Solve : Microsoft.NET Framework for non-programmers?

1.	Solve : Microsoft.NET Framework for non-programmers?
Answer» Microsoft.NET Framework is a huge program and the Updates are even worse. Is it really necessary for casual Internet users (browsing, downloading, email, Office, etc.)? I have three old XP loaded machines and one Windows 8 downgraded to 7. The old machines really need the space. Is it safe, and how, to remove it? I generally use Revo Uninstaller but that may be too much if there are parts of .NET to leave..Net is required for specific software applications to function properly. I'd leave the .Net alone and look for other methods to reduce data that is taking up space such as purging the browser cache, dumping cookies, temporary internet files, and uninstalling any unnecessary software from the systems. * Before dumping cached browser data be sure you know your passwords to sites etc, as for I have seen people do this before and then realize they forgot their password that they havent used in AGES because the computer browser had it stored and now its gone from system as well as the users memory. You probably should also store any important data such as music, personal data, etc onto an external hard drive as for systems of the age running XP are likely high risk for data loss. Moving this data off these systems onto a large external would free up hdd space. Other option is to install larger hard drivesQuote from: kenaudivw2 on December 15, 2014, 11:58:31 AM Microsoft.NET Framework is a huge program and the Updates are even worse. All the framework versions are <100 MB each. The largest is 68MB or so. Typically you might only need two for most applications to function properly. I find it unlikely that you are in such a case of needing space that you would have to look to deleting system components to get more- particularly since uninstalling the .NET Framework isn't going to recover very much space. It is usually more reasonable to move or delete user files from C:\Users\. The vast majority of data is going to be found there and in larger installed applications. One useful tool I use to track disk space usage is WinDirStat (website). Very useful. If it is okay with y'all, may we go a little deeper with this discussion? What I mean is, what do some of you very experienced Windows OS folks think about upgrading the .Net Framework on our Windows OS units? One example would be on a Vista machine I have there is in the options for updates an option to install .Net Framework 4.5.1 and I am wondering what some of y'all might think about installing it or not? Or, even better, as the OP put it here: Quote Is it really necessary for casual Internet users (browsing, downloading, email, Office, etc.)? Is 4.5.1 necessary for the casual Internet user?For Windows Updates, the "updates" as I understand, apply to installed Framework versions. Sort of like how you will be shown Office updates if you have Office installed. So if it is showing you "UPDATE for .NET Framework 3.5" than you already have that software installed- and an update is available for it. You should install most such updates as they appear in Windows Update. Sometimes later versions will appear as optional updates. For example, on my Windows Vista Virtual Machine I see updates for 2.0, 3.5, and 4.0 in the "important updates" section. I have these installed. However, 4.5.1 is in the "optional" update section, because I don't have it installed. Regarding "Upgrading"- in terms of the actual Framework versions, they aren't 100% upgrading- that is, 4.5.1 is a new version but cannot run every single thing written against earlier versions. It get's complicated, particularly since some applications written for one framework version may work on another version but another program written against the same version might fail to run on that same version (Different applications can require different parts of the framework). The best approach from a user perspective is to install the framework versions as applications need them. Most programs include installers which will install them. If you are seeing updates in Windows Update for 4.5, for example, and you didn't install it yourself, it is likely that you installed a program which uses it. A common example of this is the Radeon/AMD Front-end Driver software, which will install .NET Framework 4.0. Wow, PC_programmer, You list yourself as a "beginner"? Now I (listed as "familiar") have to go back and relist myself. Is there such a level as "pre-beginner"? In defense of my concern; Microsoft.NET Framework 2.0 shows as occupying 301MB and 3.0 at 244MB in my XP system. If there is not a good reason to keep NET, that's equivalent to a program the size of MS Office.As has been mentioned, the .NET stuff does not take a lot of space. But some third-party applications can take over 500 MB. When those applications n are ported to .NET, the overall use of disk space is more efficient. When a numberr of applications allude the same run-time library, there is less duplication of the same material in other libraries. For example, a good floating point library does not have to be very large. But if users what more features and greater precision, the library grows to be larger. Having one large floating point library is more efficient that have five libraries of many sizes and precision. The above idea could be extended to include other kinds of things that go into libraries. Like SQL resources. Sort routines. Matrix multiplication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runtime_library At one time it MADE sense to use compilers with program size options. But nowadays users are buying 64 bit systems with 8 GB of RAM and a terabyte of storage. So you can make an argument either way. It HARDLY even matters. If you don't like updates, don't take them. Quote from: kenaudivw2 on December 16, 2014, 10:02:02 AM Wow, PC_programmer, You list yourself as a "beginner"? Now I (listed as "familiar") have to go back and relist myself. Is there such a level as "pre-beginner"? In defense of my concern; Microsoft.NET Framework 2.0 shows as occupying 301MB and 3.0 at 244MB in my XP system. If there is not a good reason to keep NET, that's equivalent to a program the size of MS Office. One possibility is that the algorithm that is used to try to estimate the disk space usage is incorrect, this could be the case for the .NET Framework- particular 2.0, which only uses typically 20 or so MB. On XP, I think that algorithm- as detailed in this blog post for the curious, could be to blame. Quote It goes through all the programs on your Start menu and compares their names with the display name of the uninstallable item. It looks for Start menu items which share at least two words with the words in the DisplayName. For example, if there were a Start menu item called "Pretty Decent Windows Program", this would count as a two-word match ("Windows" and "Program"). It then takes the one with the most matches and decides, "Okay, I guess this is it." Suppose for the sake of illustration that the best match is indeed "Pretty Decent Windows Program.lnk", which is a shortcut to "C:\Program Files\LitWare\Decent Program\Decent.exe". Add/Remove Programs would decide that "Awesome Program for Windows" should get the icon for "Pretty Decent Windows Program.lnk", that the frequency of use and most-recently-used information for "C:\Program Files\LitWare\Decent Program\Decent.exe" will be displayed for "Awesome Program for Windows". But wait, there's more. There's also the program size. Add/Remove Programs looks in your "Program Files" directory for directories whose names share at least two words in common with the DisplayName. The best match is assumed to be the directory that the program files are installed into. The sizes are added together and reported as the size of "Awesome Program for Windows". So based on that explanation, if for some reason the registration information listing the size is missing (This could be due to things like tune up tools, registry cleaners, etc), Windows will guess the size information by looking for the closest match in Program Files. And given that .NET installs to several folders, and "Microsoft.NET" (The one folder in Program Files that seems directly related) isn't always going to be the best match for ".NET Framework 3.5 Client Profile" it could be getting that size information from the wrong folder- and even if it is the best match, matching that folder will instead list the size of every single framework installed. The differing sizes could be each version matching a different folder. Of course, that is just a theory. I note something curious, though- on my XP VM I see .NET 4.0 Client Profile listed at 117MB. This size is registered as the size in the listed location in that post. However, when I look at the size of the proper install location, I find that the actual size on disk is actually around 300MB. Removing a version of .NET you are using won't break anything terribly- you can just reinstall it again if you find that to be the case. Quote Wow, PC_programmer, You list yourself as a "beginner"? Now I (listed as "familiar") have to go back and relist myself. Is there such a level as "pre-beginner"? At some point the forum software was upgraded and that field was not brought forward. I left it at the default because I no longer felt self evaluations were very trustworthy beyond a certain point and there is no way to not enter something. Arguably the more one learns about, the more one learns how much they haven't learned, because of all the PERIPHERY unlearned concepts you find out about along the way. Also when it comes to things like say Graphics Cards I am far more ignorant of specifics and typically defer to the experience of others about whether one Graphics card is going to run better than another.

Answer»

Microsoft.NET Framework is a huge program and the Updates are even worse. Is it really necessary for casual Internet users (browsing, downloading, email, Office, etc.)? I have three old XP loaded machines and one Windows 8 downgraded to 7. The old machines really need the space. Is it safe, and how, to remove it? I generally use Revo Uninstaller but that may be too much if there are parts of .NET to leave..Net is required for specific software applications to function properly. I'd leave the .Net alone and look for other methods to reduce data that is taking up space such as purging the browser cache, dumping cookies, temporary internet files, and uninstalling any unnecessary software from the systems. * Before dumping cached browser data be sure you know your passwords to sites etc, as for I have seen people do this before and then realize they forgot their password that they havent used in AGES because the computer browser had it stored and now its gone from system as well as the users memory.

You probably should also store any important data such as music, personal data, etc onto an external hard drive as for systems of the age running XP are likely high risk for data loss. Moving this data off these systems onto a large external would free up hdd space.

Other option is to install larger hard drivesQuote from: kenaudivw2 on December 15, 2014, 11:58:31 AM

Microsoft.NET Framework is a huge program and the Updates are even worse.

All the framework versions are <100 MB each. The largest is 68MB or so. Typically you might only need two for most applications to function properly. I find it unlikely that you are in such a case of needing space that you would have to look to deleting system components to get more- particularly since uninstalling the .NET Framework isn't going to recover very much space. It is usually more reasonable to move or delete user files from C:\Users\. The vast majority of data is going to be found there and in larger installed applications.
One useful tool I use to track disk space usage is WinDirStat (website). Very useful.
If it is okay with y'all, may we go a little deeper with this discussion?

What I mean is, what do some of you very experienced Windows OS folks think about upgrading the .Net Framework on our Windows OS units?

One example would be on a Vista machine I have there is in the options for updates an option to install .Net Framework 4.5.1 and I am wondering what some of y'all might think about installing it or not?

Or, even better, as the OP put it here:

Quote

Is it really necessary for casual Internet users (browsing, downloading, email, Office, etc.)?

Is 4.5.1 necessary for the casual Internet user?For Windows Updates, the "updates" as I understand, apply to installed Framework versions. Sort of like how you will be shown Office updates if you have Office installed. So if it is showing you "UPDATE for .NET Framework 3.5" than you already have that software installed- and an update is available for it. You should install most such updates as they appear in Windows Update. Sometimes later versions will appear as optional updates. For example, on my Windows Vista Virtual Machine I see updates for 2.0, 3.5, and 4.0 in the "important updates" section. I have these installed. However, 4.5.1 is in the "optional" update section, because I don't have it installed.

Regarding "Upgrading"- in terms of the actual Framework versions, they aren't 100% upgrading- that is, 4.5.1 is a new version but cannot run every single thing written against earlier versions.

It get's complicated, particularly since some applications written for one framework version may work on another version but another program written against the same version might fail to run on that same version (Different applications can require different parts of the framework). The best approach from a user perspective is to install the framework versions as applications need them. Most programs include installers which will install them. If you are seeing updates in Windows Update for 4.5, for example, and you didn't install it yourself, it is likely that you installed a program which uses it. A common example of this is the Radeon/AMD Front-end Driver software, which will install .NET Framework 4.0. Wow, PC_programmer, You list yourself as a "beginner"? Now I (listed as "familiar") have to go back and relist myself. Is there such a level as "pre-beginner"?
In defense of my concern; Microsoft.NET Framework 2.0 shows as occupying 301MB and 3.0 at 244MB in my XP system. If there is not a good reason to keep NET, that's equivalent to a program the size of MS Office.As has been mentioned, the .NET stuff does not take a lot of space. But some third-party applications can take over 500 MB. When those applications n are ported to .NET, the overall use of disk space is more efficient. When a numberr of applications allude the same run-time library, there is less duplication of the same material in other libraries.

For example, a good floating point library does not have to be very large. But if users what more features and greater precision, the library grows to be larger. Having one large floating point library is more efficient that have five libraries of many sizes and precision.

The above idea could be extended to include other kinds of things that go into libraries. Like SQL resources. Sort routines. Matrix multiplication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runtime_library

At one time it MADE sense to use compilers with program size options. But nowadays users are buying 64 bit systems with 8 GB of RAM and a terabyte of storage. So you can make an argument either way. It HARDLY even matters.

If you don't like updates, don't take them. Quote from: kenaudivw2 on December 16, 2014, 10:02:02 AM

Wow, PC_programmer, You list yourself as a "beginner"? Now I (listed as "familiar") have to go back and relist myself. Is there such a level as "pre-beginner"?
In defense of my concern; Microsoft.NET Framework 2.0 shows as occupying 301MB and 3.0 at 244MB in my XP system. If there is not a good reason to keep NET, that's equivalent to a program the size of MS Office.

One possibility is that the algorithm that is used to try to estimate the disk space usage is incorrect, this could be the case for the .NET Framework- particular 2.0, which only uses typically 20 or so MB.

On XP, I think that algorithm- as detailed in this blog post for the curious, could be to blame.

Quote

It goes through all the programs on your Start menu and compares their names with the display name of the uninstallable item. It looks for Start menu items which share at least two words with the words in the DisplayName.

For example, if there were a Start menu item called "Pretty Decent Windows Program", this would count as a two-word match ("Windows" and "Program").

It then takes the one with the most matches and decides, "Okay, I guess this is it." Suppose for the sake of illustration that the best match is indeed "Pretty Decent Windows Program.lnk", which is a shortcut to "C:\Program Files\LitWare\Decent Program\Decent.exe". Add/Remove Programs would decide that "Awesome Program for Windows" should get the icon for "Pretty Decent Windows Program.lnk", that the frequency of use and most-recently-used information for "C:\Program Files\LitWare\Decent Program\Decent.exe" will be displayed for "Awesome Program for Windows".

But wait, there's more. There's also the program size. Add/Remove Programs looks in your "Program Files" directory for directories whose names share at least two words in common with the DisplayName. The best match is assumed to be the directory that the program files are installed into. The sizes are added together and reported as the size of "Awesome Program for Windows".

So based on that explanation, if for some reason the registration information listing the size is missing (This could be due to things like tune up tools, registry cleaners, etc), Windows will guess the size information by looking for the closest match in Program Files. And given that .NET installs to several folders, and "Microsoft.NET" (The one folder in Program Files that seems directly related) isn't always going to be the best match for ".NET Framework 3.5 Client Profile" it could be getting that size information from the wrong folder- and even if it is the best match, matching that folder will instead list the size of every single framework installed. The differing sizes could be each version matching a different folder.

Of course, that is just a theory. I note something curious, though- on my XP VM I see .NET 4.0 Client Profile listed at 117MB. This size is registered as the size in the listed location in that post. However, when I look at the size of the proper install location, I find that the actual size on disk is actually around 300MB.

Removing a version of .NET you are using won't break anything terribly- you can just reinstall it again if you find that to be the case.

Quote

Wow, PC_programmer, You list yourself as a "beginner"? Now I (listed as "familiar") have to go back and relist myself. Is there such a level as "pre-beginner"?

At some point the forum software was upgraded and that field was not brought forward. I left it at the default because I no longer felt self evaluations were very trustworthy beyond a certain point and there is no way to not enter something. Arguably the more one learns about, the more one learns how much they haven't learned, because of all the PERIPHERY unlearned concepts you find out about along the way. Also when it comes to things like say Graphics Cards I am far more ignorant of specifics and typically defer to the experience of others about whether one Graphics card is going to run better than another.

Solve : Microsoft.NET Framework for non-programmers?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment