[John]

I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off as I
don't see what benefit I get from it.

[Clive George]

"John" wrote in message
...
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off as
I don't see what benefit I get from it.

If you're running a stripped down system, and you've got no software which
uses it, then no. OTOH it's the MS way of developing stuff, so more stuff
will be using it. 248M is quite a lot, but think of it as a big shared
component rather than a standalone thing.

[John]

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"John" wrote in message
...
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off
as I don't see what benefit I get from it.

If you're running a stripped down system, and you've got no software which
uses it, then no. OTOH it's the MS way of developing stuff, so more stuff
will be using it. 248M is quite a lot, but think of it as a big shared
component rather than a standalone thing.


I don't do games or any developing of applications - just Office, MS Money
and Internet browsing.

[Adrian C]

John wrote:
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

Only for running new applications written with it.

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off as I
don't see what benefit I get from it.

Probably best to uninstall .NET support completely from your machine if
you want to do that. Then (in theory) you'll never get asked about
patching it for security issues!

--
Adrian C

[Adrian C]

Adrian C wrote:
Probably best to uninstall .NET support completely from your machine if
you want to do that. Then (in theory) you'll never get asked about
patching it for security issues!


Scrap that thought. Great way for someone to trash their computer if
done incorrectly. :-(

For example, I've got graphics drivers (ATI) which use it. Remove .NET,
and then it's a very involved mess to recover from.

--
Adrian C

[Peter Crosland]

I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off as
I don't see what benefit I get from it.


Better to bite the bullet because more and more Microsoft, and other
software houses, use it and if you don't you may find something you want
will stop. The problem can be that the error messages do not make it
apparent what the reason is. I know it can be a pain but better to have it
when you can choose than have to get it in a panic!

Peter Crosland

[Clive George]

"John" wrote in message
...

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"John" wrote in message
...
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off
as I don't see what benefit I get from it.

If you're running a stripped down system, and you've got no software
which uses it, then no. OTOH it's the MS way of developing stuff, so more
stuff will be using it. 248M is quite a lot, but think of it as a big
shared component rather than a standalone thing.


I don't do games or any developing of applications - just Office, MS Money
and Internet browsing.

It's not you developing stuff which will use it, it's other people
developing stuff which use it and you then want to use.

I'd probably go grr a bit at the size then accept the install.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "John"
saying something like:

I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off as I
don't see what benefit I get from it.

There's a lot of stuff relies on it and I've found it doesn't interfere
with normal operations. I put off installing it for long enough, but a
prog I needed to use insisted on its presence.

[[email protected]]

John wrote:
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off as I
don't see what benefit I get from it.

I dont have it and there's no app I've ever wanted to run that needs
it. And I run a fair bit of software.


NT

[brass monkey]

I succumbed and installed xp sp3 some months back, after which my puter
did'nt recognise my camera.
I've re-imaged back to sp2.
Presumably there will be no more updates for sp2 and virus's will wreak
havoc?
TIA.

[OG]

"John" wrote in message
...

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"John" wrote in message
...
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off
as I don't see what benefit I get from it.

If you're running a stripped down system, and you've got no software
which uses it, then no. OTOH it's the MS way of developing stuff, so more
stuff will be using it. 248M is quite a lot, but think of it as a big
shared component rather than a standalone thing.


I don't do games or any developing of applications - just Office, MS Money
and Internet browsing.

Depends.
Microsoft have some nice freebies that need .Net Framework installed before
you can use them - an example being "Image Composite Editor" which allows
you to stitch photos together to make panoramas.

[geoff]

In message , OG
writes

"John" wrote in message
...

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"John" wrote in message
...
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but
do I need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it
off as I don't see what benefit I get from it.

If you're running a stripped down system, and you've got no software
which uses it, then no. OTOH it's the MS way of developing stuff, so
more stuff will be using it. 248M is quite a lot, but think of it as
a big shared component rather than a standalone thing.


I don't do games or any developing of applications - just Office, MS
Money and Internet browsing.

Depends.
Microsoft have some nice freebies that need .Net Framework installed
before you can use them - an example being "Image Composite Editor"
which allows you to stitch photos together to make panoramas.

And what's 250 meg nowadays ?

60 quid buys you a TB disk nowadays


--
geoff

[OG]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , OG
writes

"John" wrote in message
...

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"John" wrote in message
...
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do
I need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it
off as I don't see what benefit I get from it.

If you're running a stripped down system, and you've got no software
which uses it, then no. OTOH it's the MS way of developing stuff, so
more stuff will be using it. 248M is quite a lot, but think of it as a
big shared component rather than a standalone thing.


I don't do games or any developing of applications - just Office, MS
Money and Internet browsing.

Depends.
Microsoft have some nice freebies that need .Net Framework installed
before you can use them - an example being "Image Composite Editor" which
allows you to stitch photos together to make panoramas.

And what's 250 meg nowadays ?

60 quid buys you a TB disk nowadays

I'd be more concerned about the other system resources getting hogged.

[Clive George]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

60 quid buys you a TB disk nowadays

And you can buy the exact same disk, with an IBM badge and a nice removable
caddy thing, for 1000 quid if you want :-(

[[email protected]]

brass monkey wrote:
I succumbed and installed xp sp3 some months back, after which my puter
did'nt recognise my camera.
I've re-imaged back to sp2.
Presumably there will be no more updates for sp2 and virus's will wreak
havoc?
TIA.

The risks of running unupdated arent as high as theyre usually
portrayed. Main thing is to backup your data.


NT

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
brass monkey wrote:
I succumbed and installed xp sp3 some months back, after which my puter
did'nt recognise my camera.

Did you Google to see if there was a fix? Thought SP3 only effected
networked connections - not USB etc.

I've re-imaged back to sp2.
Presumably there will be no more updates for sp2 and virus's will wreak
havoc?

Could be. My networking between this RISC OS computer and my PC stopped
working after installing SP3, and I had to buy updated software on the
RISC OS side to get it sorted.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Clive George]

wrote in message
...
brass monkey wrote:
I succumbed and installed xp sp3 some months back, after which my puter
did'nt recognise my camera.
I've re-imaged back to sp2.
Presumably there will be no more updates for sp2 and virus's will wreak
havoc?
TIA.

The risks of running unupdated arent as high as theyre usually
portrayed. Main thing is to backup your data.

And SP2 is still being updated and will be for a while.

Right now I don't see a reason to get SP3. It's still too new, if nothing
else.

[The Natural Philosopher]

John wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"John" wrote in message
...
I don't want to get into too much technical debate with Geeks - but do I
need Microsoft .NET Framework?

I have been offered an update at 248 Mb. I wonder if I can strip it off
as I don't see what benefit I get from it.
If you're running a stripped down system, and you've got no software which
uses it, then no. OTOH it's the MS way of developing stuff, so more stuff
will be using it. 248M is quite a lot, but think of it as a big shared
component rather than a standalone thing.


I don't do games or any developing of applications - just Office, MS Money
and Internet browsing.


Then install Linux

[brass monkey]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
brass monkey wrote:
I succumbed and installed xp sp3 some months back, after which my puter
did'nt recognise my camera.

Did you Google to see if there was a fix? Thought SP3 only effected
networked connections - not USB etc.

Yes Dave, I Googled but couldn't find a fix, just a few other folk with the
same problem.

I've re-imaged back to sp2.
Presumably there will be no more updates for sp2 and virus's will wreak
havoc?

Could be. My networking between this RISC OS computer and my PC stopped
working after installing SP3, and I had to buy updated software on the
RISC OS side to get it sorted.

hmmmmmmmm

[Adrian C]

wrote:

The risks of running unupdated arent as high as theyre usually
portrayed. Main thing is to backup your data.

And let international thieves have full access to ye bank account?

Going internet shopping or banking on an unpatched PC is a bit reckless IMO.

--
Adrian C

[Adrian C]

Clive George wrote:
And SP2 is still being updated and will be for a while.

Right now I don't see a reason to get SP3. It's still too new, if nothing
else.


I expect after 19th May, Windows Update will insist on it. It's the day
that businesses that had elected to block it will find that they can't.

--
Adrian C

[Adrian]

"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Right now I don't see a reason to get SP3. It's still too new, if
nothing else.

Hardly. It was released last April.

SP3 is solid. I strongly suspect a driver or app update for the
previously mentioned video camera would get it up'n'kicking again.

There are definite risks in running un-updated. SP2-with-updates is not
"un-updated", until next year when SP2 support is expired.

[Bob Martin]

in 191382 20090325 133029 Adrian wrote:
"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Right now I don't see a reason to get SP3. It's still too new, if
nothing else.

Hardly. It was released last April.

SP3 is solid. I strongly suspect a driver or app update for the
previously mentioned video camera would get it up'n'kicking again.

There are definite risks in running un-updated. SP2-with-updates is not
"un-updated", until next year when SP2 support is expired.

Your last two posts contradict each other.
Is it 19th May or next year?

[Adrian C]

Bob Martin wrote:
in 191382 20090325 133029 Adrian wrote:

There are definite risks in running un-updated. SP2-with-updates is not
"un-updated", until next year when SP2 support is expired.

Your last two posts contradict each other.

He iz not me :-)

Is it 19th May or next year?

From windowsteamblog ... http://preview.tinyurl.com/bsgsa7

"After April 28th, Windows Vista SP1 will be delivered via Windows
Update. And after May 19th, Windows XP SP3 will also be delivered via
Windows Update"

--
Adrian C

[Andy Champ[_2_]]

Adrian C wrote:

For example, I've got graphics drivers (ATI) which use it. Remove .NET,
and then it's a very involved mess to recover from.


I'll be shocked if the drivers use it. The pretty GUI that lets you
fiddle with the settings is a much more likely candidate.

Andy

[Adrian C]

Andy Champ wrote:
Adrian C wrote:

For example, I've got graphics drivers (ATI) which use it. Remove
.NET, and then it's a very involved mess to recover from.


I'll be shocked if the drivers use it. The pretty GUI that lets you
fiddle with the settings is a much more likely candidate.


Yes, it's for the pretty GUI. Whether the driver package remains stable
after yanking out .NET that supports the GUI, given ATI's known history
of writing good graphics driver packages (not!) is still something I
wouldn't like to recommend as a casual experiment.

Remove the ATI drivers. Remove .NET and maybe Microsoft has some generic
ATI accelerated drivers that might suffice.

Or glorious VGA 16-color mode ;-)

--
Adrian C