I experienced endless WinUpdate update issues with .net framework on my W2K
pc - but so far none with Vista Ultimate.
I just ran 2 'Important' Vista WinUpdates - a hotfix and an update for .net
framework 3.5 SP1 - no problems.
However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea just how important
..Net Framework is to the average user like myself who's much less a PC
enthusiast than I was almost 20 years ago & primarily today more an email
and news junkie. So I checked out what Wikipedia posts on Net Framework -
and except for nerdy gobbledygook - got precisely no idea just how important
..NET Framework is to me.
May I ask a MS knowledgeable or other professional person to help me
understand 'just how important' for a user like me? If WinUpdate indicates
it's not 'essential' - than what exactly do I lose, if anything, by
uninstalling .NET Framework?
Blithe wrote:
> I experienced endless WinUpdate update issues with .net framework on my
> W2K pc - but so far none with Vista Ultimate.
>
> I just ran 2 'Important' Vista WinUpdates - a hotfix and an update for
> .net framework 3.5 SP1 - no problems.
>
> However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea just how
> important .Net Framework is to the average user like myself who's much
> less a PC enthusiast than I was almost 20 years ago & primarily today
> more an email and news junkie. So I checked out what Wikipedia posts on
> Net Framework - and except for nerdy gobbledygook - got precisely no
> idea just how important .NET Framework is to me.
>
> May I ask a MS knowledgeable or other professional person to help me
> understand 'just how important' for a user like me? If WinUpdate
> indicates it's not 'essential' - than what exactly do I lose, if
> anything, by uninstalling .NET Framework?
>
> Please advise - Blithe
With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and existing
application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework is an
essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up to date
on the Windows O/S platform, period.
"Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
news:e1njGRN9JHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and existing
> application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework is an
> essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up to date on
> the Windows O/S platform, period.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put remain -
1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
'important' only & not essential?
2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
uninstalling .NET Framework?
(& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of the
equation' with examples?)
Thank you -
Blithe
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Blithe wrote:
>> I experienced endless WinUpdate update issues with .net framework on my
>> W2K pc - but so far none with Vista Ultimate.
>>
>> I just ran 2 'Important' Vista WinUpdates - a hotfix and an update for
>> .net framework 3.5 SP1 - no problems.
>>
>> However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea just how important
>> .Net Framework is to the average user like myself who's much less a PC
>> enthusiast than I was almost 20 years ago & primarily today more an email
>> and news junkie. So I checked out what Wikipedia posts on Net
>> Framework - and except for nerdy gobbledygook - got precisely no idea
>> just how important .NET Framework is to me.
>>
>> May I ask a MS knowledgeable or other professional person to help me
>> understand 'just how important' for a user like me? If WinUpdate
>> indicates it's not 'essential' - than what exactly do I lose, if
>> anything, by uninstalling .NET Framework?
>>
>> Please advise - Blithe
>
> What is the .Net Framework?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
>
> "Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
> news:e1njGRN9JHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and existing
>> application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework is an
>> essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up to date
>> on the Windows O/S platform, period.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put remain -
> 1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
> 'important' only & not essential?
> 2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
> uninstalling .NET Framework?
> (& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of the
> equation' with examples?)
..Net Framework is used to build other programs. If you have a program that
used a particular .Net Framework in its coding (printer software, for
instance) and you have that .Net Framework installed (1.1, 2.0, etc.) and
updates to it are offered, you should take them.
If you don't have .Net Framework 3.5 installed, there is no reason to
install it. I never do, because the installation has been problematic for a
lot of people - including once on my son's machine.
Blithe wrote:
> "Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
> news:e1njGRN9JHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and
>> existing application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework
>> is an essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up
>> to date on the Windows O/S platform, period.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put remain -
> 1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
> 'important' only & not essential?
Because like the Windows O/S, which is essential, so is the .NET
Framework essential. Some consider the .NET Framework to eventually
become the Windows O/S in the future.
> 2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
> uninstalling .NET Framework?
A program's ability to run or work properly that has been
developed/program against/or using the .NET Framework.
> (& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of
> the equation' with examples?)
The .NET Framework is taking over the Windows O/S functionality and/or
will supplant the Windows O/S in many areas as you know it, working
behind the scene.
Malke, if I may; in your example you seem to be saying that my printer's
manufacturer might write software for my printer based on/or using some
version of .Net Framework.
Now assume for a moment that I have no .NET Framework software and/or
program installed on my Windows PC. None. Are you saying then that I could
Not install and/or use the printer program because I do not have .NET
Framework installed on my WPC?
thank you
ptmx2
"Malke" wrote:
> Blithe wrote:
>
> > "Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
> > news:e1njGRN9JHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and existing
> >> application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework is an
> >> essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up to date
> >> on the Windows O/S platform, period.
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put remain -
> > 1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
> > 'important' only & not essential?
> > 2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
> > uninstalling .NET Framework?
> > (& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of the
> > equation' with examples?)
>
> ..Net Framework is used to build other programs. If you have a program that
> used a particular .Net Framework in its coding (printer software, for
> instance) and you have that .Net Framework installed (1.1, 2.0, etc.) and
> updates to it are offered, you should take them.
>
> If you don't have .Net Framework 3.5 installed, there is no reason to
> install it. I never do, because the installation has been problematic for a
> lot of people - including once on my son's machine.
>
> Malke
> --
> MS-MVP
> Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
> http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ
>
>
however, like the OP, I don't know of any programs on my XP_SP3 PC that
require my PC to have some or all version(s) of .NET Framework installed. I
subscribe to the notion "if I don't need it, then I don't need it". IF in
tomorrow I need to open, use, or view something that requires .NET Framework,
I will download it.
It does sound like an interesting thing and I have noticed applications that
are using .NET Framework right now. I simply to do not use any of them right
now.
"Vista Succubus Hunter" wrote:
> Blithe wrote:
> > "Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
> > news:e1njGRN9JHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and
> >> existing application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework
> >> is an essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up
> >> to date on the Windows O/S platform, period.
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put remain -
> > 1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
> > 'important' only & not essential?
>
> Because like the Windows O/S, which is essential, so is the .NET
> Framework essential. Some consider the .NET Framework to eventually
> become the Windows O/S in the future.
>
> > 2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
> > uninstalling .NET Framework?
>
> A program's ability to run or work properly that has been
> developed/program against/or using the .NET Framework.
>
> > (& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of
> > the equation' with examples?)
>
>
> The .NET Framework is taking over the Windows O/S functionality and/or
> will supplant the Windows O/S in many areas as you know it, working
> behind the scene.
>
"ptmx2" <ptmx2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:97988A61-FA1D-4E0E-A064-1F0EBB844D88@microsoft.com...
>
> Now assume for a moment that I have no .NET Framework software and/or
> program installed on my Windows PC. None. Are you saying then that I
> could
> Not install and/or use the printer program because I do not have .NET
> Framework installed on my WPC?
Correct. If the printer software was developed using a version of .NET
Framework, you'd need that version of .NET installed or otherwise you
wouldn't be able to use it. Normally when you run (printer or any) software
setup, it'll automatically install the correct .NET version that it needs to
run properly.
ptmx2 wrote:
> thank you for your post.
>
> however, like the OP, I don't know of any programs on my XP_SP3 PC that
> require my PC to have some or all version(s) of .NET Framework installed. I
> subscribe to the notion "if I don't need it, then I don't need it". IF in
> tomorrow I need to open, use, or view something that requires .NET Framework,
> I will download it.
Well, that's going to happen sooner or later as .NET is the preferred
software development solution for the Windows platform. And more and
more software developers are using .Net to develop business and home
consumer solutions.
>
> It does sound like an interesting thing and I have noticed applications that
> are using .NET Framework right now. I simply to do not use any of them right
> now.
..Net solutions are being deployed in the business and home consumer
sectors. You just have not encountered one as of yet.
I have read all contributions to this thread & thank all contributors. I
also just checked the MS .net framework website at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zw4w595w.aspx
& read the: ".NET Framework Conceptual Overview" -
which basically states the purpose is to build/develop the essential
components of the next Microsoft OS. Fine.
I have been a patient and at times an unforgiving user of MS OS's since
Windows 3.0 - & had always understood, until now, that the proper, official,
recommended protocol for upgrading a Windows OS has been by installing
Microsoft certified OS Service Packs.
Therefore, considering what Microsoft has certified about the purpose of
..net framework on the above website - is it unreasonable for me to answer
the questions I had originally posted here by concluding???:
A. .Net Framework is 'essential' to software/developer/engineers only
B. Most Windows users will have no meaningful, substantive need either to
install .Net Framework & nor have any strong reason that argues against
uninstalling .Net Framework (assuming that uninstalling will not create
unexpected or previously reported collateral issues that have not been
resolved).
Of course - anyone who chooses to uninstall ought to do so at their own
risk - & that includes me.
Thank you all for this useful discussion- Blithe
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"ptmx2" <ptmx2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC5BF980-00B6-46F8-9CA8-03985BF35D22@microsoft.com...
> thank you for your post.
>
> however, like the OP, I don't know of any programs on my XP_SP3 PC that
> require my PC to have some or all version(s) of .NET Framework installed.
> I
> subscribe to the notion "if I don't need it, then I don't need it". IF in
> tomorrow I need to open, use, or view something that requires .NET
> Framework,
> I will download it.
>
> It does sound like an interesting thing and I have noticed applications
> that
> are using .NET Framework right now. I simply to do not use any of them
> right
> now.
>
> "Vista Succubus Hunter" wrote:
>
>> Blithe wrote:
>> > "Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
>> > news:e1njGRN9JHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >> With new programmed applications being created to use .NET and
>> >> existing application being converted to use .NET, the .NET Framework
>> >> is an essential part of the equation that must be present and kept up
>> >> to date on the Windows O/S platform, period.
>> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Thanks, Hunter, I appreciate your input. Bur the questions I put
>> > remain -
>> > 1. if it's "an essential part" - why does WinUpdate prioritize it as
>> > 'important' only & not essential?
>>
>> Because like the Windows O/S, which is essential, so is the .NET
>> Framework essential. Some consider the .NET Framework to eventually
>> become the Windows O/S in the future.
>>
>> > 2. What does a user like I described lose by either not installing or
>> > uninstalling .NET Framework?
>>
>> A program's ability to run or work properly that has been
>> developed/program against/or using the .NET Framework.
>>
>> > (& can you be more specific by explaining/defining 'essential part of
>> > the equation' with examples?)
>>
>>
>> The .NET Framework is taking over the Windows O/S functionality and/or
>> will supplant the Windows O/S in many areas as you know it, working
>> behind the scene.
>>
.NET Framework - how 'important?' 
Linear Mode
