Coffeehouse Thread

49 posts

Why isn't the Framework included with XP SP2 ?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    prog_dotnet

    The framework are listed, or might I say hidden, as an optional component below the recomended updates section for windows xp.(running windows update that is)
     
    So why isnt a desicion made to include the framework in the sp2? That way everyone not having the framework installed, wil get it.


  • User profile image
    Jaz

    3 word: Java, Sun, Lawsuit

  • User profile image
    sbc

    It would probably give too much an advantage of .NET over Java - why develop Java if every XP user has .NET? Also most users really have no need for .NET at all - it just takes up extra space. What good is .NET for the home user?

  • User profile image
    androidi

    "3 word: Java, Sun, Lawsuit"


    With that logic, what you make of Longhorn?

    I am guessing here, but I believe half of the reason it is not in SP2 is technical. Wasn't there just a while ago article that .NET does not work with SP2 under AMD64? Also i think there is new version of framework coming "soon", but not "soon enough".

  • User profile image
    Jaz

    whats wrong with the logic?

    and anywho longhorn isn't even in beta yet

  • User profile image
    lars

    Versatility. You may want to install SP2 without the framework. Or the framework without SP2. I think it's as simple as that.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    Windows server 2003 has it already included.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    SP2 is, by and large, a security update. Putting .NET inside doesn't help security, bring extra features, etc. Users need to go to Windows Update to get SP2 (or will). The Framework'll be there as well, and they'll have to choose whether or not to install it at that point.

    Choice, choice and more choice would be my guess Smiley

  • User profile image
    androidi

    If there really was some catch with Sun that prevented including .NET in SP2 and there would not be other obstacles, then I am quite sure MS could just offer Sun to include their latest Java runtime with the SP2 along with .NET. Wasn't the deal with Sun anyway that neither party would not sue (though I have no clue of the exact details)?

    There's probably an array of technical reasons why not include it in SP2. I would not mind if some of the reasons would be just spelled out so we can end pondering it..

  • User profile image
    Jaz

    sun sued them to take the java VM out, then sued them to put it in.  or something like that

  • User profile image
    lars

    Microsoft dropped a sack of money on Sun and everything is forgiven. Scott McNeily was put on a leash, so that puppy has stopped barking.

    As far as I can remember the MSFT JVM was alot better than Suns back in the 1.1 days. And Visual J++ the best IDE. Then Sun stepped in and shot themselves in the foot.

    Who needs their JVM today anyway.

    /Lars.

  • User profile image
    ghos

    So far .NET isn't a requirement for the average consumer so I can understand it not being including in SP2 . 

  • User profile image
    eagle

    It's in SP1

  • User profile image
    sbsummer

    .Net FrameWork is included in SP1

  • User profile image
    Tom Malone

    lars wrote:

    Microsoft dropped a sack of money on Sun and everything is forgiven. Scott McNeily was put on a leash, so that puppy has stopped barking.

    As far as I can remember the MSFT JVM was alot better than Suns back in the 1.1 days. And Visual J++ the best IDE. Then Sun stepped in and shot themselves in the foot.

    Who needs their JVM today anyway.

    /Lars.



    the java vm is currently far better than the ms one, java 1.5 is going to be a lot faster. Java 1.1 is so old, so so so old.

    The problem was that microsoft included stuff that only worked on the windows platform, this conflicted with what sun wanted java to be, compile once run everywhere, also i think broke the sun java license.

    It appeared that after the lawsuite microsoft dropped the java pluggin from windows xp.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    sbsummer wrote:

    .Net FrameWork is included in SP1


    How come when I installed SP1 (via Windows update), it wasn't installed then?

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Jeremy W. wrote:
    SP2 is, by and large, a security update. Putting .NET inside doesn't help security, bring extra features, etc. Users need to go to Windows Update to get SP2 (or will).


    I think that argument is counter-productive though. We're constantly told that developing applications in .Net will improve platform security, but until it is present on a large number of systems developers are going to stick to the old API methods.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Well, it's already on more systems than Linux, so it's not exactly a small install base. I hear what you're saying, but I'd argue that SP2 had a single unifying purpose, and anything outside that scope is superfluous.

    If it was in SP1, it should be in SP2 (all of the SP1 binaries were included in SP2).

    I can't argue with the need to deploy the framework, but I honestly think Windows Update is the best way to do that, not a Service Pack.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.