http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/tags/netframework Giveaway of the Day Forums » Tag: .netframework - Recent Posts en-US Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:19:54 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/3#post-60263 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:38:09 +0000 watcher13 60263@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Thanks, again, HD. I'm thinking that the first 2 articles give a hint of what's really going on. Microsoft likely turned it over to the community not because they're abandoning it, but because it's secrets are HARDLY secrets anymore, that's why we have Mono. Since you have to give developers enough clues so they can use it, it becomes a lot easier to reverse engineer it. It's not like Visual Basic was some big mystery when MS was working with it in Visual Studio.</p> <p>That 3rd article gives another clue that MS isn't dropping .net, yet. Since it's going to be part of the Visual Studio 2010 release. I noticed that article was also by Mary Jo Foley, whose article saying that MS is dropping .net you linked to above. Yet, Mary Jo, who's supposed to be so well connected, STILL hasn't told use what's replacing .net. I'll believe that .net is dead when someone announces it's replacement. ! </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/3#post-60247 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:52:54 +0000 hotdoge3 60247@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/07/mono_microsoft_promise/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/07/mono_microsoft_promise/</a></p> <p>Microsoft promises no patent prosecution of open-source .NET</p> <p>Ubuntu joins Debian Mono denials</p> <p>Microsoft is promising not to pursue patent claims against Linux and open-source software using the open-source implementation of .NET, Project Mono.</p> <p>The company has said that third party implementations of its C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) - a language runtime - will be made available under its Community Promise. The promise will cover ECMA specifications 334 and 335 - C# and CLI respectively.</p> <p>That means developers, users and distributors of Mono, which implements the C# and CLI specs, should be protected against possible action by Microsoft.</p> <p>There was no word on why Microsoft has made the promise, but it's a sudden move likely designed to limit damage between Microsoft and the community over Mono.</p> <p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/07/mono_splits/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/07/mono_splits/</a></p> <p>Open-source .NET splits for extra Microsoft protection</p> <p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3069&#38;tag=nl.e550" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3069&#38;tag=nl.e550</a> &gt; Too many .Nets, too little time?<br /> Microsoft’s overzealous .Net branding campaign is a pretty much a thing of the past. But that doesn’t mean the .Net confusion is completely over.</p> <p>Microsoft’s attempt to juggle too many .Nets is coming home to roost with testers writing workflow-centric apps and services that can be hosted in the Azure cloud. In a posting to the Azure Services Platform blog last week, Microsoft officials admitted that .Net Services was based on a different, older version of .Net — and that the newer version wouldn’t be ready in time for Azure’s official launch (which is expected this fall). </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/3#post-58968 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:51:48 +0000 watcher13 58968@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Thanks HD. I think that's an important notice and worth reviving the thread. After all, MS keeps complaining that a lot of the problems are because developers haven't embraced .net. Mary Jo in the blog says that's because MS is abandoning .net. She says they've slashed the development team. But, she doesn't give a clue as to what's replacing it. I'm not sure she's right. I think they're hoping to get more developers programming in .net and they can still use whatever development comes out of the user community. We won't know for sure until MS announces whether they're coming out with a new architecture. I can't find any evidence that MS is abandoning it. Six months ago, they were pushing the latest developments:</p> <p><a href="http://www.developerfusion.com/article/9576/the-future-of-net-languages/" rel="nofollow">http://www.developerfusion.com/article/9576/the-future-of-net-languages/</a></p> <p>Maybe they've got it to a point they just don't need as large of a development team anymore. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/3#post-58955 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:35:24 +0000 hotdoge3 58955@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2701" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2701</a></p> <p>Microsoft to turn .Net Micro Framework code, support over to the community </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-58457 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:24:36 +0000 watcher13 58457@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>HD, I'm not sure this is a fault of .net, or just the typical desire by Bill Gates and his evil disciples to get as many hooks in your machine as possible. In any case, for those who don't want to edit their registry to get rid of this, MS has repsonded to the outcry (sound familiar?) and published an update that will make the uninstall button active:<br /> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&#38;FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&#38;FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab</a> </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-58422 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:53:02 +0000 hotdoge3 58422@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p><a href="http://annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600" rel="nofollow">http://annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600</a></p> <p>Remove the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant (ClickOnce) Firefox Extension</p> <p>The Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 update, pushed through the Windows Update service to all recent editions of </p> <p>Windows in February 2009, installs the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant firefox extension without asking your permission.</p> <p>This update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the </p> <p>ability for websites to easily and quietly install software on your PC. Since this design flaw is one of the reasons you </p> <p>may've originally choosen to abandon IE in favor of a safer browser like Firefox, you may wish to remove this extension with all due haste. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-50578 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:03:47 +0000 hotdoge3 50578@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>do you need Net Framwork Yes if you like to have fun &#38; HD disk is over 3 GB<br /> <a href="http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Signatures-Updates/Microsoft-NET-Framework-Service-Pack.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Signatures-Updates/Microsoft-NET-Framework-Service-Pack.shtml</a><br /> Requirements:<br /> · Windows Installer 3.0 (except for Windows 98/ME, which require Windows Installer 2.0 or later). * Windows Installer 3.1 or later is recommended.</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework</a> *</p> <p><a href="http://vb.net-informations.com/framework/framework_tutorials.htm" rel="nofollow">http://vb.net-informations.com/framework/framework_tutorials.htm</a></p> <p><a href="http://andymcm.com/dotnetfaq.htm" rel="nofollow">http://andymcm.com/dotnetfaq.htm</a></p> <p><a href="http://support.microsoft.com/ph/548" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/ph/548</a> * .NET Framework Solution Center<br /> Step-by-Step Instructions &#38; How To Articles * ( File Name: dotNetFx35setup.exe<br /> Version:3.5:Download Size:2.7 MB ):{ NET Framework 3.5 full package 197.12MB :dotnetfx35.exe }<br /> Important: You cannot install two different language versions of the .NET Framework on the same machine. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49748 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:02:41 +0000 watcher13 49748@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Sorry, didn't realize that explaining your conclusions or posting links to useful explanations and other resources that might help people was considered arse-kissing. I guess there's a lot of arse-kissers in these forums, then. Probably includes most, if not all, of the moderators, since those good folks try and help other people in the ways I mentioned. Oh well, to each his own. My last word on the subject, since this has passed the point of the law of diminishing returns. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49690 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:49:36 +0000 Local 49690@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>There is no misunderstanding between you and I.</p> <p>I really don't care about the thousands of people who ignore my posts either.<br /> If one person pays enough attention to what I actually say and it encourages them to go learn something it's enough for me.<br /> Hell, I don't even have to know about it, I have enough friends without arse-kissing to make more.</p> <p>And nope, I'm not a Pope I never preach.<br /> I just state facts </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49539 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:01:01 +0000 watcher13 49539@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>That's were the misunderstanding between you and I lies. How about something in between deep technical info. and crass comments? If you understand what's being said, you might be able to summarize it. Or how about posting the links to those deep technical comments and let us see them for ourselves? Maybe those with deep technical abilities will summarize them for us. In other words, why not share some of that common sense, or at least the Google? </p> <p>The problem is, you give a simplistic answer, not a simple one. Basically, "because I said so". Why should anyone take your word for it? Because you say so? If you give a little insight, many people will learn to respect your opinion. If you just say, "I know better than you", well... I hope you like to hear yourself type, so to speak.</p> <p>I don't want to argue, either. I'd like you to share your insights. I'll bet they're pretty decent. But if you just make pronouncements, like you're the software Pope, then you're definitely right about one thing. No one's going to ever care whether you post or not. In other words, you'll be living in the land of the trolls, whether you are one or not.</p> <p>I can tell you this much. I'm probably going to get to the point of skipping your comments over. It's just that I can't believe that your goal is to post stuff that everybody skips over. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49529 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:12:43 +0000 Local 49529@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>What information do you want?</p> <p>I have read posts giving deep technical information from developers and crass comments from fans of doing things one way or another.<br /> Non help that much when all that is needed is a simple answer.<br /> All that is ever needed is a simple answer.<br /> That's what I give.</p> <p>I come to my conclusions by testing and looking, no insider information or special talent just common sense and Google.</p> <p>I'm not here to argue about anything one way or another.<br /> If anyone doesn't like what I say just skip over it, who's to know or care?</p> <p>My background?<br /> I'm just an unemployed high school dropout. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49520 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:26:04 +0000 watcher13 49520@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Thanks, Suki. Sometimes I'm a bit of a blowhard, and I really don't intend to be mean to what's probably a nice and intelligent person. It's just that an exchange of information usually works best when you actually EXCHANGE INFORMATION. (I usually only use caps for emphasis, not to flame.) </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49519 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:13:06 +0000 sukibabe 49519@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>LOL</p> <p>Point well said watcher!</p> <p>Suki<br /> Games Junkie </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49512 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 03:07:06 +0000 watcher13 49512@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>It went on so long, Local, partly because of a misunderstanding. People didn't realize I was asking if it had any benefits over and above that it was needed to run a particular software. I was hoping to have some of the details spelled out over and above "If you need it, get it". I'm pretty stupid, but I can basically figure that part out without help.</p> <p>".Net is a bloated "Big Brother" style framework.<br /> It restricts the input of the developers and pushes towards the "Bigger better " Os of today."<br /> Without agreeing or disagreeing, I'm curious as to why you say that. As far as the availability of alternatives, that was one of my oft repeated comments starting way back when the thread began.</p> <p>What's you're background, anyway? You sound as if you have all the answers, but you never seem to get around to giving any of them. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49471 Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:07:37 +0000 Local 49471@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Wow I can't believe this subject went on so long.<br /> It should be really quite simple.<br /> .Net is a bloated "Big Brother" style framework.<br /> It restricts the input of the developers and pushes towards the "Bigger better " Os of today.</p> <p>In answer to whether to install it though there is just one question.</p> <p>Is there an alternative to this .Net software.<br /> Usually (in fact I've never had a problem finding one) yes.<br /> If you just spent £50 on a new game that requires it download and install it. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49469 Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:02:41 +0000 watcher13 49469@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>LOL! I'm afraid we're not going to make it then. Have flown many times, but only out of necessity. Prefer the choo-choo. Just call me Captain WhiteKnuckles. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49467 Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:10:44 +0000 sukibabe 49467@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>I DON'T FLY........</p> <p>I have been in one of those simulated space shuttle rides at "Six Flags" and almost lost my cookies.......</p> <p>only if you are there to hold my hand...roflmao</p> <p>Yes, M$ can screw up things faster than my husband spills coffee and burns the carpet!</p> <p>But I will continue to use it...because so much of what I have is based on it...</p> <p>Suki<br /> Games Junkie </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49465 Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:59:50 +0000 watcher13 49465@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>I respect that, Suki. On the other hand, there were other alteranatives proposed for watermarking, and they don't all require .net, do they? Still, I'm basically won over. Just wish, as RobCR complained, they'd build backward compatibility into them. As HotDodge said, there's getting to be a lot of versions, with more coming all the time. I realize this may be asking a lot, but, as I said above, we put men on the moon way back in 1969. And there are backward compatible programming languages. Java, at least, is.</p> <p>Hey, when are we gonna put a woman on the moon? What about it Suki? You game? </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49421 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:03:10 +0000 sukibabe 49421@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>watcher13</p> <p>Today's giveaway "uMark Pro" is exactly why I have the .net framework!</p> <p>System Requirements: Windows 2000, XP, Vista; Net Framework 2.0 </p> <p>Suki<br /> Games Junkie </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-49336 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:33:48 +0000 hotdoge3 49336@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>giveawayoftheday I see on software not work get ? 60 ? dll or exe so not found &#38; say it no go well you need NetFramwork &#38; .ocx for the ActiveX control Visual Studio.<br /> ATI Radeon Display Drivers new one's need old don't need like in 2002 motherboard via need NetFramwork be for you fit it if you up date driver's you will need it</p> <p><a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/259403" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/kb/259403</a></p> <p><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa718359.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa718359.aspx</a></p> <p><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260978(VS.60).aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260978(VS.60).aspx</a> </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-48197 Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:01:39 +0000 watcher13 48197@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>You may have given us the answer HD. I guess we all just pick our favorite hells. :) </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-48140 Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:49:46 +0000 hotdoge3 48140@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Microsoft's solution to DLL Hell was the .NET Framework, Thank's for all the info so now we have NET hell that fix DLL hell, just get NET 1,2,3,3.5,4 comeing soon 5 &#38; 6 NET Framework </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47808 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:07:43 +0000 watcher13 47808@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Sorry, I should have replied right away, but wasn't quite on the ball the last couple of days. Bubby, thanks a lot for that article. That was the answer to the question I was asking. I actually went to the link and read the whole article. Believe it or not, I understood it. In fact, I found it fascinating. And I found a couple of resources myself.</p> <p><a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Why_NET" rel="nofollow">http://hubpages.com/hub/Why_NET</a><br /> <a href="http://wiltgen.net/articles/dotnet/" rel="nofollow">http://wiltgen.net/articles/dotnet/</a></p> <p>The first makes the case in 5 paragraphs. The second addresses what .net means to Mac and, a little, to Linux users. However, it's simple explanation of the new .net architecture in Windows versus the problems of the current system is even better than the one Bubby posted, though both are excellent. I would have done my own reseach from the get-go, but I had so much respect for the posters here, I figured I'd get a quick, high quality answer. And I pretty much did. In fact, I think I can summarize it in even less than 5 paragraphs.</p> <p>It's clear to me now that .net is the wave of the future. What it means to GOTD users is this:<br /> .net will allow developers to make faster and more stable apps., that are not dependent on what hardware you buy. And .net will likely eventually replace the current Win32 architecture as the core of what ships with your new computer. .net appears to be a product from "good" Microsoft. </p> <p>There! That was pretty succint, wasn't it?<br /> I think we can probably wind this thread down, then. That was pretty much what people needed to hear to make a decision.</p> <p>One but, though. I think some of the sophisticated, well intentioned posters here are people who download a lot of software because software acquisition and testing fits their needs and lifestyle. That's an important factor in making them as sophisticated as they are. But, many of us, maybe the majority, aren't looking to acquire a lot of software. We're looking for only the proven tools. The one's were the bugs are mostly worked out. We don't want to test nearly as much as we want strong solutions. I feel that, with the exception of VERY specialized tasks, that if I need a lot of tools to accomplish something, then I have a lot of inadequate tools. Ashraf says that so much software uses it, and I'm sure at his level that's true. But, that hasn't trickled down to a lot of us.</p> <p>So I think that the .net advocates here, though obviously successfully making their case, are preaching to the wrong choir. The two detailed articles that Bubby and I sited are 4 and 6 years old and .net is in it's fourth release. Yet, it still hasn't become the dominant programming tool. As one of the posters who replied to the original article Bubby sited pointed out, developers don't want to abandon all the proven program code they've already written. Even if it appears they won't have to, just do some moderate revisions to it. It's going to be easier to convince users to get it when the leading apps. are going to be using it almost exclusively.</p> <p>Until then, a lot of us are going to decide that if 2 softwares are pretty equal, and one DOESN'T require downloading a large framework update on our computers, that's the one we're going to go for. It would probably be a lot farther along if they could solve the backward compatibility issue. Even though that's been a problem with both the old and new architectures, after all, we put 2 men on the moon in 1969. You'd think somebody would eventually figure it out! Also, though it's true that the .net apps. should be considerably better, not all .net developers have achieved that level of quality, yet. I think the better answer would be "if you need it, get it" unless you can find an alternative that can fit your needs better. Right now, I think that's true a lot of the time. Especially in the case of GOTD giveaways, which often don't even match the quality on non .net dependent freeware. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47671 Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:32:47 +0000 hotdoge3 47671@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa497338.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa497338.aspx</a></p> <p>256 MB Hard Disk Space 800MB (including 200MB for the .NET Framework Redistributable)</p> <p>Software for Net 1 only for Net 1 Only not run software on Net 2 or 3 so if run net 1 can not take out Net 1 and run on Net 2 or 3, best to get as you need can fit as you like you don't need to go 1,2,3.Net </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47650 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:01:59 +0000 Ashraf 47650@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>I never understood the "Why should I get .NET?" argument? Unless you are on 56k, I don't see why you shouldn't. Nowadays HDD space is not a problem and with so many software using .NET...ya. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47646 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:50 +0000 mikerb 47646@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Raymond's Blog has something about this. seems that 200meg is the max d/l if you've not got any version. this link shows how to get the smallest needed<br /> <a href="http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2008/12/18/easily-download-the-right-net-framework-with-minimal-download/">the right .net</a> </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47644 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:30:47 +0000 RunesageMagik 47644@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p><strong>Bubby</strong>, totally forgot about my rant here. Never checked back and only just stumbled across your reply (thank you) and about 10 other amusing posts on MSFT's increasingly complex yet always faithfully backward-incompatible nonstandardization. </p> <p>FWIW, I managed to kill that bedeviling JustinTime pop ups (as it related to launching AIM) some time after posting the rant, just prior to the subsequent IE zero-day brouhaha. I've forgotten what finally did it... though modifying or deleting those Keys rings a bell, but I seem to recall resorting to brute force delete of an entire JIT-related folder. General consensus is that a simple OFF button (like they offer in the VisStudio package) would have been a lot easier, but "easy" is not in MSFT's vocabulary.</p> <p>Will copy your post over to my MSFT Annoyance folder, sub-folder Issue# 8,361,872, then retrace my steps as time permits. Thanks again! </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47610 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:05:57 +0000 BuBBy 47610@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>What's in .NET for users? Well I've taken this from portions of an article at <a href="http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/WhyDotNET.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/WhyDotNET.aspx</a></p> <p>It is really hard to find something aimed at end users - as .NET is a development framework and almost everything written is directed towards software developers and how it makes 'their job' easier and more efficient (so I've taken what I think are developer benefits - that are also plusses for end-users)</p> <p>=====================================</p> <p><strong>Fewer Crashes</strong></p> <p>Code that runs on a .NET platform is less likely to crash, and it is virtually impossible for managed code to take down the system or affect other applications.</p> <p>This is due to two factors:</p> <p> 1. .NET restricts what applications can do, what they can access, and how they manage memory.<br /> 2. .NET forces developers to use modern languages with modern programming practices. .NET forces developers to abandon old habits and techniques designed for computer systems of the 1970's era. </p> <p>C++ developers are also quick to reply that “Modern C++ has warnings for X and Y, or compiler option Z can prevent that.”. The problem with warnings is that C++ issues so many warnings, and C++ developers often want to override them anyways that on each compile, a C++ program issues hundreds if not thousands of such warnings. Finding the important ones is not a quick or easy task. Compiler options are problematic too. Since C++ developers are typically speed freaks, nearly all such safeguards are turned off in releases, no matter if the code runs sufficiently fast or not. Since release code is used by a much larger user audience, the releases encounter situations never encountered in the debug releases and simply crash. .NET forces these checks to always be on, providing for better applications by properly handling exceptions instead of merely corrupting memory or other.</p> <p><strong>Debunking Myths</strong></p> <p>.NET has invoked fear in the minds of many developers. Some of the fears are based on facts but surrounded by misunderstandings, while others are based on pure misinformation, and in some cases, even religious beliefs. Let's examine a few of the more common ones with a logical approach.</p> <ul> <li> <strong>.NET has a Big Runtime.</strong><br /> .NET has a 20 megabyte runtime. That's too big for a normal application.</p> <p> First of all it is not a run time library. The .NET framework is a complete platform similar to how Win32, DOS, Unix, and Java are platforms. Currently, .NET runs on top of Windows and thus must be installed.</p> <p> The install for the 1.1 version of the .NET framework is approximately 20 megabytes. However, the Windows XP Service Pack 1 CDs include this runtime as part of their installation, and many users already have the framework installed. In the future, the .NET framework will gain wider and wider acceptance just as other Microsoft components have such as DirectX, etc. Most games rely on DirectX installation and install it without trouble or complaints of a run time.</p> <p> Future versions of the Windows operating system will ship with the .NET framework installed as part of the native operating system.</p> <p> 20 megabytes is also not a very large distribution in the scheme of things. Most software are several megabytes or even larger. The .NET runtime only needs to be installed by those users who do not already have it, and thus is optional. Adding a 20 megabyte install to a CD distribution and installing if needed will not negatively impact deployment.</p> <p> 20 megabytes is more measurable in the world of electronic downloads. However, electronic downloads over the Internet are normally performed by technical savvy users who likely already have the framework installed, or have a DSL or better Internet connection.</p> <p> The 20 megabytes also refers to the complete framework. When your application loads, it will not link to a 20 megabyte runtime that loads into memory, just as a standard Win32 application today does not load 200 megabytes of Windows support for each run.</p> </li> <li> <strong>.NET is Slow.</strong><br /> Some .NET applications do in fact run slower. Compression and encryption routines are one example that often run slower. Such functions should be written using unmanaged code anyways because of the security implications and need to directly manipulate structures in specific ways that encryption requires.</p> <p> However, such applications occupy a very small minority of the average development need. Most developers are developing either server side objects, or desktop applications. Such tasks when written properly will execute just as fast in Win32, or faster.</p> <p> Faster? Yes faster. This is because the .NET framework implements and provides so many more services than what a Win32 application has available to it, and also because of how IL code is actually optimized and executed.</p> <p> But I ported my application and it's 100 times slower!</p> <p> That's a very common scenario. Many applications when ported do run 100 times or more slower than the original Win32 application. But I said they should run faster, right? So, how is this that so many applications run slower after porting?</p> <p> The answer is simple - the applications were ported, but the design remained the same. That is, a straight port was performed without using the new techniques in development.</p> <p> It's certainly possible to take a large engine from a 1960's hot rod and put it into a modern car and make it run. However, powering it on unleaded fuel, and integrating it in with the car system and bodies designed 40 years later will not yield the expected results. When porting to .NET, you need to take into account that it works differently in several key areas.</p> <p> Do you have to redesign your application from the ground up? No. But you should look at some key areas and consider altering them to operate under the new paradigms so that they will run properly, and efficiently. </li> <li> <strong>Loss of Control.</strong><br /> Many developers have become very accustomed to having full control. This habit is especially true for C++ developers. Developing for .NET control is diminished if your definition of control is direct access to memory. In most object oriented languages, developers have been moving more and more away from direct memory access, and towards managed memory and object interfaces. .NET takes this to the next level and only allows managed memory and objects.</p> <p> While at first, this may grate developers because they may need to change long established habits, the change is a good and even necessary one. </li> </ul> <p><strong>Summary</strong></p> <p>It's hard to summarize this whole article. The article itself was a summary. So instead, let's consider some comparisons.</p> <p>Win32 code is like a 1950's corvette. All soaped up and a lot of raw horsepower. You can go in and monkey with the engine and make easy modifications. You can pop it out of gear. You can shift into first gear while doing 100 miles per hour, if you want.</p> <p>.NET is a 2004 corvette. Still lots of horsepower, but now you have seat belts, computer controlled engine, airbags, anti lock brakes, and safety glass.</p> <p>As an antique, the 1950's corvette certainly has some appeal. But in developing software, not many of us fondly look back at punch cards or DOS windows. So, that leaves safety and capability. Cars certainly do not crash as often as software does. If they did, the human race would be in a steep population decline. So, let's assume that cars did crash just as often and that frequent and even serious crashes were common. Which car would you prefer to drive? </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47606 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:20:36 +0000 watcher13 47606@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Went back and reread reghacker's quotes from Wikipedia. This is the best piece of info. that I've seen on this topic, yet.</p> <p>"The CLR provides the appearance of an application virtual machine so that programmers need not consider the capabilities of the specific CPU that will execute the program."</p> <p>That and theleecher's comment that it's starting to be developed into video card firmware.</p> <p>So it's really up to the developers. Fair enough. I've seen one vote for and one against in this thread. And most of the stuff developed for GOTD doesn't require it. That could be because a lot of it is outdated. But I don't see it in the system requirements of a lot of commercial software, either. So, I guess if the developers are going to sit on the sidelines, we the users can too. At least for the time being. </p> http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/topic/4327/page/2#post-47603 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:50:54 +0000 watcher13 47603@http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/forums/ <p>Ok, I'm willing to let it die. However, I do understand the modular nature of Windows. But .net doesn't replace all the other runtime libraries, so they're still there to take up space. The other issue is: was VB anywhere near that big? Maybe I just don't understand the size. As you know, a lot of stuff developed in VB came with some of it's runtime libraries present in case you didn't have the right ones. That sometimes caused problems, but it didn't increase the size of the packages tenfold. Is this about the same as the old VB framework, or much larger? Considering, as I said, a lot of the old libraries are still crucial parts of the system. So isn't .net more of a framework addition than a framework replacement?</p> <p>As to needing .net for the software, exactly what software? The whole debate came up because of the need for .net framework to run tiny, highly optional software on GOTD for which there were often a lot of other options available that didn't require .net. 200 megs to run 2.5 megs. I'm not running into tons of software that I can't live without that requires .net. Maybe RobCr is about to get closed out of the game, or maybe he's just a failure. But he's developing for his clients without using .net. So Microsoft's gonna make .net THE answer of the future. Or maybe they'll drop it like a hot potato like they did ME. Net's lasted longer, but we all know about Microsoft and their development whims. And no one does bloat like Redmond. Look at Vista. Everybody thought that the resources of the latest generation machines would make huge amounts of RAM available. And here comes Vista that can tie up 50% of 1 meg, with all sorts of services running, some of which most users will never need. So you got 2 meg RAM and beyond. Just wait 'til the next generation and see if Microsoft will try to use that up to. I'm just using Linux as a metaphor, but, if it's reputation can be believed, it does almost as much by using far less resources and is more stable. That's what we do here: compare software and see if it stacks up. And .net may not stack up. After all, don't you occassionally have these discussions concerning IE and FireFox? I'm sure you'd agree, just because something comes out of Redmond doesn't make it a be all and end all. </p>