.NET Framework - how 'important?'

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:43 -0600, "Paul Randall"
<paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:

<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 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<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>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?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

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
, 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

 

> Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> 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:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


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.




"gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:taq7451nomfumu27novon32h0846udgc3b@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:43 -0600, "Paul Randall"
> <paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:
>
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> 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<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>>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?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> 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
> , 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 <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:taq7451nomfumu27novon32h0846udgc3b@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:43 -0600, "Paul Randall"
> <paulr901@cableone.net> wrote:
>
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> 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<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>>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?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> 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
> , 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<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Thanks for the testing results.

-Paul Randall

 

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, xfile wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

<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...

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

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:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

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.



"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:192f3njuglya5$.16vggwo8metwe.dlg@40tude.net...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, xfile wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <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...
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:01:45 -0700, xfile wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> 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:
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

No, you haven't.

ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, and you seemed to
feel that only some uninstallers might give the user a chance to refuse.

It wasn't a question at all. It was a counter example to what I consider a
very bad idea.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
> news:192f3njuglya5$.16vggwo8metwe.dlg@40tude.net...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, xfile wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> <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...
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

xfile wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> 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:
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The runtime component of the .Net Framework is not a 3rd party
component. It is a mistake by the developer to uninstall the runtime
component of the Framework, with the developer not knowing or assuming
that the developer's solution was the only solution using the Framework.

 

> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, [...]

I didn't or kindly point me to where I said that and I will apologize.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> [...] and you seemed to feel that only some uninstallers might give the
> user a chance to refuse.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Since I know very well that I am not Mr. Know Everything and I don't know
ALL programs in the world, so I can only say from experience that "some" do
provide and others don't.

I try not to use any generalized statement for things that I don't know.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>It wasn't a question at all. It was a counter example to what I consider a
>very bad idea.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I respect your decision if you consider it is a bad idea, but I don't know
what is so bad about for presenting choices?

I didn't instruct in any way that one should keep it or not, as I have no
idea about everyone's computer literacy and user environment. If anyone
wishes to remove anything that he/she doesn't know or bother to investigate
more, that is his/her own decision which is fine. If one wishes to learn
more and then makes the decision accordingly, that is fine too.

Can you please quote what I said so I know better if I mislead you?


"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1q0zzdxh63r0b$.1bs4agtlyxbul.dlg@40tude.net...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:01:45 -0700, xfile wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 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:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>>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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> No, you haven't.
>
> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, and you seemed
> to
> feel that only some uninstallers might give the user a chance to refuse.
>
> It wasn't a question at all. It was a counter example to what I consider a
> very bad idea.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:192f3njuglya5$.16vggwo8metwe.dlg@40tude.net...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, xfile wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

> The runtime component of the .Net Framework is not a 3rd party component.

OK, but for some like myself, anything not directly from in-house
development is a 3rd party component even it's from Microsoft.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>It is a mistake by the developer to uninstall the runtime component of the
>Framework, with the developer not knowing or assuming that the developer's
>solution was the only solution using the Framework.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

OK, I have no comment and as I said in the previous post, not every one
thinks the same





"Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
news:eYohfjs9JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> xfile wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 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:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> 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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> The runtime component of the .Net Framework is not a 3rd party component.
> It is a mistake by the developer to uninstall the runtime component of the
> Framework, with the developer not knowing or assuming that the developer's
> solution was the only solution using the Framework. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 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:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
>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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I've never had to package a .NET app for distribution, so I might be
mistaken about this, but I'd imagine that given the size of the
framework, and the fact that MS appear to provide a reliable mechanism
for a deployment package to direct a user to the appropriate page of
their site, that including the framework with every distributed
application would be fairly pointless, not to mention greatly
increasing the size of the download.

GSEJ

 

I agree but not all users are comfortable with downloading and installing
required components from different sources.

It would be a judgment call for each application provider to determine how
do they perceive their potential users and what would they offer for
so-called one-stop solution.

It would be the same for asking a user to put together a complete system
from different sources, which everyone could do it with certain amount of
learning and efforts, but the mass majority still prefer to use system
providers for a complete solution.

In any case, I wouldn't say it's "pointless" but more of different
considerations for different prospects.

Assuming everyone is computer literate, on the other hand, is quite naive in
my humble opinion.


"gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:repb45d1s11ea1cjfu7ld2msdq53of7aqk@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> 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:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>>
>>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.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I've never had to package a .NET app for distribution, so I might be
> mistaken about this, but I'd imagine that given the size of the
> framework, and the fact that MS appear to provide a reliable mechanism
> for a deployment package to direct a user to the appropriate page of
> their site, that including the framework with every distributed
> application would be fairly pointless, not to mention greatly
> increasing the size of the download.
>
> GSEJ <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:09:11 -0700, xfile wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, [...]<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I didn't or kindly point me to where I said that and I will apologize.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

From your post that I first replied to:

"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."

In particular, your remark that "some programs will remove all of 'its'
components".

I have to say that your writing was a bit unclear to me. Your phrase "More
thoughtful application providers..." made me think that you *wanted*
programs to do everything you said in the post; on rereading it, I see that
it might not be what you meant, since the phrase could have related to what
you said about installation but not to your comments on uninstallation.

In any case, I feel strongly that programs should not install Windows
components that they require, and should never ever uninstall such
components when they are finished with them. At installation time, they
should notify the user that his system is not compatible with the
installation (explaining why!), and at uninstallation, they should do
nothing.

BTW, many of the serious stability problems with older Windows versions was
that many programs quietly and preemptively installed their own versions of
Windows DLLs in the Windows directory structure - and some of those DLLs
broke Windows or other programs that relied on their *own* DLLs.

And perhaps, after all, we are actually in agreement

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:29:31 -0700, xfile wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I agree but not all users are comfortable with downloading and installing
> required components from different sources.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

In particular, the .Net Framework is offered by Microsoft as part of its
normal update process, so this argument is specious.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> It would be a judgment call for each application provider to determine how
> do they perceive their potential users and what would they offer for
> so-called one-stop solution.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The correct judgment is clear...
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> It would be the same for asking a user to put together a complete system
> from different sources, which everyone could do it with certain amount of
> learning and efforts, but the mass majority still prefer to use system
> providers for a complete solution.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

See above.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> In any case, I wouldn't say it's "pointless" but more of different
> considerations for different prospects.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Assuming everyone is computer literate, on the other hand, is quite naive in
> my humble opinion.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

So when third party developers offer their own versions of components taken
from Microsoft, perhaps also out of date, and as a result of this break the
system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
> news:repb45d1s11ea1cjfu7ld2msdq53of7aqk@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

<SNIP>

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

> BTW, many of the serious stability problems with older Windows versions <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> was
> that many programs quietly and preemptively installed their own versions
> of
> Windows DLLs in the Windows directory structure - and some of those DLLs
> broke Windows or other programs that relied on their *own* DLLs.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I agree totally. But we are not talking about to replace Window's DLLs with
its *own* DLLs. In this particular case, we are talking about if runtime
components such as .Net framework (or DirectX, for example) should be
included in the installation package or should it require the user to go to
their sites for downloading and installing required components before they
can install the program.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> In any case, I feel strongly that programs should not install Windows
> components that they require, and should never ever uninstall such
> components when they are finished with them. At installation time, they
> should notify the user that his system is not compatible with the
> installation (explaining why!), and at uninstallation, they should do
> nothing.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I understood your concern but I cannot agree with you for all scenarios.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "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."
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It is just a friendly reminder for users to check if there are any left
behind components, as for why and how to deal with it, it would be a
different subject.


"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:xf9u6gec8wd6$.1a641yufe84o1.dlg@40tude.net...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:09:11 -0700, xfile wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, [...]<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> I didn't or kindly point me to where I said that and I will apologize.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> From your post that I first replied to:
>
> "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."
>
> In particular, your remark that "some programs will remove all of 'its'
> components".
>
> I have to say that your writing was a bit unclear to me. Your phrase "More
> thoughtful application providers..." made me think that you *wanted*
> programs to do everything you said in the post; on rereading it, I see
> that
> it might not be what you meant, since the phrase could have related to
> what
> you said about installation but not to your comments on uninstallation.
>
> In any case, I feel strongly that programs should not install Windows
> components that they require, and should never ever uninstall such
> components when they are finished with them. At installation time, they
> should notify the user that his system is not compatible with the
> installation (explaining why!), and at uninstallation, they should do
> nothing.
>
> BTW, many of the serious stability problems with older Windows versions
> was
> that many programs quietly and preemptively installed their own versions
> of
> Windows DLLs in the Windows directory structure - and some of those DLLs
> broke Windows or other programs that relied on their *own* DLLs.
>
> And perhaps, after all, we are actually in agreement
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

> In particular, the .Net Framework is offered by Microsoft as part of its<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> normal update process, so this argument is specious.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

There are controlled environments in which not all Windows components will
be included when the systems were set up and Windows Update will not
performed by the end user and not all Windows updates will be rolled out.

Also, not all home users will do Windows Update and many have never clicked
Windows Update during their use of computers
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> The correct judgment is clear...<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The correct judgment is when THEIR customers and user are satisfied and
happy
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> So when third party developers offer their own versions of components
> taken
> from Microsoft, perhaps also out of date, and as a result of this break
> the
> system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

First of all, "no their own versions" got involved in this discussion as far
as I can see.

"..[perhaps also out of date]" - could be, so a well-established application
provider needs to constantly update their programs too. I cannot speak for
all
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> as a result of this break the
> system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

They utilize whatever help channels available to them, including help desk,
customer service, newsgroups, forums, friends, relatives, and so on and so
on.


"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1fo2q6ibcjja5$.26c6ziojn4g1.dlg@40tude.net...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:29:31 -0700, xfile wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I agree but not all users are comfortable with downloading and installing
>> required components from different sources.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> In particular, the .Net Framework is offered by Microsoft as part of its
> normal update process, so this argument is specious.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> It would be a judgment call for each application provider to determine
>> how
>> do they perceive their potential users and what would they offer for
>> so-called one-stop solution.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> The correct judgment is clear...
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> It would be the same for asking a user to put together a complete system
>> from different sources, which everyone could do it with certain amount of
>> learning and efforts, but the mass majority still prefer to use system
>> providers for a complete solution.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> See above.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> In any case, I wouldn't say it's "pointless" but more of different
>> considerations for different prospects.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Assuming everyone is computer literate, on the other hand, is quite naive
>> in
>> my humble opinion.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> So when third party developers offer their own versions of components
> taken
> from Microsoft, perhaps also out of date, and as a result of this break
> the
> system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
>> news:repb45d1s11ea1cjfu7ld2msdq53of7aqk@4ax.com...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <SNIP>
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"Blithe" wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea
> just how important .Net Framework is to the average
> user like myself....<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

.NET Framework is the runtime engine and environment
for apps that have been developed with the .NET libraries
and the .NET languages. It provides the virtual machine on
which the compiled .NET languages run and it provides the
support environment. It sits on top of Windows, and it uses
the services of Windows, but it provides its own value-added
services that the .NET-based apps need to run. The advantage
to the developer is that it allows a shorter development time by
taking over of the tedium of re-inventing various coding "wheels"
and by removing some of the common sources of bugs (e.g.
memory "leaks" due to non-release of memory resources). It
also allows the developer to use a language that he/she may be
most familiar with, e.g. COBOL.NET, Fortran.NET, etc., and
not only C# (Microsoft's answer to Java). As an environment,
..NET Framework shouldn't be uninstalled just because one app
that used it was uninstalled. If that does indeed sometimes happen,
it would be due to an error by the writer of the installation package.
Consider the runtime engine for Java. Would you uninstall it or
expect it to be uninstalled just because the app for which it was
installed was uninstalled? What about other apps, either currently
installed or to be installed in the future? It's a necessary environment
for an increasing number of apps, much like an operating system
or a browser. Would you uninstall either of those environments
because it was no longer needed by one of your apps? BTW,
I've read that Microsoft is developing a version of .NET Framework
to run on Unix/Linux, and I'd imagine on Solaris. If it succeeds, and
if it does reduce development time better than Java and Java's
various frameworks, Oracle/Sun might have a problem.

*TimDaniels*

 

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:17:10 -0700, Timothy Daniels wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Blithe" wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea
>> just how important .Net Framework is to the average
>> user like myself....<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> .NET Framework is the runtime engine and environment
> for apps that have been developed with the .NET libraries
> and the .NET languages. It provides the virtual machine on
> which the compiled .NET languages run and it provides the
> support environment. It sits on top of Windows, and it uses
> the services of Windows, but it provides its own value-added
> services that the .NET-based apps need to run. The advantage
> to the developer is that it allows a shorter development time by
> taking over of the tedium of re-inventing various coding "wheels"
> and by removing some of the common sources of bugs (e.g.
> memory "leaks" due to non-release of memory resources). It
> also allows the developer to use a language that he/she may be
> most familiar with, e.g. COBOL.NET, Fortran.NET, etc., and
> not only C# (Microsoft's answer to Java). As an environment,
> .NET Framework shouldn't be uninstalled just because one app
> that used it was uninstalled. If that does indeed sometimes happen,
> it would be due to an error by the writer of the installation package.
> Consider the runtime engine for Java. Would you uninstall it or
> expect it to be uninstalled just because the app for which it was
> installed was uninstalled? What about other apps, either currently
> installed or to be installed in the future? It's a necessary environment
> for an increasing number of apps, much like an operating system
> or a browser. Would you uninstall either of those environments
> because it was no longer needed by one of your apps? BTW,
> I've read that Microsoft is developing a version of .NET Framework
> to run on Unix/Linux, and I'd imagine on Solaris. If it succeeds, and
> if it does reduce development time better than Java and Java's
> various frameworks, Oracle/Sun might have a problem.
>
> *TimDaniels*<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Thanks for the above - very informative.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:17:10 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<NoSpam@SpamMeKnot.biz> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>I've read that Microsoft is developing a version of .NET Framework
>to run on Unix/Linux, and I'd imagine on Solaris. If it succeeds, and
>if it does reduce development time better than Java and Java's
>various frameworks, Oracle/Sun might have a problem.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Fat chance. Sun did screw up big time marketing and selling Java on
windows, but there's little to no chance the Unix world will get
behind an MS based application framework.