f



[OT] Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update

I was just wondering if any of the ".NET" fans in this forum have any 
opinions/input on this.  I have my Windows XP environment set to "automatic 
updates" and this came in this week.  It was a HUGE download; took a larger hunk 
of my hard-disk; and significantly increased my "system managed" pagefile.

I don't know enough to know what, if anything, *I* get from this and just 
thought that someone in this forum might be able to point me to a summary that I 
would understand.

 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951847

doesn't help me, but maybe it should <G>

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com 


0
wmklein40 (279)
2/13/2009 12:04:11 AM
comp.lang.cobol 4278 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

2 Replies
567 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 59

William M. Klein wrote:
> I was just wondering if any of the ".NET" fans in this forum have any
> opinions/input on this.  I have my Windows XP environment set to
> "automatic updates" and this came in this week.  It was a HUGE
> download; took a larger hunk of my hard-disk; and significantly
> increased my "system managed" pagefile.
> I don't know enough to know what, if anything, *I* get from this and
> just thought that someone in this forum might be able to point me to
> a summary that I would understand.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951847
>
> doesn't help me, but maybe it should <G>

The full framework is around 300 MB. Normally it would not install all of 
that and what it does download is highly compressed, nevertheless, it is 
large.

Automatic Updates are kind of a two edged sword. For people who are not sure 
about configuring PCs it best to have it on, but as knowledge grows you may 
want to filter this a bit. I have mine set to notify me when updates are 
available and then I take them if they are relevant.

When you say it took a large hunk of your hard disk, you have to remember 
that 200 GB hard drives are pretty much "normal" these days (I have a laptop 
with more than that), so .3 GB is really not so tragic...

What does it get you?

Nothing at all if you are NOT using Windows software developed for .NET. 
If you have bought any recent applications (say, in the last 2 years) they 
are probably targeted at a .NET framework (read the box...). So, as a User, 
there is NOT a lot of gain in installing .NET, UNLESS you have a fairly new 
machine and are running fairly new applications, or intend to do so in the 
near future. Software that needs it will probably install it automatically 
anyway, as I did with the COBOL Structure tool. The problem then is that it 
won't be up to date. Between framework releases, this doesn't really matter 
too much, as your next automatic update will detect it is installed and 
update it for you.

When there is a major new release (as 3.5 is...) then the updates can be 
large. However, this doesn't happen every week... once a year is probably 
fair.

For you, Bill, you can visualize it as a large runtime system. It provides 
services and facilities that ensure improved security, less vulnerability, 
improved performance, and no more abends and BSODs. Applications which run 
in the framework are said to be "Managed". They CANNOT blow away your system 
and crash, are properly multithreaded, and behave properly. However, the 
framework can also run "Unmanaged" code (legacy and native code 
implementations) and these of course, CAN misbehave. Usually, the framework 
gives them what they need and then leaves them to it; it takes no 
responsibility for them.

From a DEVELOPER perspective, the view is quite different. The .NET 
framework provides a level playing field for components written in any 
language to interact seamlessly. COBOL can talk to C#, VB can interact with 
C++, and so on. Added to that you have around 70,000 fully developed and 
debugged Classes that you can use. Just about anything you could want is 
already there, all you have to do is connect the dots... Development is many 
times quicker than with COBOL (partly for that reason) and maintenance is 
much simpler.

But most importantly, the whole thing is MUCH more stable and it looks and 
feels better than standard Windows.

Should you run with Automatic Updates enabled?

For most people, the answer would be "yes". (Most of the updates are closing 
vulnerability or fixing known bugs, so you probably DO want them.)  However, 
if you are bothered by having resources consumed by updates you don't 
understand and may have no use for, then drop it down a notch and go for 
notification.

HTH,

Pete.

-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 


0
dashwood (4370)
2/13/2009 6:09:49 AM
I understand the concern. Even if disk space is cheap, a 300MB
download and update can take a machine hostage -- and nobody likes to
see a pagefile grow.

Most of the new .NET features sound like large changes. The changes to
native images and WPF sound like they should bring improved
performance for .NET applications running on your desktop. The ASP and
Click Once changes could bring benefits whenever you (very likely) use
ASP-driven websites or (possibly) install Click Once applications.

Interestingly, a significant number of early adopters for Framework
3.5 and Service Pack 1 have been COBOL.NET developers. I personally
know of at least one.

C# developers, on the other hand, have been slow to adapt. As Jon
Skeet reports in his book, a majority of C# developers are one or even
two major language versions behind the curve. Many of them are still
using Windows Forms.

Please, let's not mention the large number of VB6 developers who
rejected not only VB.NET, but even the final service pack for VB6 --
which was delivered on March 29, 2004.

 - Matt
----------------------------------
Matt Fisher
C# and VB6 applications developer
0
2/13/2009 10:28:31 PM
Reply: