Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Why the aversion to .NET Frameworks?

<< < (7/15) > >>

mwb1100:
As far as Microsoft possibly removing backwards compatibility on some version(s) of their mobile OS - that's a far cry from an indication they might do something like that for their desktop OS (especially imminently).  Users of cell phones are much less likely to be surprised or upset that old applications might not move forward to a new device. I'm sure there will be some, but nothing like what would happen if MS did the same for applications less than 5 years old (or even 10 years old) on Windows. 

It took them around 15 years to pull the plug on 16-bit backwards compatibility on the desktop.

SchoolDaGeek:
For me my disgust with .NET started with a $3400 HP 19" laptop that came pre-loaded with Windows Media Center 2002.  It was going to replace my TV, DVD, Stereo, and Full Tower computer with a 21" CRT.....

After having it only a short while, all the Media Center functions stopped working.  I had to get on the phone with HP and after walking me through a 2 hour removal process with huge command lines working in the CMD window, it seemed that the .NET 1.x version was conflicting with the newer 1.x version and to quote Monty Python, 2.0 was "right out"....all the wrong extensions, etc. had permeated EVERYTHING....

I had the original discs from HP and even with a fresh, clean install, the Media Center functions would not work due to how .NET was installing incorrectly.  Even to this day, with those same discs slightly modified by nLite to accept any computer, they will not work properly and give .NET errors.  Even the Experience pack and the Space screensaver (EVA spacewalk guy) don't work properly on certain hardware configurations.

Now today, you can download great programs like CDXP Burner but they do not function unless you have the proper .NET framework installed.  What I have finally done is keep all the versions released, 1.1, 1.4, 2.0, 3.0 all on a separate USB drive and keep that in my 'toolbox' for when I am diagnosing certain problems on computers, because they are 20, 200, and 300mb downloads that I simply don't want to wait for, but even with USB 2.0 you still have to wait for extraction and then installation, rebooting a few times, etc....

I liked it when there was only the VB6 Runtimes that needed to install and everything was peachy in W2K...I just don't understand why we need to download and install a 200mb library of 'possibilities' to use a program that is 4mb in size....

I also agree that it was never designed for Linux, and installing the wrong version even below other versions can make X interfere with Y, and to diagnose it is bullocks!!!!!!

f0dder:
SchoolDaGeek: sounds to me more like HP has a modified windows setup that has b0rked stuff, and possibly also that you've b0rked stuff additionally with nLite (which is easy to do, been there & done that).

I just don't understand why we need to download and install a 200mb library of 'possibilities' to use a program that is 4mb in size....-SchoolDaGeek (March 08, 2010, 10:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
Because it gives developers at crapload of functionality that they don't have to re-invent, and by having the users download the runtimes you don't have to distribute multi-megabyte executables.

Yeah, the dotNET runtimes are huge, and sometimes I wonder if they have to be that huge. But there's lots and lots and lots of functionality in there.

eleman:
4: Speed of execution for many apps is slow, whether due to framework bloat, or poor coding practices, or...?
-JavaJones (February 17, 2010, 11:57 PM)
--- End quote ---

This was especially true for 1.1, which was abso-Fing-lutely ridiculously slow. Newer versions feel faster, but I still get that feeling of slowness most java applications give.

CoderOmega:
Yeah, the dotNET runtimes are huge, and sometimes I wonder if they have to be that huge. But there's lots and lots and lots of functionality in there.
-f0dder (March 09, 2010, 01:08 AM)
--- End quote ---

the .net 3.0 include both the 32bit and 64bit version. This is the reason of it's massive size.
I saw .net 4.0 is more like 50MB now. Still big but much smaller than the 300MB .net 3.0.

plus now that new OS include .net, soon there won't be a need to worry about .net being installed.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page