More and more software requires Microsoft’s .NET Framework. As a result, reader questions like Bob Wilson’s are becoming more common:
“So far, I have avoided installing Microsoft’s .NET Framework, not seeing much use for more bloat and a bit concerned about adding another MS app to my system. It seems more and more things are requiring .NET.
“On Brian’s recommendation, I was starting to install Shavlik’s NetCheck Protect and again found I needed .NET installed. I’d appreciate your comments on the up and/or down side of installing .NET (and which version).”
When the .NET Framework first came out, Microsoft aimed it almost exclusively at developers. As I reported in the LangaList on Oct. 20, 2005, Microsoft even went so far as to describe its main benefits as “Realize New Business Opportunities, Reduce Time-to-Market, Write Less Code….” With practically zero benefit to end users at the time, there was really no reason to install it.
It took a while for things to change. For example, in an even earlier issue on July 3, 2003, I compared a classic drive-imaging tool to its .NET version. The older version fit nicely on one floppy, but the .NET version (plus the mandatory .NET Framework) required 85MB of files.
That was 60 times more code to do basically the same thing. It wasn’t 60 times better or 60 times faster or 60 times easier to use or 60 times less expensive. It was just 60 times fatter. That was nuts. The software publisher was using .NET just because it existed, not because it yielded any particular benefit.
But now, genuinely good .NET-based software has emerged. So the reasons for avoiding .NET have largely gone away. We’re now at a point where it’s becoming better to have it than not have it. (In fact, some core parts of Vista use .NET.) If you’ve been holding off, I’d say it’s time to go ahead and install the latest-available version, 2.0. It’s available on the Windows Update site.
-WindowsSecrets.com