Guest Jake Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 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 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 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 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 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 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 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 Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 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 Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 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 Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 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 Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 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
Recommended Posts