To .NET or not .NET, that is the question

I'm running WinXP pro 32-bit, meaning I've got the version 
1-dot-something of .NET that XP came with.  I've been looking for 
various softwares, and more and more often come across .NET version 2 
being prerequisite.  No urgency for me re. my questions to this group - 
so far I have just decided to hit the red X on those download pages - 
but the desire for this newer version of .NET seems to be growing for me.
Firstly, according to my (limited) research, newer .NET versions are 
inclusive of the previous ones, and the current version seems to be 3.5. 
  So if I go for it, I shouldn't just get version 2, but go for the 
latest.  Right?
I'm soliciting comments about .NET regarding security in particular, but 
also stability, maintenance issues, and the like.  Your war stories, but 
also stories about things that are a "win" for you, would be nice. 
Opinions OK, hearsay maybe OK, actual experience better, or references 
to online resources.
I'm already aware of the recent .NETv3.5 SP issue with the Firefox plug 
in, and I'm willing to live with it, so I'm unclear that further 
discussion of *that* particular thing will shed any new light.
TIA for your suggestions and help!
--FM /)`
0
FM
6/2/2009 8:28:38 PM
📁 grc.security.software
📃 15003 articles.
⭐ 0 followers.

💬 15 Replies
👁️‍🗨️ 3759 Views


On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:28:38 -0700, FM wrote:
> I'm running WinXP pro 32-bit, meaning I've got the version 
> 1-dot-something of .NET that XP came with.  I've been looking for 
> various softwares, and more and more often come across .NET version 2 
> being prerequisite.  No urgency for me re. my questions to this group - 
> so far I have just decided to hit the red X on those download pages - 
> but the desire for this newer version of .NET seems to be growing for me.
Try to fight it :)
 
> Firstly, according to my (limited) research, newer .NET versions are 
> inclusive of the previous ones, and the current version seems to be 3.5. 
>   So if I go for it, I shouldn't just get version 2, but go for the 
> latest.  Right?
When i installed the 3.5 package, quite some time ago, I also got 1.1,
2.0, and 3.0 installed as well as 3.5.
 
> I'm soliciting comments about .NET regarding security in particular, but 
> also stability, maintenance issues, and the like.  Your war stories, but 
> also stories about things that are a "win" for you, would be nice. 
> Opinions OK, hearsay maybe OK, actual experience better, or references 
> to online resources.
The only 'win' for me was that I was able to run Sea Tools. Other than
that, I see no use for it so far.
 
> I'm already aware of the recent .NETv3.5 SP issue with the Firefox plug 
> in, and I'm willing to live with it, so I'm unclear that further 
> discussion of *that* particular thing will shed any new light.
There was some useful discussion of the subject in these ngs, when it
was a new issue. I don't recall exactly where or when, sorry.
-- 
One
0
One
6/2/2009 8:51:21 PM
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:28:38 -0700, FM <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>I'm already aware of the recent .NETv3.5 SP issue with the Firefox plug 
>in, and I'm willing to live with it, so I'm unclear that further 
>discussion of *that* particular thing will shed any new light.
>
>TIA for your suggestions and help!
Something to read:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/cc378097.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/default.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/pages/8904493.aspx
I removed the 3.5 version from my new Vista.
(just as I uninstalled all versions on my previous WinXP.)
I avoid all software requiring some version of .NET Framework.
So far I had to avoid one(1) programs.
(and lots of alternatives available.)
 ;-)
-- 
Fred W. (NL)
0
FredW
6/2/2009 9:24:04 PM
FredW wrote:
> I removed the 3.5 version from my new Vista.
> (just as I uninstalled all versions on my previous WinXP.)
> I avoid all software requiring some version of .NET Framework.
Um... a few hints regarding your motivations and reasoning would be more 
helpful to me than just your final decision/action.  Otherwise I have no 
way of interpreting this comment for my own decision.  Thanks.
--FM /)`
0
FM
6/2/2009 9:56:55 PM
Reposting this, it appears to have failed to post; sorry if it 
eventually appears twice:
One wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:28:38 -0700, FM wrote:
> 
>> I'm running WinXP pro 32-bit, meaning I've got the version 
>> 1-dot-something of .NET that XP came with.  I've been looking for 
>> various softwares, and more and more often come across .NET version 2 
>> being prerequisite.  No urgency for me re. my questions to this group - 
>> so far I have just decided to hit the red X on those download pages - 
>> but the desire for this newer version of .NET seems to be growing for me.
> 
> Try to fight it :)
LOL!
>> Firstly, according to my (limited) research, newer .NET versions are 
>> inclusive of the previous ones, and the current version seems to be 3.5. 
>>   So if I go for it, I shouldn't just get version 2, but go for the 
>> latest.  Right?
> 
> When i installed the 3.5 package, quite some time ago, I also got 1.1,
> 2.0, and 3.0 installed as well as 3.5.
So different .NET versions co-reside, rather than higher versions
subsuming the previous ones?  That's *VERY* useful feedback for me.  Thanks!
--FM /)`
0
FM
6/2/2009 10:24:32 PM
FM wrote:
> Um... a few hints regarding your motivations and reasoning would be
> more helpful to me than just your final decision/action.  Otherwise I
> have no way of interpreting this comment for my own decision.  Thanks.
> 
> --FM /)`
There is no reason to avoid .NET unless you just have a thing against
Microsoft technologies.  It's a runtime environment, much like Java.
I write .NET applications.  It's handy for programming and it can make
very decent Windows applications.  Avoiding .NET applications is like
avoiding Visual Basic application, rather silly.  .NET has faults but
it also has advantages.  Tradeoffs.  Programming in C++ or C has faults
and tradeoffs as well.
The different versions of .NET can co-exist on the same machine.  A
higher version doesn't replace a lower version.  So if you have an
application that requires .NET 2.0 you'll need the .NET 2.0 runtime
installed.  If you also have an application that requires .NET 3.0
you'll also need the .NET 3.0 runtime installed.
Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of the .NET Framework.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework>
0
Terminator
6/3/2009 9:30:05 AM
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:56:55 -0700, FM <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>FredW wrote:
>> I removed the 3.5 version from my new Vista.
>> (just as I uninstalled all versions on my previous WinXP.)
>> I avoid all software requiring some version of .NET Framework.
>
>Um... a few hints regarding your motivations and reasoning would be more 
>helpful to me than just your final decision/action.  Otherwise I have no 
>way of interpreting this comment for my own decision.  Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET#Microsoft_.NET
http://www.oldapps.com/net_framework.htm
"The .NET framework is a competing product to Sun's Java and J2EE
technology and it shares many concepts with it."
It is an effort by Microsoft to have programs developed using versions
of .NET Framework, just as Silverlight is an effort by Microsoft to cut
off the competition (Macromedia/Adobe).
So far I have seen very few programs using a version of .NET Framework
and programs not using Framework work very well, so there is no pressing
need to use .NET Framework.
I have nothing against "Microsoft Technologies" (see Terminator Stout),
but I have something against Microsoft trying to "rule the word"
 (= being a blatant monopolist)
-- 
Fred W. (NL)
0
FredW
6/3/2009 10:42:51 AM
"FM" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:h048rr$13bf$1@news.grc.com...
>
> So different .NET versions co-reside, rather than higher versions
> subsuming the previous ones?  That's *VERY* useful feedback for me. 
> Thanks!
>
> --FM /)`
Yes.  They run "together"...  I am a .NET developer (When I'm not writing 
"Real" C / C++ / Assembler code =P), and I have 3.5 installed, and can run 
some old 1.1 apps along with my latest 3.5 apps...
Jake 
0
Jacob
6/3/2009 2:57:02 PM
"Terminator Stout" <anon38529@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:xn0gaygts182m0p000@news.grc.com...
>
> There is no reason to avoid .NET unless you just have a thing against
> Microsoft technologies.  It's a runtime environment, much like Java.
>
> I write .NET applications.  It's handy for programming and it can make
> very decent Windows applications.  Avoiding .NET applications is like
> avoiding Visual Basic application, rather silly.  .NET has faults but
> it also has advantages.  Tradeoffs.  Programming in C++ or C has faults
> and tradeoffs as well.
>
> The different versions of .NET can co-exist on the same machine.  A
> higher version doesn't replace a lower version.  So if you have an
> application that requires .NET 2.0 you'll need the .NET 2.0 runtime
> installed.  If you also have an application that requires .NET 3.0
> you'll also need the .NET 3.0 runtime installed.
>
> Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of the .NET Framework.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework>
Nicely put!
Jake 
0
Jacob
6/3/2009 3:03:01 PM
"FredW" <fredw@blackholespam.net> wrote in message 
news:gmjc25pcf613lvdrokhnno75abjdcl615v@4ax.com...
[SNIP]
>
> I have nothing against "Microsoft Technologies" (see Terminator Stout),
> but I have something against Microsoft trying to "rule the word"
> (= being a blatant monopolist)
>
> -- 
> Fred W. (NL)
So do you use Windows?
Jake 
0
Jacob
6/3/2009 3:03:29 PM
"Jacob Janzen" <jjanzen@nymtec.com> wrote in message 
news:h065bk$2gcc$4@news.grc.com...
>
> So do you use Windows?
>
The first question that actually popped into my mind was "Do you use Google 
and Google apps?"

0
Nobody
6/3/2009 4:15:50 PM
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:15:50 -0400, "Nobody" <trinity@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>"Jacob Janzen" <jjanzen@nymtec.com> wrote in message 
>news:h065bk$2gcc$4@news.grc.com...
>>
>> So do you use Windows?
>>
>
>The first question that actually popped into my mind was "Do you use Google 
>and Google apps?"
Does Google use some version of .NET Framework?
 LOL
-- 
Fred W. (NL)
0
FredW
6/3/2009 6:56:04 PM
Terminator Stout wrote:
> There is no reason to avoid .NET unless you just have a thing against
> Microsoft technologies.  It's a runtime environment, much like Java.
> 
> The different versions of .NET can co-exist on the same machine.  A
> higher version doesn't replace a lower version.  So if you have an
> application that requires .NET 2.0 you'll need the .NET 2.0 runtime
> installed.  If you also have an application that requires .NET 3.0
> you'll also need the .NET 3.0 runtime installed.
Hmmm....
Java RE download (smallest version) is ~ 15MB, I think.  From my (ever 
continuing to fail more) memory, 60MB free disk space or so is the 
minimum needed.
..NET framework 2.0 download is 24MB.  More or less comparable to Java, 
it would seem.  But minimum disk space is documented by MS as 280 MB. 
What's *that* for??
..Net 3.5 download is 207MB (!!!), where MS bundles *all* the previous 
..NET versions.  Free disk needed (from my humble memory), 600MB.  Having 
..NET versions as separate, co-existing run-times could be very expensive 
to the user, it would seem.  Hmph.
--FM /)`
0
FM
6/3/2009 7:44:46 PM
"FredW" <fredw@blackholespam.net> wrote in message 
news:7ohd25dtipodl0s593klb7sad3notvgnmg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:15:50 -0400, "Nobody" <trinity@nobody.com> wrote:
>>The first question that actually popped into my mind was "Do you use 
>>Google
>>and Google apps?"
>
> Does Google use some version of .NET Framework?
> LOL
>
> -- 
> Fred W. (NL)
Yeah I was wondering the same...  They can't possibly be using .NET can 
they?
-- 
_________________________________
Jake
      http://www.nymtec.com 
0
Jacob
6/3/2009 8:29:47 PM
FM wrote:
> Hmmm....
> 
> Java RE download (smallest version) is ~ 15MB, I think.  From my
> (ever continuing to fail more) memory, 60MB free disk space or so is
> the minimum needed.
> 
> .NET framework 2.0 download is 24MB.  More or less comparable to
> Java, it would seem.  But minimum disk space is documented by MS as
> 280 MB. What's that for??
> 
> .Net 3.5 download is 207MB (!!!), where MS bundles all the previous
> .NET versions.  Free disk needed (from my humble memory), 600MB.
> Having .NET versions as separate, co-existing run-times could be very
> expensive to the user, it would seem.  Hmph.
> 
> --FM /)`
The space needed is all relative.  Unless you are trying to fit Windows
in a small partition it really isn't an issue any more.
The space needed for C/C++ applications isn't free either.  The
libraries and dlls needed by C/C++ applications take space too.  Just
because those libraries come with the OS and you can't run the OS
without them doesn't mean they are free.  What about the space needed
for things like DirectX?
I'd prefer that desktop applications like Adobe Acrobat Reader were
written in .NET.  We would be seeing fewer buffer overflows and other
security problems in those apps.  C/C++ code just isn't safe for
desktop apps that open and parse files.
0
Terminator
6/3/2009 9:58:05 PM
Terminator Stout wrote:
> The space needed is all relative.  Unless you are trying to fit Windows
> in a small partition it really isn't an issue any more.
Well, I *am* trying to fit Windows into a (somewhat) small partition, 
but that does not negate any of your very insightful comments.  Thanks 
for the well thought-out and clear input to this discussion, it's really 
appreciated.
--FM /)`
0
FM
6/3/2009 10:25:25 PM
Reply: