Microsoft .NET Framework 4

Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security
1

when you have Microsoft .NET Framework 4 installed on xp it takes a long time before the web and mail shield is active.
Unstalling Microsoft .NET Framework 4 resolved the problem 4 me.
I just post this because I noticed it today and there are probably other people who loose lots of time waiting 4 those shields to get active…

2

http://my.opera.com/rejzor/blog/slow-windows-xp-sp3-startup-with-net-framework-4

Read my blog. This is in fact a side effect of this bug which makes avast! look like it’s the cause of the problem, but it’s just waiting for .NET Framework to give it a go.
Use my fix and the slow boot will go away.

3

I ended up getting rid of .net 4.0, an absolute pain in the a**. The .net updates have been nothing but a disaster right from the very start.

I’m on .net 3.5 with all updates, etc. only because one of my programs requires it or believe me I wouldn’t give .net hard disk space. Now just trying to go into standby takes 4 seconds, where prior to .net 3.5, it was instant, I’m less than impressed with .net.

4

If you use my fix, you can have .NET 4 installed without any side effects.

5

I only installed it as I thought it best to have it, being the latest .net, but it is only required if the program installed requires .net 4. Since the program requires 3.5 I keep 3.5 up to date and got rid of .net 4.

I rather doubt your fix would resolve the usual fiasco I and many others have had in the past trying to install .net updates, without doubt Microsoft’s worst update function. It beggars belief that they aren’t able to do a rollup upgrade where you install the latest version and it is backward compatible.

6

Well, you don’t have to doubt, the problem was diagnosed and the fix was tested on several systems running WinXP SP3 and .NET 4. They were all running normally after running it.

7

Nice. Still, if Dave doesn’t need .net 4 why should he install it…??

8

This is because of how .NET works. They cannot make .NET 4 backwards-compatible with .NET 2 to 3.5 SP1, and they cannot make .NET 2 backwards-compatible with .NET 1 to 1.1.
As in, it’s impossible. The Common Language Runtime (CLR), which is the component that manages .NET’s CIL (you code an app in C#, VB.NET, F#, etc. and the compiler compiles it in an intermediate language known as CIL or MSIL), version has changed in .NET 2 and .NET 4, which means code written targeting .NET < 4 can’t work on .NET 4.

9

Not saying it won’t fix what you have designed it to fix (slow boot with XP SP3), but it won’t resolve the shambles of the windows updates I have experienced in the past with .net framework updates.

So for now I’m staying well clear of any .net version that isn’t required for a program I’m running.

10

Why then does .net 4 do what 3.5 does, e.g. it installs 2.0 and 3.0 also, there just doesn’t seem to be any consistency in how updates are applied.

If you get .net 4 because you have a program that requires it, if you didn’t previously have .net installed I don’t know if you could simply install .net 4 without all of the other slew of .net versions. It is this sort of consistency that I’m on about, so perhaps backwards compatibility was a poor choice of words.

11

I have no problem with .NET4 on my XP Pro system.

Maybe you just don’t like it because it is 120MB and with a slow download speed it takes a long time or maybe it messes Firefox too much ???

12

  1. There is little point in looking at add remove programs as that bears no relationship on how big the download is.

  2. It also has nothing to do with firefox, though this is nothing unusual for you to throw this kind of totally unrelated comment.