Windows 95/98/ME .NET installation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jake
  • Start date Start date
J

Jake

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
 
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
 
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
>
 
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
 
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
>
 
> 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
> <(..)>
 
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
> > <(..)>
>
 
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
 
Back
Top