.NET Framework - how 'important?'

[Blithe]

I experienced endless WinUpdate update issues with .net framework on my W2K
pc - but so far none with Vista Ultimate.

I just ran 2 'Important' Vista WinUpdates - a hotfix and an update for .net
framework 3.5 SP1 - no problems.

However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea just how important
..Net Framework is to the average user like myself who's much less a PC
enthusiast than I was almost 20 years ago & primarily today more an email
and news junkie. So I checked out what Wikipedia posts on Net Framework -
and except for nerdy gobbledygook - got precisely no idea just how important
..NET Framework is to me.

May I ask a MS knowledgeable or other professional person to help me
understand 'just how important' for a user like me? If WinUpdate indicates
it's not 'essential' - than what exactly do I lose, if anything, by
uninstalling .NET Framework?

Please advise - Blithe

 

[Blithe]

With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and existing
application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework is an
essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up to date on
the Windows O/S platform, period.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put remain -
1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
'important' only & not essential?
2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
uninstalling .NET Framework?
(& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of the
equation' with examples?)
Thank you -
Blithe
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Malke]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put remain -
1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
'important' only & not essential?
2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
uninstalling .NET Framework?
(& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of the
equation' with examples?)

..Net Framework is used to build other programs. If you have a program that
used a particular .Net Framework in its coding (printer software, for
instance) and you have that .Net Framework installed (1.1, 2.0, etc.) and
updates to it are offered, you should take them.

If you don't have .Net Framework 3.5 installed, there is no reason to
install it. I never do, because the installation has been problematic for a
lot of people - including once on my son's machine.

Malke

 

[ptmx2]

I have the exact same question as the OP.

Malke, if I may; in your example you seem to be saying that my printer's
manufacturer might write software for my printer based on/or using some
version of .Net Framework.

Now assume for a moment that I have no .NET Framework software and/or
program installed on my Windows PC. None. Are you saying then that I could
Not install and/or use the printer program because I do not have .NET
Framework installed on my WPC?

thank you
ptmx2

 

[ptmx2]

thank you for your post.

however, like the OP, I don't know of any programs on my XP_SP3 PC that
require my PC to have some or all version(s) of .NET Framework installed. I
subscribe to the notion "if I don't need it, then I don't need it". IF in
tomorrow I need to open, use, or view something that requires .NET Framework,
I will download it.

It does sound like an interesting thing and I have noticed applications that
are using .NET Framework right now. I simply to do not use any of them right
now.

 

[John]

Now assume for a moment that I have no .NET Framework software and/or
program installed on my Windows PC. None. Are you saying then that I
could
Not install and/or use the printer program because I do not have .NET
Framework installed on my WPC?

Correct. If the printer software was developed using a version of .NET
Framework, you'd need that version of .NET installed or otherwise you
wouldn't be able to use it. Normally when you run (printer or any) software
setup, it'll automatically install the correct .NET version that it needs to
run properly.

 

[Blithe]

I have read all contributions to this thread & thank all contributors. I
also just checked the MS .net framework website at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zw4w595w.aspx
& read the: ".NET Framework Conceptual Overview" -
which basically states the purpose is to build/develop the essential
components of the next Microsoft OS. Fine.

I have been a patient and at times an unforgiving user of MS OS's since
Windows 3.0 - & had always understood, until now, that the proper, official,
recommended protocol for upgrading a Windows OS has been by installing
Microsoft certified OS Service Packs.

Therefore, considering what Microsoft has certified about the purpose of
..net framework on the above website - is it unreasonable for me to answer
the questions I had originally posted here by concluding???:
A. .Net Framework is 'essential' to software/developer/engineers only
B. Most Windows users will have no meaningful, substantive need either to
install .Net Framework & nor have any strong reason that argues against
uninstalling .Net Framework (assuming that uninstalling will not create
unexpected or previously reported collateral issues that have not been
resolved).

Of course - anyone who chooses to uninstall ought to do so at their own
risk - & that includes me.

Thank you all for this useful discussion- Blithe

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[DaveD]

Very important. MS needs it in order to install security vulnerabilities in
Firefox.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=1716&tag=nl.e011


***

 

[+Bob+]

Very important. MS needs it in order to install security vulnerabilities in
Firefox.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=1716&tag=nl.e011

Nice!

 

[+Bob+]

A. .Net Framework is 'essential' to software/developer/engineers only

B. Most Windows users will have no meaningful, substantive need either to
install .Net Framework & nor have any strong reason that argues against
uninstalling .Net Framework (assuming that uninstalling will not create
unexpected or previously reported collateral issues that have not been
resolved).

It will be 'essential' if the software you purchase requires it to be
installed. MS's plan for world domination includes the ability for
software to run inside or outside the browser, locally or from the
'net, transparently to the user and .net is their pathway to that.
They push it very heavily to developers who will be using it more and
more in applications you purchase.

FYI- there are install issues with 3.5... and it does an awful lot of
calling home at the end under the guise of "optimization". I don't
know if anyone has studied where it calls and what it transports.

 

[gareth erskine-jones]

I experienced endless WinUpdate update issues with .net framework on my W2K
pc - but so far none with Vista Ultimate.

I just ran 2 'Important' Vista WinUpdates - a hotfix and an update for .net
framework 3.5 SP1 - no problems.

However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea just how important
.Net Framework is to the average user like myself who's much less a PC
enthusiast than I was almost 20 years ago & primarily today more an email
and news junkie. So I checked out what Wikipedia posts on Net Framework -
and except for nerdy gobbledygook - got precisely no idea just how important
.NET Framework is to me.

May I ask a MS knowledgeable or other professional person to help me
understand 'just how important' for a user like me? If WinUpdate indicates
it's not 'essential' - than what exactly do I lose, if anything, by
uninstalling .NET Framework?

Please advise - Blithe

The .NET framework is a set of libraries (plus a few other things). If
you don't have it on your machine, and you try to install or use an
application which requires it, you'll be told about the problem and
will be able to install it at that point. Until that happens, you
don't need it. Uninstalling it will almost certainly not cause you any
serious problems. If you do have a .NET application on your machine,
then uninstalling the framework will mean those applications will not
run - but that's not a disaster, when you attempt to run them, they'll
complain about the missing framework, and you can reinstall it at that
point.

GSEJ

 

[FredW]

Nice!

And Microsoft turned this back within a few weeks (with excuses).

 

[FredW]

MS doesn't need FF. So FF is going to dance to MS's tune, if it's to be
a viable solution on the MS platforms Vista and beyound.

ROTFL

It is nice to see you how totally prejudiced you are.
I assume you feel "assimilated" by Microsoft.
(resistance to Microsoft (and .NET Framework) is futile)

 

[+Bob+]

ROTFL

It is nice to see you how totally prejudiced you are.
I assume you feel "assimilated" by Microsoft.
(resistance to Microsoft (and .NET Framework) is futile)

Not to mention, MS hasn't done that well pushing their proprietary
shite in the last couple years. They keep trying, but the Internet
Community doesn't roll over like others MS has bulldozed.

 

[Paul Randall]

The .NET framework is a set of libraries (plus a few other things). If
you don't have it on your machine, and you try to install or use an
application which requires it, you'll be told about the problem and
will be able to install it at that point. Until that happens, you
don't need it. Uninstalling it will almost certainly not cause you any
serious problems. If you do have a .NET application on your machine,
then uninstalling the framework will mean those applications will not
run - but that's not a disaster, when you attempt to run them, they'll
complain about the missing framework, and you can reinstall it at that
point.

GSEJ

Nice explaination.
Question: if you uninstall all your .Net versions, and then run a program
that requires one of them, and you allow its automatic installation, then
will this installation be completely up to date, or will Microsoft's Update
program want to do a few years worth of updates to this .Net version?

-Paul Randall

 

[gareth erskine-jones]

Nice explaination.
Question: if you uninstall all your .Net versions, and then run a program
that requires one of them, and you allow its automatic installation, then
will this installation be completely up to date, or will Microsoft's Update
program want to do a few years worth of updates to this .Net version?

I suspect it would depend on when you do it - whether they've updated
the download recently, or released any new patches.

I've just tried this on a fresh XP install. I installed all of the
updates from windows update, except for the .NET framework versions
which were offered (I chose to hide those).

Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
initialize properly").

I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
time I got the prompt to install the framework:

This setup requires the .NET framwork version 3.5 Please install the
..NET framework and run this setup again. The .NET framework can be
obtained from the web. Would you like to do this now?

Clicking "Yes" opened up a browser at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/netframework/aa569263.aspx, and the
file downloaded from there was the standard dotnetfx35setup.exe.

Once the install was complete I ran windows update again. Four new
updates appeared - two explicity for the 3.5 framework, one for XP
(mentioning the framework) and one to install powershell. Those
updates altogether weighed in at 72Mb - more than the framework
itself!

GSEJ

 

[xfile]

Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of

the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
initialize properly").

I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
time I got the prompt to install the framework:

More thoughtful application providers would bundle required components (e.g.
..Net framework, java runtime, or DirectX etc.), and the install routine will
first check the system to see if the required component(s) had been
installed, and if not, it will perform the installation for the component(s)
before proceeding to the main program.

I could be wrong but I think that most programs will and can only include
the major version of the component, but not all updates such as security
patches.

Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of "its"
components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
(e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use for
other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.

 

[Paul Randall]

I suspect it would depend on when you do it - whether they've updated
the download recently, or released any new patches.

I've just tried this on a fresh XP install. I installed all of the
updates from windows update, except for the .NET framework versions
which were offered (I chose to hide those).

Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
initialize properly").

I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
time I got the prompt to install the framework:

This setup requires the .NET framwork version 3.5 Please install the
.NET framework and run this setup again. The .NET framework can be
obtained from the web. Would you like to do this now?

Clicking "Yes" opened up a browser at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/netframework/aa569263.aspx, and the
file downloaded from there was the standard dotnetfx35setup.exe.

Once the install was complete I ran windows update again. Four new
updates appeared - two explicity for the 3.5 framework, one for XP
(mentioning the framework) and one to install powershell. Those
updates altogether weighed in at 72Mb - more than the framework
itself!

GSEJ

Thanks for the testing results.

-Paul Randall

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of "its"
components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
(e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use for
other programs or wishes it to be totally removed.

<Snipped a bit>

Imagine this. My grandfather installs program x, which requires and
installs Net Framework 3.5. Some time later he installs program y, which
also requires Net Framework 3.5, but doesn't install it because it's there.

Now he uninstalls program x, which then follows your idea and uninstalls
Net Framework 3.5.

Now program y is broken and my grandfather doesn't know why. Furthermore,
he asks me to help him and I don't know why either...

 

[xfile]

Hi,


You brought up an interesting question which also is a challenging one for
application developers (doesn't imply I am one).

Since I have no idea for if you or your beloved grandfather (or anyone else)
would use it, so I said:

Notice that I used "or" so one, as a user, doesn't have to remove it.

The question is, as a user, one may not know if he/she would use it. But
then again, an average user might not dig so deep to find out if those
components were still there.

In any case, here comes the developer's role. As a general rule, I would
say to remove all of the application's components upon performing an
uninstallation process. But this is one of the rare occasions when I would
say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party components intact when the
program is being removed.

The primary concern is exactly to prevent the scenario as you described and
there is no way for an average user to know where might be the problem, and
the publisher of program Y might be falsely blamed.

So if it was my call, I would say to leave those commonly shared 3rd party
components (as opposed to proprietary components developed by the publisher
and used solely for the program).

But not every one thinks the same, so there are programs that will remove
everything indiscriminately.

Hope I've answered your question.