Update XP - .NET how to avoid ALL of the Updates

[- Bobb -]

First of all, for 'just a regular user' is .NET even necessary on a home PC
box ?
V2.0, 3.5 , 4.0 ???

With a fresh XP SP3 install if you run Windowsupdate there are hundreds of
updates: .NET, Security etc. Is there a way to cleanup/reinstall XP and have
all of the needed updates as part of the install - so it doesn't install
required update #1 and then after next boot update THAT update ?

When SP3 rolled out I made a compressed CD install for XP, but SO many since
then ... does that work for these layers of add-ons ? ( .Net as a big
example)
If so, how to integrate all of the .NET stuff so it all only happens ONCE ?

Here's an example of the old way of creating the XP "OS" cd -
http://www.informationweek.com/news/47212312

Now I assume that I'd need to put it onto a DVD since there is SO much to
update.
A pointer to such a process would be great . I've tried and can't find the
'right one' online.

 

[Paul]

First of all, for 'just a regular user' is .NET even necessary on a home PC
box ?
V2.0, 3.5 , 4.0 ???

With a fresh XP SP3 install if you run Windowsupdate there are hundreds of
updates: .NET, Security etc. Is there a way to cleanup/reinstall XP and have
all of the needed updates as part of the install - so it doesn't install
required update #1 and then after next boot update THAT update ?

When SP3 rolled out I made a compressed CD install for XP, but SO many since
then ... does that work for these layers of add-ons ? ( .Net as a big
example)
If so, how to integrate all of the .NET stuff so it all only happens ONCE ?

Here's an example of the old way of creating the XP "OS" cd -
http://www.informationweek.com/news/47212312

Now I assume that I'd need to put it onto a DVD since there is SO much to
update.
A pointer to such a process would be great . I've tried and can't find the
'right one' online.

NLite seems to have a "patch" entry in its menu. But I don't know
what format the downloads have to be in, to add them.

http://www.nliteos.com/guide/part2.html

I did a repair install recently, and there were over a hundred things
to add to SP3, perhaps 107MB total downloads. Maybe the whole thing would
still fit on one CD, hard to say.

There is also Autopatcher, but when I wanted to use this, as support for
Win2K was dying, there wasn't an up to date set of patches for it,
so the idea was useless for that OS. Perhaps they've put more work into
WinXP. You could check that out as another alternative.

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

It just sounds like a lot of work to me. Reviewing the patches I had to do,
took a bit of time, but it probably wouldn't be so bad if I had to do them
again some time. If I was reduced to dialup networking again, I'd likely
have a second opinion at that point.

I would become interested in Autopatcher, about three months before support
for WinXP ends. If there's a good set, I'd grab a copy at that point.

My machine only needs .NET 2.0, and the pending "upgrade" in Windows
Update, is of no use to me. My video driver control panel, was the
only dependency on .NET 2.0. I haven't acquired any other software that
needs it. Some Windows OSes, already come with a minimum version, so
you can't delete all of them on those OSes. Even when using 2.0, there
are still security updates for it, so the stream of "stuff" never ends.

Paul

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Note that it's not .net that you are offered to get updates for. It's
the .net *framework*.

You are right that "for 'just a regular user'... .NET [is not]
necessary on a home PC" That's because .net is needed to *write*
programs using that technology. But if you run a program written with
..net you need the appropriate version of the .net framework. And since
many programs these days are written with some .net version, almost
every "regular user" needs the various .net frameworks.

Even if today you don't run any program that need .net frameworks,
tomorrow you almost certainly will. So from a practical standpoint,
almost everyone needs all those frameworks.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

 

[- Bobb -]

Note that it's not .net that you are offered to get updates for. It's
the .net *framework*.

You are right that "for 'just a regular user'... .NET [is not]
necessary on a home PC" That's because .net is needed to *write*
programs using that technology. But if you run a program written with
.net you need the appropriate version of the .net framework. And since
many programs these days are written with some .net version, almost
every "regular user" needs the various .net frameworks.

Even if today you don't run any program that need .net frameworks,
tomorrow you almost certainly will. So from a practical standpoint,
almost everyone needs all those frameworks.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

Just seems like an awful lot of code for each framework that ' a regular
user' MAY never use.
I'd think that V4 would be compatible with older versions so only V4 or
whatever 'the latest' becomes would be sufficient , rather than downloading
hundreds of mb for each.

Thanks for the feedback folks

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

- Bobb - wrote:
First of all, for 'just a regular user' is .NET even necessary on a
home PC
box ?
V2.0, 3.5 , 4.0 ???

Note that it's not .net that you are offered to get updates for. It's
the .net *framework*.

You are right that "for 'just a regular user'... .NET [is not]
necessary on a home PC" That's because .net is needed to *write*
programs using that technology. But if you run a program written with
.net you need the appropriate version of the .net framework. And since
many programs these days are written with some .net version, almost
every "regular user" needs the various .net frameworks.

Even if today you don't run any program that need .net frameworks,
tomorrow you almost certainly will. So from a practical standpoint,
almost everyone needs all those frameworks.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

Just seems like an awful lot of code for each framework that ' a regular
user' MAY never use.
I'd think that V4 would be compatible with older versions so only V4 or
whatever 'the latest' becomes would be sufficient , rather than downloading
hundreds of mb for each.

An "awful lot of code"? If you add them all together, they come to
something under 1GB.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a *tiny* amount of disk space. These
days when almost no new computer has less than 500GB or so, and when
you can buy a new 500GB drive for $70 US or so, that's 14 cents worth
of disk space.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

 

[Char Jackson]

I find it interesting that you consider 1GB of code a modest sum, Ken.
Just on the principle of the thing.

I agree with Ken that 1GB is a speck, these days. Even entry level
computers are coming with 500GB drives, (465GB usable), so allocating
1GB for a 'framework' (similar to a shared library) isn't significant.

I am having a hard time imagining what on earth needs that much. ....
I'm trying to imagine an app that actually requires 1 GB of code.

No app needs all of that code, but each .Net app needs some of it. By
downloading and installing the framework one time, all of the other
apps that depend on it will benefit.

 

[Char Jackson]

I didn't find the need for apps that require it (or at least above ver 2.0),
since most apps have indeed been written without needing it (and its
consequent bloat and overhead - particularly in the later version
libraries).

Of course it makes it easier for some coders, but that's beside the point,
since there (usually are) some good program app alternatives that don't
require .NET that can do the same job, at least for the apps I've looked at.
(again, at least for all of the audio or video apps, or system utilities, or
what have you, that I've ever used or needed).

But maybe there are some apps that are *only* available using .NET, however,
without any other suitable alternatives (if so, I don't know what they are,
or how useful they are, for most consumers).

You're free to do what you want, of course, but I don't choose to
limit myself in the way that you have. If my research shows that I
should be using a particular program, then that's the program I want,
not some alternative that may be a poor cousin to the first one.

I still think 1 GB of code is "overkill". But maybe I'm a Luddite.

I disagree with the first part, but regarding the second part, there's
no doubt about it.

 

[- Bobb -]

- Bobb - wrote:
First of all, for 'just a regular user' is .NET even necessary on a
home PC
box ?
V2.0, 3.5 , 4.0 ???



Note that it's not .net that you are offered to get updates for. It's
the .net *framework*.

You are right that "for 'just a regular user'... .NET [is not]
necessary on a home PC" That's because .net is needed to *write*
programs using that technology. But if you run a program written with
.net you need the appropriate version of the .net framework. And since
many programs these days are written with some .net version, almost
every "regular user" needs the various .net frameworks.

Even if today you don't run any program that need .net frameworks,
tomorrow you almost certainly will. So from a practical standpoint,
almost everyone needs all those frameworks.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

Just seems like an awful lot of code for each framework that ' a regular
user' MAY never use.
I'd think that V4 would be compatible with older versions so only V4 or
whatever 'the latest' becomes would be sufficient , rather than
downloading
hundreds of mb for each.

An "awful lot of code"? If you add them all together, they come to
something under 1GB.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a *tiny* amount of disk space. These
days when almost no new computer has less than 500GB or so, and when
you can buy a new 500GB drive for $70 US or so, that's 14 cents worth
of disk space.

I find it interesting that you consider 1GB of code a modest sum, Ken.

Just on the principle of the thing.

I am having a hard time imagining what on earth needs that much. There
are better alternatives - like using apps written w/o requiring .NET, that
are much tighter. I stopped with .NET 2.0 and apps that required
anything higher (there generally are alternative software apps that don't
require it, at least for the apps I've been interested in)

Granted, I'm not running a business, but what on earth is so essential
that it needs .NET 3.5 or 4 or whatever, that doesn't have a suitable
alternative in "more native code", that is much smaller (and efficient)?

I'm trying to imagine an app that actually requires 1 GB of code. OK, I
give up. But then again, I'm just a regular home user, not
working for the military.

My original post had to do with " doing a clean install" from slipstream XP
media. That's why I was trying to integrate the .NET stuff. It wasn't so
much the time - it's the reboots,update,reboot. I was trying to learn if/how
to do it efficiently.