dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed


Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH
reply to howardfine

Re: 6 hours to update Windows 7

I have a really stupid question: How many of those updates were .NET related? I find those are the worst and tend to be largely CPU bound during the update process. I have an Inspiron E1505 of about the same vintage with a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo and despite having an SSD in the thing, .NET updates always peg the CPU and take eons to complete.

It really is frustrating if that is the case especially considering .NET can be considered an 'optional' update until you need to run an application that requires it.

I do miss the days of nLite with XP and being able to easily roll in updates and have a ready to go install. Sadly with Vista forward it has become exponentially more difficult to do such a thing. :|
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz



howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO

A lot of them were .NET related. I read somewhere that .NET framework stuff isn't even needed cause it's only for developers but I think I once updated her old computer without them and got a warning popup. In any case, anyone could correct me.

I didn't know there would be so many updates or that it would take so long. She was gone for the day so I just started the updates. The first one listed 98 of them so I thought that would be most of them. Obviously not.

After the first 98, the updates kept failing which is how I found out about the KB reporting the problem with Windows Update.



darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS

said by howardfine:

A lot of them were .NET related. I read somewhere that .NET framework stuff isn't even needed cause it's only for developers

That would be incorrect. Plenty of applications use the .NET framework and will not run without it installed (and I don't mean development apps, I mean end-user apps).
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

I've seen just a few of them (not many). And usually those could be replaced with ones, that don't need .NET at all. So, I consider .NET as an optional component, used by some developers to experiment with their products... I think m$ could mitigate the problem with slow wide acceptance of .NET framework if they offered version compatibility (new version of .NET should simply replace the old one and be completely compatible), but they don't care...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


AnonShawUser

join:2006-06-17
Calgary, AB

They did that up through .NET 3.5. That's part of why just having the framework installed can cause a windows XP machine to take up to 50% longer to boot (tested on the same OP hardware, once with a SSD and once with a standard disk, in both cases just having .NET 3.5 installed caused it to take roughly 50% longer to boot).

3.5 is also absolutely huge by comparison. MS started over with .net 4, which is radically smaller and split into development and end user packages (the development/full package is a lot larger than the end user package).



plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3

said by AnonShawUser:

They did that up through .NET 3.5. That's part of why just having the framework installed can cause a windows XP machine to take up to 50% longer to boot (tested on the same OP hardware, once with a SSD and once with a standard disk, in both cases just having .NET 3.5 installed caused it to take roughly 50% longer to boot).

If I remember correctly, the reason for that has to do with the ".NET Runtime Optimization Service". It runs on every boot, and really eats up CPU when it does its "optimization". Even on "fast" hardware, it still takes some time to run. When I was running Windows XP, and I think even Windows 7, I would make sure that service was disabled if I had .NET installed.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail