seeing no change, I backed out
    ..NET 4 and, sure enough, boot tome was reduced back to what it
    was before that install - so, as you suggest, *something* is
    going on there.

    Thanks for the layer cake analogy; now I know not to mess with
    earlier versions of .NET.
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 18, 2012
    #3
  4. (PeteCresswell)

    jim Guest

    On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:51:37 -0400, in
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, "(PeteCresswell)" <>,
    wrote

    >After removing the problem app and seeing no change, I backed out
    >.NET 4 and, sure enough, boot tome was reduced back to what it
    >was before that install - so, as you suggest, *something* is
    >going on there.



    Are you running XP? I was under the impression that 3.5 SP1 was the
    highest version that was compatible with XP and that .net 4 was Windows 7.

    BTW, I backed out of 3.5 SP1 and gained overall system performance and
    lost one rather clever app (Jing). From all appearances, 3.5 SP1 was
    causing a "phantom" -- but real -- CPU usage, as reported by Task Manager.
    Where the System Idle may have been 90+% but the CPU usage at the bottom
    of the task manager screen would be reporting CPU usage of 25-30%. While
    I was allowing for a probable asynchronous update of those two figures the
    readings were reasonably consistent and removing 3.5 SP1 made that problem
    disappear.

    jim
     
    jim, Apr 20, 2012
    #4
  5. On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:35:41 -0400, jim <> wrote:

    > Are you running XP? I was under the impression that 3.5 SP1 was the
    > highest version that was compatible with XP and that .net 4 was Windows 7.




    Sorry, that's not correct. The .net framework 4.0 does run under XP
    SP3.

    See http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=17851

    Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
     
    Ken Blake, MVP, Apr 20, 2012
    #5
  6. (PeteCresswell)

    VanguardLH Guest

    jim wrote:

    > Are you running XP? I was under the impression that 3.5 SP1 was the
    > highest version that was compatible with XP and that .net 4 was
    > Windows 7.


    "How to determine which versions and service pack levels of the
    Microsoft .NET Framework are installed"
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/kbarticle.aspx?id=318785

    Basically, go look under the following key to see which versions you
    currently have installed:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\NET Framework Setup\NDP

    You can also tell by going to %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework in
    Windows Explorer.
     
    VanguardLH, Apr 20, 2012
    #6
  7. Per jim:
    >Are you running XP? I was under the impression that 3.5 SP1 was the
    >highest version that was compatible with XP and that .net 4 was Windows 7.
    >
    >BTW, I backed out of 3.5 SP1 and gained overall system performance and
    >lost one rather clever app (Jing). From all appearances, 3.5 SP1 was


    Seem like I am not the only one with this problem under 4.0.

    There's quite a lengthy thread on it at
    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/netfxsetup/thread/cb75c4dc-e0af-4b22-85b2-c2c1b08bfea1

    Suggested solutions do not sound consistent - and the few I have
    tried did not work for one reason or another... but it's pretty
    clear that *something* is going on with 4.0 under XP Pro SP3.
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 20, 2012
    #7
  8. (PeteCresswell)

    Henry Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per jim:
    >
    >>Are you running XP? I was under the impression that 3.5 SP1 was the
    >>highest version that was compatible with XP and that .net 4 was Windows 7.
    >>
    >>BTW, I backed out of 3.5 SP1 and gained overall system performance and
    >>lost one rather clever app (Jing). From all appearances, 3.5 SP1 was

    >
    >
    > Seem like I am not the only one with this problem under 4.0.
    >
    > There's quite a lengthy thread on it at
    > http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/netfxsetup/thread/cb75c4dc-e0af-4b22-85b2-c2c1b08bfea1
    >
    > Suggested solutions do not sound consistent - and the few I have
    > tried did not work for one reason or another... but it's pretty
    > clear that *something* is going on with 4.0 under XP Pro SP3.



    I'm running WinXP Pro SP3 and Net 4.0 with no problems. It installed with no
    problems.

    Henry
     
    Henry, Apr 21, 2012
    #8
  9. (PeteCresswell)

    Paul Guest

    Henry wrote:
    > (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    >> Per jim:
    >>
    >>> Are you running XP? I was under the impression that 3.5 SP1 was the
    >>> highest version that was compatible with XP and that .net 4 was
    >>> Windows 7.
    >>>
    >>> BTW, I backed out of 3.5 SP1 and gained overall system performance and
    >>> lost one rather clever app (Jing). From all appearances, 3.5 SP1 was

    >>
    >>
    >> Seem like I am not the only one with this problem under 4.0.
    >>
    >> There's quite a lengthy thread on it at
    >> http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/netfxsetup/thread/cb75c4dc-e0af-4b22-85b2-c2c1b08bfea1
    >>
    >>
    >> Suggested solutions do not sound consistent - and the few I have
    >> tried did not work for one reason or another... but it's pretty
    >> clear that *something* is going on with 4.0 under XP Pro SP3.

    >
    >
    > I'm running WinXP Pro SP3 and Net 4.0 with no problems. It installed
    > with no problems.
    >
    > Henry


    So did you read the thread Pete quotes ?

    The aggravating factors seem to be:

    1) .NET 4.0 installs a service with NGEN in the name.
    2) NGEN service is "recompiling" dotNET executables already on the computer.

    Perhaps if the NGEN service was already disabled, you'd get no symptoms to speak of.

    One participant in the thread claims eventually the modifying activity will stop.
    Perhaps if you have no dotNET applications at all, there is very little for it to do.
    If it's doing an actual scan, it takes time even to list your entire hard
    drive.

    The delay in networking could also have to do with some network driver
    having some dotNET code in it, and there being some interference that
    early in the boot process, between what NGEN wants to do, and what
    the OS needs to do to get the hardware running.

    *******

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Image_Generator

    "The Native Image Generator, or simply NGEN is the Ahead-of-time compilation
    service of the .NET Framework. It allows a .NET assembly to be pre-compiled
    instead of letting the Common Language Runtime do a Just-in-time compilation
    at runtime. In some cases the execution will be significantly faster with AOT
    than with JIT."

    "Once NGEN is run against an assembly, the resulting native image is placed
    into the Native Image Cache"

    "NGEN is intended to make the assembly execute faster by removing the JIT
    compilation process at runtime, but this does not always improve performance
    because some optimizations can be done only by a JIT compiler"

    Looks like a wee bit of over-optimization then...

    Paul
     
    Paul, Apr 21, 2012
    #9
  10. Per Henry:
    >I'm running WinXP Pro SP3 and Net 4.0 with no problems.


    Have you put a stopwatch on the time from cold start to network
    availability?
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 21, 2012
    #10
  11. Per Paul:
    >The delay in networking could also have to do with....


    In an effort to find out which entity is holding things up, I've
    been trying to run BootVis, but it's abended at every attempt.

    Has anybody got BootVis working with XP?
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 21, 2012
    #11
  12. Per Paul:
    >The aggravating factors seem to be:


    FWIW, I started over (for about the 15th time...) with a clean
    image, but this time installed .NET 4.0 from a standalone
    installer that I downloaded many moons ago - instead of the
    installer that came with the problem app.

    This time, BootVis ran without abending - although I had no clue
    as to how to interpret it's charts. Certainly they bore little
    resemblance to those pictured/described in TechRepublic's article
    at http://tinyurl.com/d6tb3dv.

    But I took the article's advice and invoked BootVis | TGrace |
    Optimize System and re-booted a couple of times.

    Time to NAS availability improved slightly: from 3:15 down to a
    little under 2:50.

    Now I guess I have to test the often-made assertion that NGEN
    needs some time to get all caught up. I *think* I've tested
    this without thinking about it multiple times... but now I'll
    leave the box up and running for more than just a few hours.
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 21, 2012
    #12
  13. Per (PeteCresswell):
    > although I had no clue
    >as to how to interpret it's charts.


    One thing that jumped out at me: 4 separate instances of
    something called "sf.bin".

    Googling it leaves me with the impression that it's some sort of
    discovery service that is used to find universal-plug-and-play
    devices (whatever *they* are....)- but not much else.
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 21, 2012
    #13
  14. (PeteCresswell)

    VanguardLH Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:

    > Per (PeteCresswell):
    >> although I had no clue
    >>as to how to interpret it's charts.

    >
    > One thing that jumped out at me: 4 separate instances of
    > something called "sf.bin".
    >
    > Googling it leaves me with the impression that it's some sort of
    > discovery service that is used to find universal-plug-and-play
    > devices (whatever *they* are....)- but not much else.


    Does it mention WHERE are the sf.bin files? The only sf.bin that I have
    on my host is somewhere under Avast's installation folder and its
    Version properties says it's their Emulation Engine. I believe it is
    part of Avast's Behavior Shield for its "Monitor the system for malware
    -like behavior" option. It monitors for changes in the system which
    have a fingerprint typical of malware. sf.bin, their emulation engine,
    is also used with their File Shield's "Code Emulation" option. The
    emulator helps their unpacking engine so the scanner can detect
    scrambled or obfuscated malicious executable files that wouldn't be
    detected without code emulation.

    So, if you have Avast installed, see if disabling Avast's Behavior
    Shield (or just the "Monitor the system for malware-like behavior"
    option) gets rid of the load time for Windows. If that doesn't work, go
    in Avast's File Shield to disable the "Code Emulation" option under the
    Sensitivity settings group. Lastly, you could uninstall Avast to see if
    the boot time comes down. Code emulation will slow the opening of all
    programs, including those in your startup list. Here is Avast's
    description of their code emulation option in their help file:

    Use code emulation - if this box is checked and avast! detects some
    suspicious code in a file, it will attempt to run the code in a
    virtual environment to determine how it behaves. If potential
    malicious behavior is detected, it will be reported as a virus.
    Running the code in this virtual environment means that if the code is
    malicious it will not be able to cause damage to your computer.

    So the suspicious file has its code emulated to interrogate what actions
    it attempts. This is NOT the same as their [auto-]sandbox feature. It
    means they look at what the executable does before allowing those
    actions to get committed but blocking them and killing the process if
    Avast thinks the executable is acting maliciously.

    If you have multiple active security programs that overlap on their
    functionality, like two concurrently active anti-virus programs, then
    you better exclude each security program in the other security programs.
    That is, if you have Avast active at the same time that MalwareBytes is
    active (the payware version with its real-time monitor active) then go
    into each one and add the other one to an exclusion list. You can have
    multiple security products installed as long as they don't conflict with
    each other, snag on each other, or just one is active and the others are
    passive (you configure them to NOT load on startup and only use them
    manually as a backup malware scanner).

    Sometimes security software does scanning upon startup that incurs a
    significant impact on the host. That's why I stopped using Microsoft
    Security Essentials as it sometimes but not always slowed down starting
    up and logging into Windows. If you have any startup programs that go
    opening files (scanning, reading, opening) then your anti-virus program
    is going to also be scanning all those file opens. If, for example,
    NGEN which is setup for Automatic startup (but unloads when it has
    nothing to do) is recompiling files then those files are getting opened
    and your anti-virus and other security software will be watching all
    those file opens and writes.

    If the sf.bin you are seeing during startup is not the one for Avast
    then you'll need to tell use WHERE is the sf.bin file(s) on your host.
     
    VanguardLH, Apr 21, 2012
    #14
  15. Per VanguardLH:
    >Does it mention WHERE are the sf.bin files? The only sf.bin that I have
    >on my host is somewhere under Avast's installation folder and its
    >Version properties says it's their Emulation Engine.


    Bingo!...

    Looking at AnVir's log, I see that each instance is started by
    AvastSvc.exe - and the runtimes are only a second or two.

    FWIW, the strategy of letting nGen do it's thing for a few
    hours/couple of boots seems to correlate with a reduction in time
    to network availability down to 1:30 on a cold start - which is
    all I would hope for. The BIOS takes about :31 or :32 before
    the Windows splash screen shows, so I conclude that Windows' boot
    time to network availability is a little less than a minute....
    probably closer to 30 seconds if we're just talking a usable
    desktop without network.

    I really *like* AnVir - for the entertainment value if nothing
    else.... -)
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 22, 2012
    #15
  16. (PeteCresswell)

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:jmvnmh$c2g$,
    VanguardLH wrote on Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:42:47 -0500:
    > (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    >
    >> Per VanguardLH:
    >>
    >>> Does it mention WHERE are the sf.bin files? The only sf.bin that I
    >>> have on my host is somewhere under Avast's installation folder and
    >>> its Version properties says it's their Emulation Engine.

    >>
    >> Bingo!...
    >>
    >> Looking at AnVir's log, I see that each instance is started by
    >> AvastSvc.exe - and the runtimes are only a second or two.
    >>
    >> FWIW, the strategy of letting nGen do it's thing for a few
    >> hours/couple of boots seems to correlate with a reduction in time to
    >> network availability down to 1:30 on a cold start - which is all I
    >> would hope for.
    >>
    >> I really *like* AnVir - for the entertainment value if nothing
    >> else.... -)

    >
    > For $50 you should get some entertainment value. For free,
    > SysInternals' Process Explorer would show you the parent or caller
    > process that opened sf.bin (in PE, do a search on "sf.bin" to see that
    > avastsvc.exe has an open file handle on sf.bin).


    AnVir Task Manager also has a tree view, but it is toggled off by
    default. Select the Processes tab, and then View --> Process Tree. And I
    used to use Process Explorer all of the time. Although there is no need,
    since AnVir Task Manager does this too plus tons more anyway.

    > I have the NGEN service but never saw (or don't recollect seeing) the
    > long bootup time that you reported; however, it's possible it was
    > masked by something else, like I rebooted and left the host
    > unattended during which NGEN finished its recompiling.


    My NGEN is disabled and I didn't do it. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Apr 22, 2012
    #16
  17. On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:29:03 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    wrote:

    > I really *like* AnVir - for the entertainment value if nothing
    > else.... -)



    I've tried AnVir, and it looks very good. But as far as I'm concerned,
    it's not worth anywhere near $50.

    Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
     
    Ken Blake, MVP, Apr 22, 2012
    #17
  18. Per VanguardLH:
    >I have the NGEN service but never saw (or don't recollect seeing) the
    >long bootup time that you reported; however, it's possible it was masked
    >by something else, like I rebooted and left the host unattended during
    >which NGEN finished its recompiling.


    It does not show up on my logs as "NGEN". Instead, I see
    something called "mscorsvw.exe" - which is described as "...NGEN
    worker process...".
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 22, 2012
    #18
  19. (PeteCresswell)

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    Ken Blake, MVP wrote on Sun, 22 Apr 2012 07:13:19 -0700:
    > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:29:03 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I really *like* AnVir - for the entertainment value if nothing
    >> else.... -)

    >
    > I've tried AnVir, and it looks very good. But as far as I'm concerned,
    > it's not worth anywhere near $50.


    That's the Pro version. The free one has the same with a few things
    missing, but most of it is still there. I paid less than 21 bucks for
    the middle version with a competitive discount (Process Lasso counted).
    And that is a user license, not a per computer license. And since I have
    over a dozen computers here, that is like 2 bucks a computer.

    Although speaking of pricing...

    Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate $289.99
    Microsoft Office 2010 Professional $424.99

    These prices were found at Newegg. And I don't see these two worth
    $714.98 either. But what are you going to do? If you need them, you need
    them. And that is per computer. And that would cost me like $8580 for a
    dozen computers.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
    Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Apr 22, 2012
    #19
  20. Per BillW50:
    >These prices were found at Newegg. And I don't see these two worth
    >$714.98 either. But what are you going to do? If you need them, you need
    >them. And that is per computer. And that would cost me like $8580 for a
    >dozen computers.


    Long, long ago I used to purchase something "MSDN" every few
    years. They'd send a stack of DVDs with just about everything
    "Microsoft" on them and something like 11 licenses for Windows.

    I'm *still* using the last one for my several PC's XP installs.

    I don't it ever cost more than a thousand dollars.

    It's probably morphed into something online/downloadable-only by
    now, but maybe they still offer a similar deal license-wise.
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 22, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sandeep

    XP SP2 developer impact.

    sandeep, Nov 10, 2003, in forum: Windows XP General
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    206
    Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
    Nov 10, 2003
  2. Now
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    265
    Jim Macklin
    Jul 29, 2004
  3. Allan J. Behr
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    791
    Taurarian
    Mar 6, 2005
  4. bbentley52
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    905
    Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP)
    Jan 28, 2009
  5. Dr. Indera
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    5,343
    Randem
    Jul 5, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page