Why isn't the Framework included with XP SP2 ?

Looking at the videos (Rebecca Norlander - why is XPSP2 so big?) it looks like Microsoft is concerned with the size of the update without the Framework included. This could be one reason.

Maybe Rebecca could comment on this question.

I think it would be convenient if the newest framework was included. On the other hand I think an update should fix things that are broken. Not force me to install new stuff just because I want to cover old security holes. It's like taking your car to the shop to get new tires, just to have them tell you that you'll also get Cruise Control and a sun roof installed. Take it or leave it. Do one thing, and do it well.

/Lars.

The Framework should only be included if SP2 doesn't work without it. AFAIK SP2 does not require it.

If you really want the Framework, you should download it seperately. You shouldn't force the Framework on someone when it will make no difference if the do have it. If they include the Framework they should really also include the Sun Java VM - without Java as well, it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage and you could get another anti-trust case.

Until all applications require it, the Framework should not be included. It was the same with DirectX (older Windows 95 / NT machines did not have it).

By the time Longhorn is out, it will probably come with the Framework (version 2 and 1.1?)

sbc wrote:

it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage and you could get another anti-trust case.

Because everything does. It's like "bundling"

C'mon, you're supposed to be up on all this stuff Lars!

Hmm... Maybe Microsoft should sue SUN and make them include .NET with every JVM download that could run on Windows...

/Lars.

No no no... You're getting rusty Lars

Sun doesn't have to, because it isn't an monopoly. Microsoft is. The government ruled them such. As a result they can't leverage anything. It's evil to do so.

C'moooon... I thought it'd be a cold day in Florida before I was the one spewing this stuff, even if it is tongue in cheek!

One way Microsoft could bundle .NET with a product would be if that product actually required it to work. Service Packs do not require the Framework, so there is no real reason to include it (and convenience to some people is not really a reason - they can still download it by checking the box in Windows update).

One such product with which it might be bundled in the future in Office - if that is developed with .NET, then it is an easy way to get it deployed on a large scale. I wouldn't be surprised if the next version required it.

Sun's JDS can get away with bundling its JVM simply because they do not have a monopoly - if Sun had the desktop market, then it may have had difficulties in bundling the JVM. Even then, they might not as Java works on many platforms, but Microsoft technology does not (apart from products like Mac Office).

If non-Windows desktops actively deployed Mono or DotGNU with the OS, that would be a good reason for Microsoft to do the same.

Jeremy W. wrote:

No no no... You're getting rusty Lars

Sun doesn't have to, because it isn't an monopoly. Microsoft is. The government ruled them such. As a result they can't leverage anything. It's evil to do so.

true.

but it would be great to "market" it as:

Service Pack 2 -  Base Install

and

Service Pack 2 - Ultra or Full or Xtra
that included Win media 10 + net framework

..just to get it out there quicker..

remember doing that?  ahh the good ol days
ha

The only problem with the average added the Framework is that when it is installed, they will not notice anything different about how Windows functions - it won't run faster with it, add special effects or do anything to improve user experience.

They may end up thinking that it was just a wasted download (especially if they are on dial-up).

Until many more programs are written using .NET then there will be no need to install it. However, if someone writes games than use it, then people will actively download it (like what happened with DirectX). That does not seem likely, as the game will probably perform worse if it was written in .NET - native code is still faster (if coded correctly).

Jamie, you're starting to win me over.

The service pack is supposed to correct errors. Fix stuff that should have been working in the first place (in a perfect world). Installing a Service Pack isn't really optional. You have to do it in order to stay secure. But is it supposed to upgrade/change how the OS works? 

I still think the kiosk mode is bad. And the default should be to turn it off. But I'm beginning to agree with Jamies point that it is wrong to take the option away.

Tough one.

/Lars.

lars wrote:

Jamie, you're starting to win me over.

The service pack is supposed to correct errors. Fix stuff that should have been working in the first place (in a perfect world). Installing a Service Pack isn't really optional. You have to do it in order to stay secure. But is it supposed to upgrade/change how the OS works? 

I still think the kiosk mode is bad. And the default should be to turn it off. But I'm beginning to agree with Jamies point that it is wrong to take the option away.

Tough one.

/Lars.

lars wrote:

I still think the kiosk mode is bad. And the default should be to turn it off. But I'm beginning to agree with Jamies point that it is wrong to take the option away.

From looking at the Beta ISO images it looks like the .Net 1.1 installer is included on the SP2 update CD though it is not installed by default. From what I've been reading it seems the campaign around "Windows XP SP2 with Advanced Security Technologies" will make these CDs become almost as widely available as AOL discs.

So if anyone needs the .Net framework installed after SP2 is released they will be able to get it pretty easily without having to visit windows update or download all 21 MB.

I hope its integrated into the Autorun program on the update disc, like the "Perform Additional Tasks" option on the XP and Longhorn install discs.

AndyC wrote:

lars wrote: I still think the kiosk mode is bad. And the default should be to turn it off. But I'm beginning to agree with Jamies point that it is wrong to take the option away.

Unless things have changed since RC1 they haven't taken it away. You can't script it and if you press F11 or select Full Screen then you get the toolbar.

However, if you launch it with iexplore -k the old full-screen, no toolbar arrangement is still there. Since any legitimate use of it is almost certainly going to start it in this way I don't think it's an issue.

Of course things may have change before RTM...

AndyC wrote:

However, if you launch it with iexplore -k the old full-screen, no toolbar arrangement is still there. Since any legitimate use of it is almost certainly going to start it in this way I don't think it's an issue.

Shining Arcanine wrote:

They are talking about the ability of a website to hijack your monitor and create an interface that looks similiar or exactly the same as Windows's GUI.