Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Xorcist

.net Framework ..mmm...

Recommended Posts

:shock: hi

i am really really sorry that CDBURNERXP PRO will move to .NET FRAMEWORK, this means i won't use it anymore , you have just condemned us to that.

you are asking us to install .NET FRAMEWORK , a piece of garbage from Micro$oft , hog our systems just to use CD-BURNER XP .....sorry won't happend.

i'm not happy and while the benefits for you will definetely be nice, easier coding and stuff, we are doomed.

i'll use the current BurnerXP , .NET FRAMEWORK arrives , it's goodbye time.

thank you. :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think the .NET Framework is a piece of garbage? Of course, it needs some time to load the first time you start a .NET application per session, but I am sure that you wont notice any more differences. I think it is wrong in this case to say that .NET is crap only because it is made by MS.

Future versions of Windows will have .NET installed anyway by default so if you are not going to keep WinXP or whatever you are currently using forever, you will get it one time for sure. Also there are more and more other programs developed in .NET and CDBXPP is not the only program you should .NET install for ;)

I must admit that the move .NET framework might be a bit too early at the moment, but it is really needed for some features like multilanguage support (foreign chars support) which is very often requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with flo i currently use other apps that run .net with NO Problems i think that is is great that cdbxpp is going to use .net the platform will mature and will take a little time but it will happen all i can say is try it then if you don't like it then don't use it its that simple :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion, GTK+ is the worst, yet that doesn't stop me from using GIMP and XChat

You just can't base your decisions on what code the program uses. It can be a crap language, but if the program runs good, who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion, GTK+ is the worst,

Correct, and I am alway sad when a good program uses it...in contrast to .NET Framework there are many things to complain. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PeterPanic

There are many facts within the .net technology and MS philosophy that make it reasonable to at least think about this post. I won't install it, too. And that hurts, as I thought, CDBXPP ist quite a valuable piece of work, and I won't be able to use it any more, too.

By the way - what's wrong with GTK+? I use it myself and opposed to .net it's Open Source (isn't it? :-) ) (with all the advantages of open source), tested, stable, functional, platform independent, COOL, much faster and smaller than .net and so on and so on... AND: You can use any character in GTK, as you can in VB3,4,5,6, VC, VC++, ...... Why shouldn't you be able to make translations in any of these? This would mean that until now (that we gladly have .net) all software on this planet was English? That's not true... You can even without bigger problems write for really "strange" languages as Thai, Chinese, Korean, Arabic,... But German, French, Norwegian,... are NO PROBLEM AT ALL in any programming language.

But there ARE real reasons to HATE the way MS thinks, works, programs,...

Ciao,

Peter (I know I should register here...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND: You can use any character in GTK, as you can in VB3,4,5,6,

You never used VB3-6, did you? It's a pain to develop multi-language apps with VB classic, especially if it's a language like Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Russian... Unicode-aware ActiveX controls are rare. And even if they were not, VB classic still sucks when it comes to globalization support.

@All the .net-haters:

Why don't you post at least one reasonable fact why .net is bad? Saying ".net is bad because its from MS" is nothing more than trolling.

BTW, be aware not to use any apps that use Mono or Portable .net - you would help spreading .net over the world. And btw, the Gnome developers plan to integrate Mono into Gnome until Gnome 2.12. So it looks like there'll soon be one Linux DE less for some people...;)

/e: Oh, I forgot, Windows Longhorn's Windows Explorer will be/is written in .net, so be sure never to use Longhorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Philosophy

I too won't be installing the .NET framework. I'll summarise my reasons.

I like my system to be light weight - I don't particularly like bloated or unnecessary programs. For me, .NET is an unnecessary 20mb+ on my system. Apart from the additional memory usage (I guarantee that ANY ADDITIONAL LAYER ADDS MEMORY AND REDUCES STABILITY - THAT'S A FACT), it takes up valuable hard drive space that i'd rather not waste - it increases my backup sizes and creates even more files that I have to be aware of.

Some people love the latest and greatest - I personally don't. I haven't migrated to XP for that very reason. However, I do quite enjoy Windows 2000 - a simpler interface without the hoo-ha of XP (I definately don't need an animated dog in my search box).

In the end, it's horses for courses. I don't want to buy a Suburu WRX (although an ok car - it's not appealing to me). Others don't want my old workhorse "old man's car" Toyota that has almost never missed a beat - and that's ok too.

Going .NET takes away my choice. I respect your right to go to .NET and don't intend to follow.

Sincerely,

Freedom of choice

PS Tiku, when you rave about longhorn, are you aware of what "Palladium" is? I treasure my freedom and will avoid longhorn (Palladium) like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know what Palladium/NGSCB is. I even had a large article about/against it on my website for a long time. But Palladium is a different topic, which I see much more differenciated today than I did 2 years ago when I wrote the article (which doesn't mean I love it now).

You wrote you won't install .net because it takes to much memory. Well, that's your right. But I think it's a bit crazy to pass on good software just because the required framework needs 20 MB. Have you Java installed? Well, it needs probably more than 20 MB. Have you the VB6 runtimes installed? ~5 MB. Have you the MFC runtimes installed? ~5-10 MB. Have you GTK+ installed? You know what I mean? If you're consequent, there's not much software left that will run on your system.

I wouldn't call .net unnecessary. It's very powerful. There're even first games (I'm talking about REAL games made by professionals) using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way - what's wrong with GTK+?

Well, the integration into the Windows GUI isn't that good. For example both Gimp and Gaim use GTK, and I can criticise both because of it (the contact list buttons - Gaim; open/save dialog - GIMP).

For me, .NET is an unnecessary 20mb+

Of course you should install not more than you need, but 20MB for a system component which is becoming more and more important is not wasted space. I also pay attention not to install unneeded programs, but I will never do without a program only because I don't want to install its runtimes (if they are common runtimes).

BTW, what is 20MB today? Almost nothing compared to usual HDDs.

Apart from the additional memory usage (I guarantee that ANY ADDITIONAL LAYER ADDS MEMORY AND REDUCES STABILITY - THAT'S A FACT)

It won't decrease your performance that much that you will notice it. Also .NET is no bugware so that it will crash your system every 5 minutes ;)

Also .NET shouldn't take visible more memory, because does "start up" not until you started a .NET program. Then of course, this particular programs takes up more memory but that shouldn't hurt anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the integration into the Windows GUI isn't that good. For example both Gimp and Gaim use GTK, and I can criticise both because of it (the contact list buttons - Gaim; open/save dialog - GIMP).

Did you try Gimp 2.2 pre 2? It does have nice open/save file dialogs with the ability of adding some directories to the hot list.

Concerning .Net framework - it simply doesn't work at my PC unlike any other program I ever tried and use (Gimp for Windows, Pinnacle, MS office, Open Office, Mathematica, Delphi 5, MS Embedded Visual studio, Mozilla and many others).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Concerning .Net framework - it simply doesn't work at my PC unlike any other program I ever tried and use (Gimp for Windows, Pinnacle, MS office, Open Office, Mathematica, Delphi 5, MS Embedded Visual studio, Mozilla and many others).

All those programs don't work on your computer? WOW!!! That IS a problem with your computer, not the software. But that was probably obvious.

I too won't be installing the .NET framework. I'll summarise my reasons.

I like my system to be light weight - I don't particularly like bloated or unnecessary programs. For me, .NET is an unnecessary 20mb+ on my system. Apart from the additional memory usage (I guarantee that ANY ADDITIONAL LAYER ADDS MEMORY AND REDUCES STABILITY - THAT'S A FACT), it takes up valuable hard drive space that i'd rather not waste - it increases my backup sizes and creates even more files that I have to be aware of.

Some people love the latest and greatest - I personally don't. I haven't migrated to XP for that very reason. However, I do quite enjoy Windows 2000 - a simpler interface without the hoo-ha of XP (I definately don't need an animated dog in my search box).

In the end, it's horses for courses. I don't want to buy a Suburu WRX (although an ok car - it's not appealing to me). Others don't want my old workhorse "old man's car" Toyota that has almost never missed a beat - and that's ok too.

Going .NET takes away my choice. I respect your right to go to .NET and don't intend to follow.

Sincerely,

Freedom of choice

PS Tiku, when you rave about longhorn, are you aware of what "Palladium" is? I treasure my freedom and will avoid longhorn (Palladium) like the plague.

Dude, 20 MB is not lightweight? Man, you must have a retro 90's computer with a 1 gig HD! I got my computer in 2000, for about $700, and it still has an 80 gig HD. 20 MB comes out to be a lousy (1 gig = 1024 MB) .024%. WOW, like that will make your backups (why backups??? 2 HD on same computer is all you need) any smaller? Come on. Have you no other .NET applications either? Paint.NET, WinXP Manager.... Guess not.......

If you avoided Windows XP just because you don't like the DOG in the search box, you must not know how to customize your computer, hate MS, too lazy to customize, have heard false info about XP, or a combination of all of the above.

AND your car analogy has absolutly nothing with this here. According to your analogy, you would pay (or get a free test drive) of your old toyota rather than getting a free subaru. I'm sure if you reply, you would say you would, but in reality, that is not the case.

And remember: If the .NET framework is not working on your computer, it is most likely your computer's fault, NOT the .NET frameworks's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I installed .Net a few weeks ago, it added another user account to my system, the particular application I installed it for caused a nice hard lockup, and upon restart I find that I had to use safe mode just to get back into my system. Upon uninstalling .Net all was back to normal. In my opinion java would be a better way to go than .Net, but I'm not a programmer. I do hardware/software support. If the net version of Windows has .Net in it. That's fine it'll be a feature, not an add-on as it is now. It doesn't play nice with everybody's computers in its present add-on state, and this will probably change when implimented in Longhorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those programs don't work on your computer? WOW!!! That IS a problem with your computer, not the software. But that was probably obvious.

I've written unlike. Do you know the meaning of this word?

Again. Any program of different complexity works at my PC, but MS .Net 1.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure it runs under the open source implementation of .net 'mono' and everything is fine! :)

http://www.mono-project.com/about/index.html

Well, if moving to .NET means the ability to port to Linux with GTK#, then I think it's a good thing to think about.

For better or worse, I think running an application on VM is still an alien idea to many. The closest thing I can relate to is Azureus, which runs on JAVA VM. It isn't bad considering the performance is acceptable on both Windows and Linux - that considering you have the native look and feel with SWT.

However, the morale of moving to .NET is two-fold. Older versions of Windows won't have .NET runtime - or they may have, but with no support or anything. Their users may feel left behind.

Second, I think Azureus' real target audience is cross-platform (Windows, Linux and Mac OS X). Given this requirement, running on a Java VM seems the shortest path for the developers (though that is arguable now with more and more cross-platform widgets out there). The morale of running CDBurnerXP on a VM, for now, looks to be for the sake of catching up the latest technology for the sake of it.

Eventually Windows Longhorn (and 2003 server) will have .NET runtime with it. But I don't think people would be moving to Longhorn that fast. Just ask yourself, how many of you guys have tried Avalon Beta released several months ago? How is moving to Longhorn really improve your applications (or return on investment by porting VB6/VC6 to .NET and Avalon)? Joel on Software has an article which gives some nice input on this subject: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

What's so interesting is this article provoked many responses from the Microsoft bloggers and developers, and directly influenced MS to release Avalon on Windows XP.

Anyway, I think you can still use Visual Studio.NET to compile your application in Unmanaged mode, right? In that case you can still run the application using VC7/VB7 DLL, but without the need of .NET runtime, correct? I think you can do it both ways, if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if moving to .NET means the ability to port to Linux with GTK#, then I think it's a good thing to think about.

No, currently there are no plans to port it to another sysrem.

However, the morale of moving to .NET is two-fold. Older versions of Windows won't have .NET runtime - or they may have, but with no support or anything. Their users may feel left behind.

Everyone can install .NET- if someone does not want, he has to use another burning software. It is as simple as that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think you can still use Visual Studio.NET to compile your application in Unmanaged mode, right? In that case you can still run the application using VC7/VB7 DLL, but without the need of .NET runtime, correct? I think you can do it both ways, if necessary.

Not sure whether I understood you right, but there is no unmanaged VB7. There's unmanaged Visual C++ 7 only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not good to hear though.

Are you sure .NET runtime (say 2.0 or later versions) will be available for older versions of Windows like Win98/2000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure whether I understood you right, but there is no unmanaged VB7. There's unmanaged Visual C++ 7 only.

Oh, I see. I thought CDBurnerXP was written in C++.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 1:

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows ME, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've written unlike. Do you know the meaning of this word?

Not everyone understands the subtle nuances of the english language well enough to decipher a very gramatically poor sentence, my friend.

Again. Any program of different complexity works at my PC, but MS .Net 1.1.

MS .net is *not* a program, merely runtime support for the Visual Studio 7 programming languages... There's no such thing as "it doesn't work on my pc". What problem are you having with it, if any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Net 1.1 fails to install at my PC. So it doesn't work as the result. This is the only program I remember that refuses to be installed.

P.S. Do I know you from somewhere? Please, do not try to be so familiar.

Not everyone understands the subtle nuances of the english language well enough to decipher a very gramatically poor sentence, my friend.

P.P.S. I'm not a novice user, I'm a programmer, so I *do* know the difference between the executables and dlls (sometimes I write and compile the second ones by myself) :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 1:

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows ME, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP

Ok, that's a bit clear up.

So it is Windows 98 onwards for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.