Is .NET Framework a drag on performance?

[cure]

In the attempt to retain some pdf editting ability - cropping, apending pages, deleting pages - without adding the ponderous Acrobat 5 to my system, I decided to give Nitro Professional 6 a try. The problem is that it requires .Net Framework v2. That adds not only 100 meg of files but a ton of registry addresses. Given that I am doing a rebuild currently and want to keep my newly reinstalled OS as snappy as possible, is the additon of .Net Framework counter productive in the extreme to such a point that going with Acrobat 5 would be less evil?

[Monroe]

You are asking an interesting question that I have wondered about for some time ... should .Net Framework v2 be installed on a Windows 98SE machine? I have .Net Framework v1.1 installed on my machines but I didn't see the need for installing v2. I have only run into software, maybe twice, that required .Net Framework v2 to be installed. I would just look around for another software program that was close or even better, that didn't require the v2 of .Net Framework. Like you said, the file is really large and I just wasn't crazy about the idea of putting those files on my 98SE machine. I have the download saved on a CD, just in case one day I might need it for something or would want to fool around with it. I have a Ghost backup of all my machines so I could easily return to just having .Net Framework v1.1 installed, if I decided v2 wasn't working right or not really necessary. I wanted to start a separate thread about whether v2 really needs to be installed on a Windows 98SE ... maybe with your question we can get some good answers and facts to both.

Edited November 19, 2009 by duffy98

[cure]

Leaving aside .Net Frame 2 for a moment, is .Net Frame 1 in any sense necessary? What of consequence requires it?

[Monroe]

I really don't know about .NET Framework v1.1 ... I decided to install v1.1 only and forget about v2 ... unless I actually heard something later on that v2 should also be installed. As I said before, I've only had a couple of software programs actually requiring v2 to be installed ... but I was able to search and find other programs that were just as good. Maybe someone who really knows the workings of Win 98SE can clear all this up, once and for all. Is .NET Framework v2 ( or .NET Framework v1.1, for that matter) really needed on Win 98SE?

[Steven W]

I have both versions (1.1 and 2) installed on my system. They do take up quite a bit of space, but I've never experienced and slow down because of them. The only thing that requires version 2 that I have on the system is the ODF-converter-integrator, used to convert Office 2007 (OOXML) files to OpenDocument which can then be viewed with OpenOffice.org. Others that don't want all the bloat are using the OOXML viewer in conjuction with KernelEx or maybe some version of Go-OO.org. I honestly believe that the converter-integrator provides the best solution. As far as version 1.1 the only thing that I use requiring it is CD burner XP pro version 3.0.116, simply CD burning software. This could obviously be easily replaced.

In my opinion if you have way more than enough space to blow, you may as well install them. Again, I've not seen any drag on performance.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Steven W

[Monroe]

I found a post (02/16/2009) from MDGx in the "WPI Classic For Legacy OS'es" topic in the Windows 98SE board. He gives some thoughts on .NET Framework v2 in the form of a rant dealing with some software ... a little insight on .NET Framework.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rant]

Paint.NET is just another project by a programmer who wants really bad to be noticed and get a job with M$, showing off the features of NET framework.

This kind of graphics editor/viewer program can very well be programmed in C++, MFC or even VB or Borland [depending on what features you want], there is no need for any1 to install 20+ MB of NET APIs [and a load of bug-fixes afterwards] just to run Paint.NET and eventually a handful of other NET programs.

One can even use Sun's Java [free, open source] to program platform independent complex software, take for example OpenOffice and Vuze [formerly known as Azureus], also free(ware).

As far as graphics editors/viewers are concerned, please compare with Irfan View, the best one around [among free(ware) anyway].

This only happens because M$ chose NET as *the* solution for the "better" programming of tomorrow, at the expense of loading more unnecessary "bloat" upon users' computers.

BTW:

Did you notice how long it takes to install NET 2.0 on Win98 SE [1.4 GHz P3 CPU]? At least 5 minutes... and guess why? because of bazillion of redundant checks, folders, files [and temporary install folders + files] and registry entries.

[/rant]

About Nero:

I'm using Nero 7 [in XP SP3 = came with a DVD burner I bought], and as far as I'm concerned, it is the best CD/DVD burning tool around [commercial sad.gif].

Haven't tried newer builds.

And you're right, no need to spend money on another burner program, there are so many free(ware) out there.

Best wishes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dencorso]

Leaving aside .Net Frame 2 for a moment, is .Net Frame 1 in any sense necessary? What of consequence requires it?

IMHO, nothing. I also cannot say that either .NET Framework 1.1 or 2.0 do slow the system. It just lies there taking disk and registry space.

But:

(i) To remove *completely* either or both .NET Framework versions is a real PITA.

(ii) In my experience .NET Framework introduces a search bug.

Read all about it here: Obnoxious find bug, related to NFR 1.1.

Since I multiboot Win 98SE with XPSP3 and true DOS 7.1, I've decided to let my 98SE installation .NETless. It took me some two days of experimenting and research to really rid the OS from it. And now, in the rare occasions I need to run something that requires .NET, I do that from XP, where I have v. 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 installed.

But I've needed it no more than twice or three times, since 2007.