I think I have read here that there is some kind of problem with FS9 together with .NET 2.0. What would that be and how could it be resolved. I would like to know since I'm interested in trying out the Visual Express products which requires :net 2.0.

There is no problem at all. FS9 has no relationship with, or dependencies on, the NET framework. Some third party addons require NET 1.1 which should not be removed when you install the 2.0 framework. Enjoy the Visual Express stuff - the new framework has some fun features.DJ

There was a problem with FS9 and IE 7. I think taildragger's blog gave a fix for that problem.Thomas

FS9 has absolutely no problems with .net 2.0. Some users do, however. No idea why. I guess they find the runtime libraries personally insulting or something :-lol

No, we just find non-optional, non-necessary .net installations to be nonsensical! :)And there are problems between .Net and various sound software and hardware. Not relevant for FS, but why do we have to have this rubbish installed when it's not actually necessary to run the software, only install it? We spend half our lives trying to eke out extra fps by cutting back on running processes, to make FS run better then drop in some irrelevant bloatware for no good reason.Having said that, .net 1.1 had problems with FS9 in some systems, but I've not heard of any real problems with .Net 2.0. Except of course .Net 2.0 is NOT a replacement for .Net 1.1 it's ANOTHER additional version. Even more bloat! Allcott

>No, we just find non-optional, non-necessary .net>installations to be nonsensical! :)>>And there are problems between .Net and various sound software>and hardware. Not relevant for FS, but why do we have to have>this rubbish installed when it's not actually necessary to run>the software, only install it? We spend half our lives trying>to eke out extra fps by cutting back on running processes, to>make FS run better then drop in some irrelevant bloatware for>no good reason.>>Having said that, .net 1.1 had problems with FS9 in some>systems, but I've not heard of any real problems with .Net>2.0. Except of course .Net 2.0 is NOT a replacement for .Net>1.1 it's ANOTHER additional version. Even more bloat! >>>AllcottGet used to .NET, its going to be ALL OVER Vista. Nothing about .NET is loaded into memory unless a program is calling upon it, so it is hardly an additional running process. I suppose if bloat is having another install of software on your machine - well ok.One place I'll agree with you though is the regrettable fact that Microsoft hasn't found a new way to distribute .NET that allows for backward compatibility. It seems, as you've pointed out, that apps targeting older versions of .NET require the old runtime rather than "finding" the old runtime within the new runtime. In that very narrow sense, I'll agree there's a problem and would even call it bloat - but bloat only in the sense of additional space on the HD.

>No, we just find non-optional, non-necessary .net>installations to be nonsensical! :).Net - a PASSIVE set of libraries for programs to call will not impact performance. p.e.r.i.o.d. Be it 1.1 or 2.0 or whatever comes down the road. If anything, it may lead to performance improvements! Anyone remember the vbrun100.dll, vbrun200.dll, vbrun300.dll? Having to download the "latest" version to use programs? Fighting with programs that overwrote your installed version? Programs breaking because they needed 100, but you had 400? They were the old Visual Basic libraries that developers used to create programs - JUST LIKE .NET.DotNet is a standard package of libraries (dll's, ocx's, etc.) which developers can call when writing programs. It's not a piece of bloat, it's not going to eat your programs, and it's certainly not going to slow you down. It's beneficial, in fact - rather than forcing the developer to install the library on your computer (possibly overwriting needed ones), the developer has to write code specific to what will be on the computer, not to what they want to give you. Standardization. This is also why 1.1 and 2.0 are totally different and independant packages - overwriting 1.1 with 2.0 could introduce incompatabilities, so maintaining the libraries separately allows for future use of older programs. You're right - .Net IS unnecessary, so long as you don't use any programs written in that language. But if you want to use a .Net program (the upcoming ActiveSky 6, for example), then you'll have to have it on your computer... just like a JVM, or the oldschool vbrun.dll's of days gone by. I had the same sort of "not another unneeded package!" mentality when .Net first came out - at the time, it WAS unnecessary because there were no programs requiring it. But I have since installed it, with ZERO impact on performance or stability, and it has only allowed me to use newer programs... some of which perform FASTER than their non-.net counterparts. :) I was initially scared away just by the name - .net - was this some new Microsoft library that will open Internet security holes or turn my computer into some sort of slave node in the .net mesh? After some time, reading, and understanding, I came to the truth. Microsoft did NOT do a good job of educating it's users as to what exactly .Net is. They should know that power users and those with even a mild clue about computers would be suspicious of a new download like .Net. Unfortunately, their weak education was trumped by the age-old "caution" that users apply towards Microsoft. Either way - I have had zero problems with .net 1.1 or 2.0 on my PC, with many FS addons and other programs. I see no problems in installing it. You probably have greater risk at messing your computer up with the "critical" MS updates rather than these .net ones. -Greg

Greg, you are absolutely on the money with that explanation...I would add though, that from a programmer's perspective, the .NET library provides "boiler plate procedures" that eliminate the need for the programmer to write 10,000 lines of code to duplicate. More to the point, it provides a uniform, standardized method that neatly eliminates the platform dependency of any particular program.IOW, any program that is ".NET compliant" should run equally well on any OS for which an appropriate .NET run time library has been developed and installed. It is no longer required to code and maintain versions of the same program for WinXP, Win2000, WinNT, etc. since there are .NET specific libraries for each OS. ;)

I don't agree with everythingIn fact .net is more than a library is also a middleware (a virtual machine) that that take care about a lot of things for the programs that use it. So it has impact, the programs go slower when written in .net even if the source is C++. However you are right that .net doesn't affect the performance of the programs that don't use it. Is the solution good for developers? you bet it is, just today I translated a small MFC program that I did for UPSVAC to .net C++. And was amazed how quick it was to do it. :)Jos

Is either of the .NET packages built into WINXP or SP2? BradKELP/KBIF http://home.elp.rr.com/bmbanister/BannerSig_BMBanister.jpgAMD Athlon XP 2600, Asus A7V600, 1GB PC3200 DDR, NVidia 128MB GeForce 6800, SB Live

If .NET is so good, how come they needed a Version 2.0? ;-)It's just another potential timebomb. And there's no reason to have it if the aim is simply to use it as an installer. THAT's what I object to. Integrated into Vista it may be, but then developers will be able - forced - to write around it. Until then, introducing it to a stable, lean operating system is just another problem area. And one that's almost impossible to troubleshoot.Allcott

>If .NET is so good, how come they needed a Version 2.0? ;-)>>It's just another potential timebomb. And there's no reason to>have it if the aim is simply to use it as an installer. THAT's>what I object to. Whatever gave you the idea that the "aim is simply to use it as an installer?"EditVoicepak makes extensive use of the .NET library functions to provide easier, faster and more robust file I/O and sorting operations...