OK, let's face it... my laptop is coming up to celebrate its 4th birthday this year. Still works, still enables me to watch the iPlayer and broadcast my internet radio show and do what I want it to do.
But as time goes on and you face the prospect of things needing more resources etc, one starts looking at what you can get rid of.
So, I ask, what exactly is this thing called the Microsoft .NET framework and what benefits does it bring to my laptop?
Also is there any sort of program I can run to weasle out unwanted processes from running like realsched.exe?
.NET - what is it?
For selecting what runs at startup you can fire up the start menu, go to run and type msconfig. There's a tab in there that deals with what runs and you can deselect various programs, but MAKE SURE you know what you're disabling otherwise it could be weird.
As for .NET framework, it's microsoft's attempt (a few years ago now) to tie their programming environment into a sort of horrible web-enabled platform. Did it work? Dunno. Anyway, it's useful. Don't delete it.
As for .NET framework, it's microsoft's attempt (a few years ago now) to tie their programming environment into a sort of horrible web-enabled platform. Did it work? Dunno. Anyway, it's useful. Don't delete it.
Knight knight
Just to defend .NET Framework - despite the awful name (a bit like their late 90s obsession with appending 'Active' to everything) it's quite lovely, and not one I'd say has much to do with creating a web-enabled platform other than ASP.NET and Silverlight code-behinds, which is very much just one of many implementations of it, and indeed the idea of being able to (in certain contexts) reuse code on Xbox 360, Windows, WinMo and the Web can only be deeply sexy.
So yes. That doesn't answer your question. But this does: Don't kill it.
So yes. That doesn't answer your question. But this does: Don't kill it.
-
Dr Lobster*
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14
.net is an api library or a programmer's library of routines used to build applications.
i also believe one of the aims of .net was to make it easy for developers to create binaries that would run on any processor architecture - in many ways it's not that different from java, it's compiled into an intermediary language and then dynamically compiled into native code by the .net platform.
in theory it means that you compile one binary and whether you're on a 64 or 32 bit architecture the application will be optimised for that architecture. in theory.
in practice, it's a little different. versioning is actually a complete mess (this was supposed to be fixed by .net), certain options on base datatypes are horrendously slow (string especially).
in windows, .net actually sits on top of the win32 api, so it just calls the same routines you'd use in a native win32 application.
i tried to port one of my 'big' applications to .net a few years ago now (it's about 20,000 lines) and it was shit slow - especially drawing custom controls. i had created a custom 'listview' control which was just horrible in .net. i gave up after that. everything about it was slow, especially launching after a cold boot.
the main thing which i think puts big developers off is the fact that it's very easy to turn a binary into source code. you lose the useful variable and procedure names when you do this, but even after the binary has been run though an 'obfuscator' it would be easy to extract useful titbits like proprietary algorithms and encryption keys etc. - not even microsoft uses the .net framework in it's big applications. office and windows are still native applications.
i also believe one of the aims of .net was to make it easy for developers to create binaries that would run on any processor architecture - in many ways it's not that different from java, it's compiled into an intermediary language and then dynamically compiled into native code by the .net platform.
in theory it means that you compile one binary and whether you're on a 64 or 32 bit architecture the application will be optimised for that architecture. in theory.
in practice, it's a little different. versioning is actually a complete mess (this was supposed to be fixed by .net), certain options on base datatypes are horrendously slow (string especially).
in windows, .net actually sits on top of the win32 api, so it just calls the same routines you'd use in a native win32 application.
i tried to port one of my 'big' applications to .net a few years ago now (it's about 20,000 lines) and it was shit slow - especially drawing custom controls. i had created a custom 'listview' control which was just horrible in .net. i gave up after that. everything about it was slow, especially launching after a cold boot.
the main thing which i think puts big developers off is the fact that it's very easy to turn a binary into source code. you lose the useful variable and procedure names when you do this, but even after the binary has been run though an 'obfuscator' it would be easy to extract useful titbits like proprietary algorithms and encryption keys etc. - not even microsoft uses the .net framework in it's big applications. office and windows are still native applications.
Upload service: http://www.metropol247.co.uk/uploadservice
-
Nick Harvey
- God
- Posts: 4160
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 22.26
- Location: Deepest Wiltshire
- Contact:
On a slight side issue here, and possibly reading too much between the lines, but do I take it from that that Vista and 7 don't slow down like the earlier ones, or at least don't slow down as much?cdd wrote:(especially pre-Vista OSs)
In my experience Vista (post SP1) appears to have a much better lifespan than an XP install. However this needs to be coupled with the insanely slow startup time and general performance issues vista has in comparison to XP.
Having said that, I do like Vista. No really.
Having said that, I do like Vista. No really.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
If I could find them, I would.....cdd wrote:Why not just dig out the Recovery Discs for your laptop and whack them in? The main problem is even if you remove all startup items, there are quite a few other reasons why computers (especially pre-Vista OSs) become slow over time.
It's an Advent, by the way, basically PC World own-brand...
DSGi brand. They're sold at Curry's too.Alexia wrote:If I could find them, I would.....cdd wrote:Why not just dig out the Recovery Discs for your laptop and whack them in? The main problem is even if you remove all startup items, there are quite a few other reasons why computers (especially pre-Vista OSs) become slow over time.
It's an Advent, by the way, basically PC World own-brand...
I've owned two advent computers in my life and they both broke, so did the one of someone I know. Since then I've given up on them, shame as I find their laptops good value for the spec.
Anyway: the recovery discs can be ordered from some official page for a tenner (I've been there). I can't find the page now, and it had some silly name (DSG Retail Online or some such), and it may not be there any more. That's probably because they've switched to Recovery Partitions these days.
Anyway: the recovery discs can be ordered from some official page for a tenner (I've been there). I can't find the page now, and it had some silly name (DSG Retail Online or some such), and it may not be there any more. That's probably because they've switched to Recovery Partitions these days.
Had a virus attack me just after, and had to do a recovery anyway using the partition - now have a constant NTLDR problem on boot - downloaded a NTLDR disc from the net but now can't create a recovery disc so I can get into the recovery console....aarrrgh!!!
Having said that, the clean boot of XP has made things a whole lot better.
Having said that, the clean boot of XP has made things a whole lot better.