.NET installation

[Guest Jake]

As a basic home user with WinME, do I need to install the .NET

packages?

I don't do any programming, just browsing.

Who does need the .NET apps ?

 

TIA

Jako

[Guest Mike M]

Re: .NET installation

 

A number of recent applications and the like require the .NET framework to

be installed on a PC before they can be installed. If you don't have or

need any of these applications then there is no reason to install any

version of .NET, Most applications that require a version of .NET

installed as a pre-condition will tell you this before you start the

installation. An example of an application that uses .NET is recent

versions of ATI's Catalyst Control Centre. If you aren't a gamer or don't

use ATI graphics cards then you don't need the Catalyst Control Centre and

even if you do use an ATI graphics card you may well find that you need

nothing more than the basic Catalyst drivers.

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

 

Jake <jakey@micronet.com> wrote:

> As a basic home user with WinME, do I need to install the .NET

> packages?

> I don't do any programming, just browsing.

> Who does need the .NET apps ?

>

> TIA

> Jako

[Guest Jake]

Re: .NET installation

 

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

I just use IE6, OE6, WinAmp, Acrobat Reader, AVG and uTorrent.

Flash & Java also installed.

I have standard Compaq 17" monitor with average AGP card.

 

I have got .NET 1.1 installed already (maybe should go to 2.0),

but was wondering if it is a System Resource hog that I can

uninstall.

Maybe the System doesn't even use it in background ?

Does everyone just install it by default... Google doesn't give

much away.

 

With a P3-450 I need to maximize potential where I can.

So do I uninstall or not ?

Or don't fix it if it ain't broke...

 

Thanks again

 

 

 

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message

news:%23HwLTuxzIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> A number of recent applications and the like require the .NET

framework to

> be installed on a PC before they can be installed. If you don't

have or

> need any of these applications then there is no reason to

install any

> version of .NET, Most applications that require a version of

..NET

> installed as a pre-condition will tell you this before you start

the

> installation. An example of an application that uses .NET is

recent

> versions of ATI's Catalyst Control Centre. If you aren't a

gamer or don't

> use ATI graphics cards then you don't need the Catalyst Control

Centre and

> even if you do use an ATI graphics card you may well find that

you need

> nothing more than the basic Catalyst drivers.

> --

> Mike Maltby

> mike.maltby@gmail.com

>

>

> Jake <jakey@micronet.com> wrote:

>

> > As a basic home user with WinME, do I need to install the .NET

> > packages?

> > I don't do any programming, just browsing.

> > Who does need the .NET apps ?

> >

> > TIA

> > Jako

>

[Guest Mike M]

Re: .NET installation

 

The system has no interest in .NET nor whether you have it installed or

not. It forms no part of the Win Me operating system, nor does it in XP,

however I'm unclear as to which .NET frameworks are included as part of

Vista as I don't see it separately referenced in Add/Remove Programs on my

Vista box.

> I have got .NET 1.1 installed already (maybe should go to 2.0),

 

Why since you don't appear to use 1.1? Note 2.0 isn't an upgrade, you

would still need to retain 1.1 if you had an application that required it.

Likewise for 3.0. A fully bloated system would require all of 1.1 plus

SPs and patches, 2.0 plus patches and 3.0 plus patches if any. .NET is a

programming environment for sake of a better description and if you don't

have an app that needs it there is no need for it to be installed.

> Maybe the System doesn't even use it in background ?

 

See what I've already said.

> Does everyone just install it by default...

 

Not everyone installs .NET as it has never been listed as "Critical"

although sheep have been known to install it whilst sleeping. <vbg>

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

 

Jake <jakey@micronet.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply.

>

> I just use IE6, OE6, WinAmp, Acrobat Reader, AVG and uTorrent.

> Flash & Java also installed.

> I have standard Compaq 17" monitor with average AGP card.

>

> I have got .NET 1.1 installed already (maybe should go to 2.0),

> but was wondering if it is a System Resource hog that I can

> uninstall.

> Maybe the System doesn't even use it in background ?

> Does everyone just install it by default... Google doesn't give

> much away.

>

> With a P3-450 I need to maximize potential where I can.

> So do I uninstall or not ?

> Or don't fix it if it ain't broke...

>

> Thanks again

[Guest Jake]

Re: .NET installation

 

Again, thanks for the pointers.

I have uninstalled with no problems.

I feel personally less bloated for it...

 

I see you're hinting your Vista connections, maybe I'll pop by for

some Vista pointers from you in 5 years.

 

Ta very much

<(.¿.)>

 

 

 

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message

news:ebIpZ4yzIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> The system has no interest in .NET nor whether you have it

installed or

> not. It forms no part of the Win Me operating system, nor does

it in XP,

> however I'm unclear as to which .NET frameworks are included as

part of

> Vista as I don't see it separately referenced in Add/Remove

Programs on my

> Vista box.

>

> > I have got .NET 1.1 installed already (maybe should go to

2.0),

>

> Why since you don't appear to use 1.1? Note 2.0 isn't an

upgrade, you

> would still need to retain 1.1 if you had an application that

required it.

> Likewise for 3.0. A fully bloated system would require all of

1.1 plus

> SPs and patches, 2.0 plus patches and 3.0 plus patches if any.

..NET is a

> programming environment for sake of a better description and if

you don't

> have an app that needs it there is no need for it to be

installed.

>

> > Maybe the System doesn't even use it in background ?

>

> See what I've already said.

>

> > Does everyone just install it by default...

>

> Not everyone installs .NET as it has never been listed as

"Critical"

> although sheep have been known to install it whilst sleeping.

<vbg>

> --

> Mike Maltby

> mike.maltby@gmail.com

>

>

> Jake <jakey@micronet.com> wrote:

>

> > Thanks for the quick reply.

> >

> > I just use IE6, OE6, WinAmp, Acrobat Reader, AVG and uTorrent.

> > Flash & Java also installed.

> > I have standard Compaq 17" monitor with average AGP card.

> >

> > I have got .NET 1.1 installed already (maybe should go to

2.0),

> > but was wondering if it is a System Resource hog that I can

> > uninstall.

> > Maybe the System doesn't even use it in background ?

> > Does everyone just install it by default... Google doesn't

give

> > much away.

> >

> > With a P3-450 I need to maximize potential where I can.

> > So do I uninstall or not ?

> > Or don't fix it if it ain't broke...

> >

> > Thanks again

>

[Guest Mike M]

Re: .NET installation

 

> I see you're hinting your Vista connections

 

Not at all. I run XP SP3 as the main OS on all my PCs (most of which

multi-boot so I also run XP x64, Win Me, etc) with the exception of a 10

day old laptop which came with Vista Business pre-installed which I am

trying to learn to like but it's a hard job. I keep being tempted to

install XP Pro (it even came with an XP Pro CD) but feel that 21 months

after first release I ought to give Vista a second chance. My main

problem is that when connecting to my LAN by wireless I cannot access my

various NAS (network attached storage) boxes which run a variation of

Samba. The oddity being that if I connect to the LAN using a wired

connection I can access the NAS boxes without problem!

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

 

Jake <jakey@micronet.com> wrote:

> Again, thanks for the pointers.

> I have uninstalled with no problems.

> I feel personally less bloated for it...

>

> I see you're hinting your Vista connections, maybe I'll pop by for

> some Vista pointers from you in 5 years.

>

> Ta very much

> <(..)>

[Guest Jake]

Re: .NET installation

 

Sounds like a great setup you have, very clinical.

You say you have gone to the NAS option, is it feasible unless

running gigabyte LAN ?

Maybe so if using files below certain sizes I reckon.

But then compared with the quality of external USB/eSATA/Firewire

devices available today from 'reputable' companies like Seagate -

I suppose NAS quality is the pro route.

 

See here for woeful customer tales

http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board?board.id=freeagent

 

Happy networking

cya

 

 

 

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message

news:uN$4MQ1zIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > I see you're hinting your Vista connections

>

> Not at all. I run XP SP3 as the main OS on all my PCs (most of

which

> multi-boot so I also run XP x64, Win Me, etc) with the

exception of a 10

> day old laptop which came with Vista Business pre-installed

which I am

> trying to learn to like but it's a hard job. I keep being

tempted to

> install XP Pro (it even came with an XP Pro CD) but feel that 21

months

> after first release I ought to give Vista a second chance. My

main

> problem is that when connecting to my LAN by wireless I cannot

access my

> various NAS (network attached storage) boxes which run a

variation of

> Samba. The oddity being that if I connect to the LAN using a

wired

> connection I can access the NAS boxes without problem!

> --

> Mike Maltby

> mike.maltby@gmail.com

>

>

> Jake <jakey@micronet.com> wrote:

>

> > Again, thanks for the pointers.

> > I have uninstalled with no problems.

> > I feel personally less bloated for it...

> >

> > I see you're hinting your Vista connections, maybe I'll pop by

for

> > some Vista pointers from you in 5 years.

> >

> > Ta very much

> > <(..)>

>

[Guest Mike M]

Re: .NET installation

 

Yes, one arm of the LAN is Gigabit running off an 8 port Netgear Gigabit

switch. This has four (swallow) NAS devices attached to it plus 2 PCs.

The NAS boxes are a Buffalo TeraStation and two Buffalo LinkStation Lives

(these both have two usb drives hanging off them) plus a small Freecom box

which lives there when not being used elsewhere. A fair bit of the NAS

storage is used to store media which is streamed to a Buffalo LinkTheatre

(to be replaced/supplemented shortly by a TVix 7000) attached to my TV

with the TeraStation also used as a family FTP server.

 

Nothing very professional about any of my setup other than perhaps for the

TeraStation which has four drives running in a RAID5 configuration (as

does this PC). Using NAS boxes makes their content more widely available

to the system and I only start the box(es) I need for what I am doing.

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

 

 

Jake <jakey@micronet.com> wrote:

> Sounds like a great setup you have, very clinical.

> You say you have gone to the NAS option, is it feasible unless

> running gigabyte LAN ?

> Maybe so if using files below certain sizes I reckon.

> But then compared with the quality of external USB/eSATA/Firewire

> devices available today from 'reputable' companies like Seagate -

> I suppose NAS quality is the pro route.

>

> See here for woeful customer tales

> http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board?board.id=freeagent

>

> Happy networking