And Speaking of Other Windows Crap

[Mike Rivers]

What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?

I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
install something that I don't know about.

Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
Microsoft wants there?

[John L Rice]

Hi Mike,

I'd say it's nothing to be concerned about and is basically nothing really
new as far as the way Windows programs have worked for many years.

Visual Basic and FoxPro etc applications always had their own 'run time
engine' that was version specific. The .NET Framework is pretty much the
same thing, it's just the main brains of any program written on that
platform. The difference is that the .NET framework is used by ALL of the
..NET programming platforms (VB.NET, ASP.NET, C#.NET, etc) so it some ways
it's more efficient to what you are used to.

There are 3 .NET frameworks right now, 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 and once you've got
them installed you wont be bugged again . . until a new version comes out
and people start writing programs for it and you try to run them. When a
program written for a certain version tries to run it will look for the .NET
framework version it needs, if it doesn't find it it will try to get you to
download it so you don't have to worry about getting them all, just wait
until you are told there is a need for one.

If you want to read more try here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

Best of luck!

--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
>
> I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> install something that I don't know about.
>
> Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> Microsoft wants there?
>

[David Satz]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
>
> I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> install something that I don't know about.
>
> Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> Microsoft wants there?

Mike, for the past several years I've been teaching courses on
Microsoft .Net for application programmers, so for better or for worse,
I can tell you about it.

Microsoft would hate this answer, but: Are you familiar with Java--not
the language as such, but the restricted ("sandbox") environment that
Java applications all run in on any given machine? .Net, in many ways,
is parallel to that. If you remember back in the mid-1980s until
"Windows 95" came out, Windows used to be a "run-time environment" that
ran "on top of" DOS; in a somewhat parallel sense, Java and .Net are
run-time environments that run on top of Windows (or other operating
systems on which they've also been implemented).

In practice, for an end-user that means: To run a .Net-based
application, you need the .Net framework to be installed on your
computer. It takes up about 21 MB of hard drive space, but it isn't a
"resident" program--it doesn't waste memory or CPU cycles unless you're
actually using one or more .NET-specific applications.

If you have any follow-up questions, just ask.

--best regards

[Nick Brown]

Agreed. It's a bit of a hassle having to download and install them, but
there are no common issues caused by doing so, that I'm aware of. At
work we deployed 1.1 simultaneously onto several hundred XP SP2
machines - no hiccups at all, and no problems attributable to it since.

-Nick


John L Rice wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I'd say it's nothing to be concerned about and is basically nothing really
> new as far as the way Windows programs have worked for many years.
>
> Visual Basic and FoxPro etc applications always had their own 'run time
> engine' that was version specific. The .NET Framework is pretty much the
> same thing, it's just the main brains of any program written on that
> platform. The difference is that the .NET framework is used by ALL of the
> .NET programming platforms (VB.NET, ASP.NET, C#.NET, etc) so it some ways
> it's more efficient to what you are used to.
>
> There are 3 .NET frameworks right now, 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 and once you've got
> them installed you wont be bugged again . . until a new version comes out
> and people start writing programs for it and you try to run them. When a
> program written for a certain version tries to run it will look for the .NET
> framework version it needs, if it doesn't find it it will try to get you to
> download it so you don't have to worry about getting them all, just wait
> until you are told there is a need for one.
>
> If you want to read more try here :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
>
> Best of luck!
>
> --
> John L Rice
> www.DeliriumFix.com
>
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
> >
> > I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> > that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> > install something that I don't know about.
> >
> > Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> > Microsoft wants there?
> >

[Six String Stu]

Mike, it's just more stuff you need to have installed to run your programs.
Or more specifically stuff that will allow the proper function of those
programs. This has a lot to do with network permissions and boundries on
your machine.
Do you remember how JAVA used to be able to allow rouge code to screw with
your system? Well this is Microsoft's way to build on it's enterprise and
still protect it's assets (CYA) . IMHO (just a layman's viewpoint)

--
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
>
> I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> install something that I don't know about.
>
> Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> Microsoft wants there?
>

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
>
> I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> install something that I don't know about.
>
> Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> Microsoft wants there?

Junk on your computer that an increasing number of apps require into order
to run.

It's not a problem - just install it.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

Six String Stu wrote:
> Mike, it's just more stuff you need to have installed to run your programs.
> Or more specifically stuff that will allow the proper function of those
> programs. This has a lot to do with network permissions and boundries on
> your machine.

Thanks, all. I was concerned about the "NET" in the name (I wasn't
aware of the whole environment business that David explained) and
didn't want something else that was going to "network" my computer to
something unknown.

I guess it's already installed on the new WinXP machine, because when I
installed Sound Forge on that one, it didn't bug me, but when I tried
loading it on the Win2K machine, it wanted to installe NET Framework
1.1. I trusted Sound Forge, so I let it. But I've run across downloaded
programs that have asked for it and I decided not to bother until I
learned more about it. But some time, the ocean is going ot fill up.
<g>

[Six String Stu]

I hear ya.
Don't quote me on this but I think XP Pro has .net stuff built in upon
install whereas XP Home doesnt have the server support on first install.

--
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Six String Stu wrote:
>> Mike, it's just more stuff you need to have installed to run your
>> programs.
>> Or more specifically stuff that will allow the proper function of those
>> programs. This has a lot to do with network permissions and boundries on
>> your machine.
>
> Thanks, all. I was concerned about the "NET" in the name (I wasn't
> aware of the whole environment business that David explained) and
> didn't want something else that was going to "network" my computer to
> something unknown.
>
> I guess it's already installed on the new WinXP machine, because when I
> installed Sound Forge on that one, it didn't bug me, but when I tried
> loading it on the Win2K machine, it wanted to installe NET Framework
> 1.1. I trusted Sound Forge, so I let it. But I've run across downloaded
> programs that have asked for it and I decided not to bother until I
> learned more about it. But some time, the ocean is going ot fill up.
> <g>
>

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> But some time, the ocean is going ot fill up.
> <g>

And that's happening as we type, but will the process reach completion
before the sea is impacted by the sky?

--
ha

[Mike Rivers]

hank alrich wrote:

> > But some time, the ocean is going ot fill up.

> And that's happening as we type, but will the process reach completion
> before the sea is impacted by the sky?

I suspect that the hard drive will fill up before the sea gets too far
over its banks.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:35:02 -0500, "Six String Stu"
> wrote:

>Don't quote me on this but I think XP Pro has .net stuff built in upon
>install whereas XP Home doesnt have the server support on first install.

You could certainly slipstream Net into an XP installation CD (Home or
Pro). But it isn't in the original release of either, or in SP1 or
SP2.

[Mark]

Geoff wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
> >
> > I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> > that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> > install something that I don't know about.
> >
> > Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> > Microsoft wants there?
>
> Junk on your computer that an increasing number of apps require into order
> to run.
>
> It's not a problem - just install it.
>
> geoff

Hit START/ RUN/ MSCONFIG

Then on the SERVICES tab there are all kinds of MS stuff that you can
turn off.
or CONTROL PANEL / ADMIN TOOLs / Component Services..

It's amazing how much uneeded junk there is that can be tunred off ...

Mark

[David Satz]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> You could certainly slipstream Net into an XP installation CD (Home or
> Pro). But it isn't in the original release of either, or in SP1 or SP2.

No, not as a standard part of the installation. But the 1.x version of
the framework was included as an option on Microsoft's CDs for both of
those Windows XP service packs. It is built in to Windows Server 2003
and all currently announced future versions of Windows.

The current version of the framework is 2.0. It is designed to be
compatible with all applications written for earlier versions, and as
far as I'm aware, that compatibility actually works. So there's little
reason for anyone but a software developer/tester to install multiple
versions "side by side"--the current version would be enough (or for
some folks, more than enough).

--best regards

[Roger Norman]

> Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> Microsoft wants there?

Surprisingly so Mike, my Matrox G750 required .Net to have it's taskbar
control of the monitors in place. Initially .Net messed with my Let's Edit
application, so I had to reinstall Windows sans .Net. I finally figured out
that the better way to do it was to reinstall .Net and get a different video
application (Media Studio Pro).

So, for the purposes of using applications that want .Net, I'm less
concerned than I am about programs that won't run when .Net is running.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
>
> I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> install something that I don't know about.
>

>

[Roger Norman]

> Thanks, all. I was concerned about the "NET" in the name (I wasn't
> aware of the whole environment business that David explained) and
> didn't want something else that was going to "network" my computer to
> something unknown

Technically, it is Microsoft's efforts to seamlessly integrate application
interoperability either within the system or with outside systems or both.
It used to be called distributed common object management, and if you want
to go back even farther, it's somewhat a similar implementation of IBM's
Netbios, which was a OSI layer 4 (application layer) operation allowing
multiple systems to have access to the same information. .Net just goes one
step further by providing fairly robust application interoperability
regardless of where the information comes from. And like any defacto
standard it supplies developers with a common interface so that all
applications using .Net function somewhat similarly.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Six String Stu wrote:
>> Mike, it's just more stuff you need to have installed to run your
>> programs.
>> Or more specifically stuff that will allow the proper function of those
>> programs. This has a lot to do with network permissions and boundries on
>> your machine.
>
..
>
> I guess it's already installed on the new WinXP machine, because when I
> installed Sound Forge on that one, it didn't bug me, but when I tried
> loading it on the Win2K machine, it wanted to installe NET Framework
> 1.1. I trusted Sound Forge, so I let it. But I've run across downloaded
> programs that have asked for it and I decided not to bother until I
> learned more about it. But some time, the ocean is going ot fill up.
> <g>
>

[Steve King]

"Mark" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Geoff wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> > What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
>> >
>> > I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
>> > that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
>> > install something that I don't know about.
>> >
>> > Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
>> > Microsoft wants there?
>>
>> Junk on your computer that an increasing number of apps require into
>> order
>> to run.
>>
>> It's not a problem - just install it.
>>
>> geoff
>
> Hit START/ RUN/ MSCONFIG
>
> Then on the SERVICES tab there are all kinds of MS stuff that you can
> turn off.
> or CONTROL PANEL / ADMIN TOOLs / Component Services..
>
> It's amazing how much uneeded junk there is that can be tunred off ...
>
> Mark

So how does one know which of the services listed is "uneeded". For
instance, if I don't have an SSL console, do I need "HTTP SSL"? Or, if I
don't want to buy lunch for the people I 'network with' do I need "Network
Provisioning Service"? Few of the services listed on the machine I'm
looking at now are listed as Essential.

It would be very cool if Windows provided one of those little HELP Question
Marks that could tell me what each 'Service' does.

Steve King

[Roger Norman]

>But some time, the ocean is going ot fill up. <g>

Well, in the case of computers, the ocean just keeps getting bigger. Once
Vista hits and computers have inexpensive dual and quad processors, memory
will end up being available inexpensively too, adding up to as much as 32
gigs of ram for virtually nothing compared to the benefits. Of course, a 64
bit processor has lots more than 32 gigs of ram addressable space, but it's
conceivable that within 3 years a person having a home computer with 32 gigs
of ram will be reasonable.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Six String Stu wrote:
>> Mike, it's just more stuff you need to have installed to run your
>> programs.
>> Or more specifically stuff that will allow the proper function of those
>> programs. This has a lot to do with network permissions and boundries on
>> your machine.
>
> Thanks, all. I was concerned about the "NET" in the name (I wasn't
> aware of the whole environment business that David explained) and
> didn't want something else that was going to "network" my computer to
> something unknown.
>
> I guess it's already installed on the new WinXP machine, because when I
> installed Sound Forge on that one, it didn't bug me, but when I tried
> loading it on the Win2K machine, it wanted to installe NET Framework
> 1.1. I trusted Sound Forge, so I let it. But I've run across downloaded
> programs that have asked for it and I decided not to bother until I
> learned more about it. >

[Mike Rivers]

Roger Norman wrote:

> Technically, it is Microsoft's efforts to seamlessly integrate application
> interoperability either within the system or with outside systems or both.

So how does this relate to installing Sound Forge? Does it enable
something in the installed to talk to someting that's already in
Windows? I don't intend to share the program or its files with outside
systems other than standard Windows file sharing, if I put the audio
files in a shared folder.

> Net just goes one
> step further by providing fairly robust application interoperability
> regardless of where the information comes from.

Does this allow the software manufacturer to leave out something from
the installed and use (thorough or as a result of NET Framework)
something that's aleady there? Does it help the installer write stuff
to the registry, for instance?

Oh, and by the well, my Dell laptop isn't one of the models with the
exploding battery, so I don't get a new battery for free.

[Mike Rivers]

Steve King wrote:

> So how does one know which of the services listed is "uneeded". For
> instance, if I don't have an SSL console, do I need "HTTP SSL"?

> It would be very cool if Windows provided one of those little HELP Question
> Marks that could tell me what each 'Service' does.

I've gone through the "turn off services" exercise. If you enter the
name of the service into Google, you'll come up with a bunch of web
sites, most of which tell you very little, but offer to sell you a
program that migh tell you more.

At least one (sorry, I don't have it bookmarked) does have a list of
just about everything and tells you what it does. Sometimes I can
understand the significance of the explanation, but often it just leads
me to the question "do I need this or don't I?" However, nearly all of
them tell you that you don't really need whatever service you're
looking for and that it's safe to turn it off. I tried that on my new
laptop and then I couldn't get it to connect to my Wireless network
hub, so I had to go back and figure out what I had turned off that I
should turn back on.

Forutnately this one wasn't too difficult to locate, and I had set a
Windwos restore point to before I started the exercise just in case.
But it would indeed be nice if there was a good reference to these
things that took the next step and told you what you'll miss if you
turn it off, rather than that you probably can turn it off.

[David Satz]

Roger Norman wrote:

> Initially .Net messed with my Let's Edit application, so I had to reinstall
> Windows sans .Net.

Roger, I can't see how .Net itself could interfere with a non-.Net
application running in a separate process, nor does the framework
provide any way for applications to get at such low-level hardware
stuff as video card settings. Conceivably it might do that through a
separate, non-.NET DLL, but boy, I sure wouldn't want to write that
sort of thing as a .NET application.

Anyway, could you say anything further about what went wrong exactly?
Was it some kind of video problem that you didn't have beforehand?

--best regards

[Roger Norman]

It doesn't relate to installing Sound Forge unless Sound Forge requires it.
Don't look at it as something that has anything to do with what you do, it's
what the operating software does. If you don't work with online services to
work with VPN, for example, then .Net doesn't know anything about that. It
is a service that only runs when it is called upon, which you can find in
Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Component Services/Services.

But generally it's harmless. Again, after 4 years of .Net services, I'd be
more worried about applications that don't work with .Net than services that
require it.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Roger Norman wrote:
>
>> Technically, it is Microsoft's efforts to seamlessly integrate
>> application
>> interoperability either within the system or with outside systems or
>> both.
>
> So how does this relate to installing Sound Forge? Does it enable
> something in the installed to talk to someting that's already in
> Windows? I don't intend to share the program or its files with outside
> systems other than standard Windows file sharing, if I put the audio
> files in a shared folder.
>
>> Net just goes one
>> step further by providing fairly robust application interoperability
>> regardless of where the information comes from.
>
> Does this allow the software manufacturer to leave out something from
> the installed and use (thorough or as a result of NET Framework)
> something that's aleady there? Does it help the installer write stuff
> to the registry, for instance?
>
> Oh, and by the well, my Dell laptop isn't one of the models with the
> exploding battery, so I don't get a new battery for free.
>

[Mike Rivers]

Roger Norman wrote:
> It doesn't relate to installing Sound Forge unless Sound Forge requires it.
> Don't look at it as something that has anything to do with what you do, it's
> what the operating software does. If you don't work with online services to
> work with VPN, for example, then .Net doesn't know anything about that.

I guess the name, including NET in big letters, is what bothered me the
most. It just made me suspiciious. It sounds like networking and the
Internet have litte to do with the function or purpose of this program.
I wonder why they called it that?

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> Does this allow the software manufacturer to leave out something from
> the installed and use (thorough or as a result of NET Framework)
> something that's aleady there? Does it help the installer write stuff
> to the registry, for instance?

You could think of it as a sort of run-time library, like JAVA and other
languages sometimes require..

> Oh, and by the well, my Dell laptop isn't one of the models with the
> exploding battery, so I don't get a new battery for free.

Was that the batteries themselves, or mis-use/design of the device running
them ?

geoff

[David Satz]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I guess the name, including NET in big letters, is what bothered me the
> most. It just made me suspiciious. It sounds like networking and the
> Internet have litte to do with the function or purpose of this program.
> I wonder why they called it that?

Microsoft's marketing department controls the naming of their
technologies, and I swear they have a large committee that does nothing
other than to think up confusing new names for existing, already
released technologies.

Originally .NET was going to be called COM+ 2.0; it was going to be the
next-generation, easier-to-develop-for, easier-to-maintain and more
secure implementation of their general-purpose middleware ("business
object") strategy for multi-tiered applications.

If none of that jargon means anything to you, consider how things
change; Microsoft "repurposed" the project in a big way after it
started. The "NET" in the name most likely refers to the fact that Web
server applications and Web services can so readily be implemented with
this technology. That seems to be the main market for .Net application
development on the commercial level (a technology known as "ASP.NET").

However, the framework is equally well suited for standalone
applications with no particular networking aspect. It's the
general-purpose development platform that Microsoft is pushing nowadays
for nearly all types of application in any programming language that
they support.

--best regards

[Bob Cain]

David Satz wrote:

> If none of that jargon means anything to you, consider how things
> change; Microsoft "repurposed" the project in a big way after it
> started. The "NET" in the name most likely refers to the fact that Web
> server applications and Web services can so readily be implemented with
> this technology. That seems to be the main market for .Net application
> development on the commercial level (a technology known as "ASP.NET").

Somewhere I got the impression that one of its main purposes was to
allow applications that one uses to reside on servers elsewhere in
order to give application developers the possibility of more control
over the use of their products. Does that make sense to you?

If so this begs for an IBM MVS.NET mainframe layer. There is a
surprising enterprise level move back to IBM mainframes and this would
be the cat's pajama's for that movement. I'd love to see an MS
strategy come back to bite it in the ass. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Richard Crowley]

"Bob Cain" wrote ...
> David Satz wrote:
>> If none of that jargon means anything to you, consider how things
>> change; Microsoft "repurposed" the project in a big way after it
>> started. The "NET" in the name most likely refers to the fact that
>> Web
>> server applications and Web services can so readily be implemented
>> with
>> this technology. That seems to be the main market for .Net
>> application
>> development on the commercial level (a technology known as
>> "ASP.NET").
>
> Somewhere I got the impression that one of its main purposes was to
> allow applications that one uses to reside on servers elsewhere in
> order to give application developers the possibility of more control
> over the use of their products. Does that make sense to you?
>
> If so this begs for an IBM MVS.NET mainframe layer. There is a
> surprising enterprise level move back to IBM mainframes and this would
> be the cat's pajama's for that movement. I'd love to see an MS
> strategy come back to bite it in the ass. :-)

From a program developer POV, dot-NET offers much
easier implementation of all the little things you need to
do without having to write them from scratch. It is the
programming equivalent of using integrated circuits rather
than discrete components.

[Meindert Sprang]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> From a program developer POV, dot-NET offers much
> easier implementation of all the little things you need to
> do without having to write them from scratch. It is the
> programming equivalent of using integrated circuits rather
> than discrete components.

Ah like the things we already had for decades in the form for Borland C++
and Delphi......
Typical M$. See what someone else has come up with, copy it in the worst
possible way and sell it like it is heaven on earth.....

Meindert

[David Satz]

Bob Cain wrote:

> Somewhere I got the impression that one of its main purposes was to
> allow applications that one uses to reside on servers elsewhere in
> order to give application developers the possibility of more control
> over the use of their products.

Well, in some application architectures the end user runs a "client
application" on his/her desktop, which is a lightweight piece of code
responsible mainly for presenting a user interface. The primary
business logic resides on a networked server somewhere, and then if
there's a database behind it all, that may well be running on yet
another networked machine. It all depends on how many users need to
access the system simultaneously and how quickly it has to respond.

Microsoft invested literally billions of dollars over 10+ years on the
technology ("OLE" or "COM") for the middle tier of that scheme, as
high-end PCs running Windows NT began to supplant the mid-sized
business computers of the early- and mid-1990s. As one of its purposes
for being, .NET is meant to replace COM and OLE--and from the
standpoints of development, deployment, security and maintenance, it is
worlds better than what it replaces.

In a way, Web applications (which most users probably don't think of as
applications, though that's what they are) are leading example of this
"n-tiered" approach. If you go to Amazon.com, the pages you see are
fashioned in real time from the contents of one or more databases, then
sent as HTML to your browser. The only special code that resides on the
user's desktop machine is the script code in the browser, which is
transient.

Whether or not such a Web application happens to be .NET-based, there's
no need for the user's machine to have the .NET framework installed,
since all the .NET application code is on the Web server--not the
client.

..NET applications can access remote components directly, however, and
perhaps that's closer to what you have in mind. For example, a smart
desktop application could call a Web service (whether .NET-based or
not), or it could have a peer-to-peer connection with another user's
desktop that is running the same or another application.

Or it can make remote procedure calls against a .NET-based "remote
object" on a server somewhere--the nearest equivalent of a COM object.
In fact, however, most people seem to prefer Web services over .NET
remoting. .NET remoting can be significantly faster but Web services
are just so nice and easy to create and deploy.

Anyway, I'd like to cut back on this discussion fairly soon since it's
so clearly off-topic. I hope that the immediate need for information
has been met?

--best regards

[Richard Smol]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> What's Microsoft .NET/Framework?
>
> I've tried installing a couple of programs recently that say they need
> that, and I've decided that I don't need the programs badly enough to
> install something that I don't know about.
>
> Should I be concerned? Or just pile more junk on my computer that
> Microsoft wants there?

Ah, sweet ol' paranoia, easily solved by a simple search on the
Internet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

RS

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> From a program developer POV, dot-NET offers much
> easier implementation of all the little things you need to
> do without having to write them from scratch. It is the
> programming equivalent of using integrated circuits rather
> than discrete components.

It might be the equivalent of using a DSP "farm" to support several
programs rather than write DSP code for each one. But I think that's
as far as this analogy can go.

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Smol wrote:

> Ah, sweet ol' paranoia, easily solved by a simple search on the
> Internet:

Isn't that what we used to call DLLs?

You're right about the paranoia, but isn't it a smart thing to know at
least something about things that you download, particularly things
that get installed as an integral part of the operating system?

I'd have felt better about it if the program I was installing, rather
than telling me that my computer didn't have .NET/Framwork and did I
want to downlaod and install it (or abandon the program installation),
it said something like:

"This program relies on a set of Microsoft library programs that are
not on your computer. Would you like to download and install those
now?"

I'd feel a lot better about it. In this case, I trusted Sound Forge,
particularly since I had a new, boxed copy directly from Sony in hand,
and let it do its thing. But this is starting to show up in freeware
and shareware, and you can't always trust that stuff. Of course I could
still get burned, but at least I'd know what burned me.

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoff" > wrote in message

> Mike Rivers wrote:

>> Oh, and by the well, my Dell laptop isn't one of the
>> models with the exploding battery, so I don't get a new
>> battery for free.
>
> Was that the batteries themselves, or mis-use/design of
> the device running them ?

According to the business press, Sony made the batteries and is on the hook
for the error and the fix. I believe one other maker also used them.

[Laurence Payne]

On 5 Sep 2006 06:30:14 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>> From a program developer POV, dot-NET offers much
>> easier implementation of all the little things you need to
>> do without having to write them from scratch. It is the
>> programming equivalent of using integrated circuits rather
>> than discrete components.
>
>It might be the equivalent of using a DSP "farm" to support several
>programs rather than write DSP code for each one. But I think that's
>as far as this analogy can go.

It's really just one aspect of using an operating system that does
more than read a floppy disk and handle other basic in/out functions.

[Laurence Payne]

On 5 Sep 2006 06:38:00 -0700, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>I'd feel a lot better about it. In this case, I trusted Sound Forge,
>particularly since I had a new, boxed copy directly from Sony in hand,
>and let it do its thing. But this is starting to show up in freeware
>and shareware, and you can't always trust that stuff. Of course I could
>still get burned, but at least I'd know what burned me.

Seriously, you're a fairly naive Windows user and you're trying out
different software. Something might go wrong.

You don't need to be frightened of updates, viruses, trojans,
hijackers....or anything else. They can't hurt your computer. They
can't destroy your meticulously backed-up data. All they can do is
require you to wipe clean and re-install. It's your choice whether
this is a 10-minute job or a day-long b****y nuisance :-)

You DID make a restore image of your basic Windows setup?


BTW I can only remember one scenario where malicious software could
actually physically damage a computer. Was it an early Commodore
model? It had a backup battery that re-charged under software
control. POKE a byte in the wrong place, it could overcharge and
explode. Any other memories?

[David Satz]

Meindert Sprang wrote:

> Typical M$. See what someone else has come up with, copy it in the worst
> possible way and sell it like it is heaven on earth.....

You'd better get that jerky knee checked out. There are plenty of valid
accusations that one could make against Microsoft, but the above isn't
one of them. The .NET Framework can be downloaded for free from
microsoft.com. The software development kit (SDK) for .NET, with full
documentation, can likewise be downloaded for free.

You can even download source code for most of the .NET framework from
microsoft.com if you want--again at no charge. It's not necessarily the
code they build with, but it gives detailed insight in cases where the
documentation isn't clear enough, and it has been adapted successfully
for other operating systems, including two implementations for Linux.

Indirectly, yes--NET helps Microsoft to sell their server operating
systems and their Visual Studio development system. But the .NET
framework itself is free. That is a real turnabout in Microsoft's
behavior, as is the fact that the .NET library code supports a number
of public Web standards without "customizing" (perverting) them.

--best regards

[David Satz]

Richard Smol wrote:

> Ah, sweet ol' paranoia, easily solved by a simple search on the
> Internet:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

Richard, from a quick look at the article I'd say that it's quite
accurate. It even uses the verb "comprise" correctly (in the fourth
paragraph), off to which I certainly take my hat.

--best regards

[Geoff]

David Satz wrote:
> Richard Smol wrote:
>
>> Ah, sweet ol' paranoia, easily solved by a simple search on the
>> Internet:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
>
> Richard, from a quick look at the article I'd say that it's quite
> accurate. It even uses the verb "comprise" correctly (in the fourth
> paragraph), off to which I certainly take my hat.
>
> --best regards

Just a little ad for my PCDAW group on Yahoogroups. Feel free to subscribe
on . An email-based private
newsgroup.

Do add a little human text to prove you're not a bot, though those days on
Yahoogroups seem long gone now.

geoff

[[email protected]]

>From a program developer POV, dot-NET offers much
>easier implementation of all the little things you need to
>do without having to write them from scratch


"Little things" usually require little code. Could you name a couple of
little things that really become easier to develop with the .net additional
layer?

[[email protected]]

>Microsoft invested literally billions of dollars over 10+ years on the
>technology ("OLE" or "COM")


Hmm. You're a believer.

Probably more accurate is that they spent big bucks on systems and
applications that *included* OLE.

[David Satz]

wrote:

> Hmm. You're a believer.

Hmm--no, to me none of this is a "cause" to be believed in or opposed;
COM and .NET are simply sets of software technologies that I happen to
know how to use and have used to some extent. I've been around since
the punch card era and am fully aware that some day, Microsoft will
turn around and deprecate .NET while pushing some new platform.

My actual feeling about COM / OLE (since you presumed to guess, and
guessed wrong) is that it can't go away soon enough for my taste. What
it took to adapt COM to real-world conditions made it far too
complicated to be manageable. I have a high tolerance for complexity,
but the different threading models in COM were the last straw for me,
and there are even worse monsters in the COM forest. Versioning?
Security? I'm not willing to devote my entire waking life to making
those things work as they should.

Note that the .NET CLR (common language runtime environment) is
formally structured as a COM object, so .NET isn't independent of the
older technology by any means.

--best regards

[Harry Lavo]

"David Satz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> Somewhere I got the impression that one of its main purposes was to
>> allow applications that one uses to reside on servers elsewhere in
>> order to give application developers the possibility of more control
>> over the use of their products.
>
> Well, in some application architectures the end user runs a "client
> application" on his/her desktop, which is a lightweight piece of code
> responsible mainly for presenting a user interface. The primary
> business logic resides on a networked server somewhere, and then if
> there's a database behind it all, that may well be running on yet
> another networked machine. It all depends on how many users need to
> access the system simultaneously and how quickly it has to respond.
>
> Microsoft invested literally billions of dollars over 10+ years on the
> technology ("OLE" or "COM") for the middle tier of that scheme, as
> high-end PCs running Windows NT began to supplant the mid-sized
> business computers of the early- and mid-1990s. As one of its purposes
> for being, .NET is meant to replace COM and OLE--and from the
> standpoints of development, deployment, security and maintenance, it is
> worlds better than what it replaces.
>
> In a way, Web applications (which most users probably don't think of as
> applications, though that's what they are) are leading example of this
> "n-tiered" approach. If you go to Amazon.com, the pages you see are
> fashioned in real time from the contents of one or more databases, then
> sent as HTML to your browser. The only special code that resides on the
> user's desktop machine is the script code in the browser, which is
> transient.
>
> Whether or not such a Web application happens to be .NET-based, there's
> no need for the user's machine to have the .NET framework installed,
> since all the .NET application code is on the Web server--not the
> client.
>
> .NET applications can access remote components directly, however, and
> perhaps that's closer to what you have in mind. For example, a smart
> desktop application could call a Web service (whether .NET-based or
> not), or it could have a peer-to-peer connection with another user's
> desktop that is running the same or another application.
>
> Or it can make remote procedure calls against a .NET-based "remote
> object" on a server somewhere--the nearest equivalent of a COM object.
> In fact, however, most people seem to prefer Web services over .NET
> remoting. .NET remoting can be significantly faster but Web services
> are just so nice and easy to create and deploy.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to cut back on this discussion fairly soon since it's
> so clearly off-topic. I hope that the immediate need for information
> has been met?

As a partner in a computer application development and consulting firm from
1993 to 1999, I can assure you that David's summary is right on. It was
apparent by 1996 that the web offered enormous potential for 3-tier
computing (a special case of "n" tier, eg. client-application
processing-database) but that the existing tools were far too crude.
Simultaneous Microsoft and the Unix/Linux community began working on a
framework to make such applications easier to develop, with the all the
requisite transaction safeguards. Microsoft "won" dominance with .Net
(whether you view that as good or bad, legitimate or illegimate is
irrelevant). Meanwhile the web continued to mushroom, and the 3-tier
approached has "morphed" to the much more flexible web application approach.
From the standpoint of a struggling mid-ninties developer, it is a godsend.

[Richard Crowley]

"David Satz" wrote ...
> Well, in some application architectures the end user runs a "client
> application" on his/her desktop, which is a lightweight piece of code
> responsible mainly for presenting a user interface. The primary
> business logic resides on a networked server somewhere, and then if
> there's a database behind it all, that may well be running on yet
> another networked machine. It all depends on how many users need to
> access the system simultaneously and how quickly it has to respond.
> .....

There is also a growing collection of "native" windows applications
(which have nothing to do witht he internet) which use the dot-NET
runtime library as the underlying support. In exactly the same way as
applications written (for example) in Visual Basic use the VB runtime
library (VBRUN60.EXE, etc.)

While I have not yet written any native windows apps in dot-NET,
I have written plenty in VB which were 100% dependent on the
VBRUN runtime library. The dot-NET runtime library is just the
next generation of that and it is no particularly big deal IMHO for
the end user (myself included).

The dot-NET runtime library certainly makes it much easier to
write applications that have whizzy features, many of which are
actually useful and will save you time. It is quite likely that it
would enable one to write a simple, functional, and non-dynamic
UI front-end for Windows Media Player (for example :-) Might
be a good project for me to experiment with native runtime dot-
NET.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

>> From a program developer POV, dot-NET offers much
>> easier implementation of all the little things you need
>> to do without having to write them from scratch

> "Little things" usually require little code. Could you
> name a couple of little things that really become easier
> to develop with the .net additional layer?

I've run into a few pieces of code by third party developers that were
developed with dot-NET. One is a time-card system. In the modern context -
a little thing.

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I've run into a few pieces of code by third party developers that were
> developed with dot-NET. One is a time-card system. In the modern context -
> a little thing.

Apparently Sound Forge 8 is one. That's what started this discussion.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I've run into a few pieces of code by third party
>> developers that were developed with dot-NET. One is a
>> time-card system. In the modern context - a little thing.
>
> Apparently Sound Forge 8 is one. That's what started this
> discussion.

So what would SF do with .NET? Scripting engine?

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:46:50 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Apparently Sound Forge 8 is one. That's what started this
>> discussion.
>
>So what would SF do with .NET? Scripting engine?

Vegas, the audio/video editor, uses it too.

[Richard Crowley]

> wrote ...
> "Little things" usually require little code. Could you
> name a couple of little things that really become easier
> to develop with the .net additional layer?

Are you a programmer? Are you aware that actual code
that performs the function of an application is only a small
(10~20%) part of the whole project? The rest is frequently
the UI and other housekeeping stuff. The Windows API,
and the dot-NET runtime (the latest incarnation) takes all
those things that appear trivial on your computer screen and
actually make them trivial to program. For example, popping
up a login/password screen and authenticating a user. Before
dot-NET it could take 100s of lines of code, but with dot-
NET, it is a simple function call.

[Romeo Rondeau]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I've run into a few pieces of code by third party developers that were
>> developed with dot-NET. One is a time-card system. In the modern
>> context -
>> a little thing.
>
> Apparently Sound Forge 8 is one. That's what started this discussion.

Actually, I believe it's the system hooks for Sony's Media Thingy that works
with Vegas and DVD Arch...

[Geoff]

wrote:
>> Microsoft invested literally billions of dollars over 10+ years on
>> the technology ("OLE" or "COM")
>
>
> Hmm. You're a believer.
>
> Probably more accurate is that they spent big bucks on systems and
> applications that *included* OLE.

I suppose if Linux or Apple came up with something similar it would be
praised as an forward-thinking innovation and gem of design exccellence.

geoff

[Geoff]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:46:50 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Apparently Sound Forge 8 is one. That's what started this
>>> discussion.
>>
>> So what would SF do with .NET? Scripting engine?
>
> Vegas, the audio/video editor, uses it too.

Both have user scripting features. Not sure if that is related though, or
whether
it's just used as a standard for taking care of the 'little things'. There
is something user configurable about the GUI graphics that relates to .NET
as well, I think.

Not sure if the Media Library function uses .NET, but is does use MS SQL
runtime.

geoff

[Romeo Rondeau]

"Geoff" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>> Microsoft invested literally billions of dollars over 10+ years on
>>> the technology ("OLE" or "COM")
>>
>>
>> Hmm. You're a believer.
>>
>> Probably more accurate is that they spent big bucks on systems and
>> applications that *included* OLE.
>
> I suppose if Linux or Apple came up with something similar it would be
> praised as an forward-thinking innovation and gem of design exccellence.

That's because it would have a cuter icon :-)

[Geoff]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> "Geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>>> Microsoft invested literally billions of dollars over 10+ years on
>>>> the technology ("OLE" or "COM")
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. You're a believer.
>>>
>>> Probably more accurate is that they spent big bucks on systems and
>>> applications that *included* OLE.
>>
>> I suppose if Linux or Apple came up with something similar it would
>> be praised as an forward-thinking innovation and gem of design
>> exccellence.
>
> That's because it would have a cuter icon :-)

I just fader-jocked a school presentation with sound and video done on some
Apple laptop (oops sorry - Powerbook) with iTunes and some Audio/video
sequencing app. Couldn't get over all the Apple icons that seem to pop up
everywhere, fade in and out, morph, etc, especially in the 'visualisation
patterns in the iTunes segment. Talk about subliminal....


geoff

[Romeo Rondeau]

>> That's because it would have a cuter icon :-)
>
> I just fader-jocked a school presentation with sound and video done on
> some Apple laptop (oops sorry - Powerbook) with iTunes and some
> Audio/video sequencing app. Couldn't get over all the Apple icons that
> seem to pop up everywhere, fade in and out, morph, etc, especially in the
> 'visualisation patterns in the iTunes segment. Talk about subliminal....

I like those new commercials where they say that the PC can't do anything
creative, like pictures and music and stuff. Or that it doesn't work with
digital cameras and such.

[JohnO]

> BTW I can only remember one scenario where malicious software could
> actually physically damage a computer. Was it an early Commodore
> model? It had a backup battery that re-charged under software
> control. POKE a byte in the wrong place, it could overcharge and
> explode. Any other memories?

There was a virus a few years back that could waste a hard drive...I
don't recall the details, something to do with destroying the permanent
MBR info on the drive. The mfgr could fix it, but nobody else. Not sure
that classifies here, but it's close. Throwing a CPU into an endless
loop can cause secondary heat damage, but again...

-John O

[David Satz]

JohnO wrote:

> There was a virus a few years back that could waste a hard drive...I
> don't recall the details, something to do with destroying the permanent
> MBR info on the drive. The mfgr could fix it, but nobody else. Not sure
> that classifies here, but it's close. Throwing a CPU into an endless
> loop can cause secondary heat damage, but again...

This post is even off-topic-er than this already off-topic thread, so I
hesitated to respond to it--but both these claims are of the "urban
myth" type, and someone should probably point that out.

The master boot record on a hard drive isn't "permanent," nor is it a
feature that the manufacturer is concerned with. It contains code which
is custom installed by the software that partitions and formats the
disk for a particular operating system. The contents depend on the
operating system, and of course the particular type of CPU. If the
contents of the MBR were "manufactured in," each type of hard drive
would work with only one type of CPU, and quite possibly only one
operating system. Transferring a hard drive from a PC to a (pre-Intel)
Macintosh would require a trip back to the manufacturer as you
describe. But none of that is so.

The MBR is rewritten by system software whenever necessary, e.g. if the
disk is transferred to a different type of system or the user reformats
and repartitions his/her hard drive. See the help for the Windows/DOS
command "fdisk" for example.

It is true that some viruses modify the MBR. But why ascribe this
capability to viruses while assuming that system software lacks the
same power? That's the fantasy element in this claim. Anti-virus
software typically checks the MBR for tampering and if necessary,
replaces it with the contents of a carefully cached copy. Clearly this
isn't something that only the drive manufacturer can repair.

Finally, the only damage caused by an endless loop is the waste of
cycles, plus whatever the indirect consequences might be of having some
piece of software get "stuck" (assuming that it was doing something
useful in the first place).

--best regards

[Steve King]

"David Satz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> JohnO wrote:
>
>> There was a virus a few years back that could waste a hard drive...I
>> don't recall the details, something to do with destroying the permanent
>> MBR info on the drive. The mfgr could fix it, but nobody else. Not sure
>> that classifies here, but it's close. Throwing a CPU into an endless
>> loop can cause secondary heat damage, but again...
>
> This post is even off-topic-er than this already off-topic thread, so I
> hesitated to respond to it--but both these claims are of the "urban
> myth" type, and someone should probably point that out.
>
> The master boot record on a hard drive isn't "permanent," nor is it a
> feature that the manufacturer is concerned with. It contains code which
> is custom installed by the software that partitions and formats the
> disk for a particular operating system. The contents depend on the
> operating system, and of course the particular type of CPU. If the
> contents of the MBR were "manufactured in," each type of hard drive
> would work with only one type of CPU, and quite possibly only one
> operating system. Transferring a hard drive from a PC to a (pre-Intel)
> Macintosh would require a trip back to the manufacturer as you
> describe. But none of that is so.
>
> The MBR is rewritten by system software whenever necessary, e.g. if the
> disk is transferred to a different type of system or the user reformats
> and repartitions his/her hard drive. See the help for the Windows/DOS
> command "fdisk" for example.
>
> It is true that some viruses modify the MBR. But why ascribe this
> capability to viruses while assuming that system software lacks the
> same power? That's the fantasy element in this claim. Anti-virus
> software typically checks the MBR for tampering and if necessary,
> replaces it with the contents of a carefully cached copy. Clearly this
> isn't something that only the drive manufacturer can repair.
>
> Finally, the only damage caused by an endless loop is the waste of
> cycles, plus whatever the indirect consequences might be of having some
> piece of software get "stuck" (assuming that it was doing something
> useful in the first place).
>
> --best regards

Moving even further into off topic..... If I format a drive on a PC as FAT
16 can it be read by a MAC? If not, is there anyway that a drive can be
used by both PC and MAC?

Steve King

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:13:05 -0500, "Steve King"
> wrote:

>Moving even further into off topic..... If I format a drive on a PC as FAT
>16 can it be read by a MAC? If not, is there anyway that a drive can be
>used by both PC and MAC?

Do you mean FAT32? FAT16 allows a maximum partition size of 2GB.

[Scott Dorsey]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:13:05 -0500, "Steve King"
>
>Moving even further into off topic..... If I format a drive on a PC as FAT
>16 can it be read by a MAC? If not, is there anyway that a drive can be
>used by both PC and MAC?

Yes. OS X has no problem reading and writing FAT 16 partitions.

You can read NT filesystems, but not write them. In general, nobody really
handles NT filesystems very well other than Windows, in part because nobody
has really reverse-engineered them well enough and the internals are all
sadly undocumented.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:13:05 -0500, "Steve King"
>>
>>Moving even further into off topic..... If I format a drive on a PC as
>>FAT
>>16 can it be read by a MAC? If not, is there anyway that a drive can be
>>used by both PC and MAC?
>
> Yes. OS X has no problem reading and writing FAT 16 partitions.
>
> You can read NT filesystems, but not write them. In general, nobody
> really
> handles NT filesystems very well other than Windows, in part because
> nobody
> has really reverse-engineered them well enough and the internals are all
> sadly undocumented.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks. I thought that might be the case. Looking over my video editor's
shoulder, when he was preparing a new external drive, I noticed the option
in OSX to format to "DOS FAT 16". I'll format an external that way on my PC
and see if he can read it on OSX. If so, it would be convenient to deliver
to him a HD with video and audio files, rather than having to digitize from
tape at his facility. Since OSX did not offer FAT32 as an option, I assume
that would not work. It would be nice to have 4 GB maximum file size vs. 2
GB.

Steve King

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:49:00 -0500, "Steve King"
> wrote:

>Since OSX did not offer FAT32 as an option, I assume
>that would not work. It would be nice to have 4 GB maximum file size vs. 2
>GB.

Maximum partition size, not file size.

[Steve King]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:49:00 -0500, "Steve King"
> > wrote:
>
>>Since OSX did not offer FAT32 as an option, I assume
>>that would not work. It would be nice to have 4 GB maximum file size vs.
>>2
>>GB.
>
> Maximum partition size, not file size.

Oh. Of course.

Steve King

[JohnO]

David Satz wrote:
>
> > There was a virus a few years back that could waste a hard drive...I
> > don't recall the details, something to do with destroying the permanent
> > MBR info on the drive. The mfgr could fix it, but nobody else. Not sure
> > that classifies here, but it's close. Throwing a CPU into an endless
> > loop can cause secondary heat damage, but again...
>
> This post is even off-topic-er than this already off-topic thread, so I
> hesitated to respond to it--but both these claims are of the "urban
> myth" type, and someone should probably point that out.

My memory fails me...Around '99 CIH was the one that got a couple
computers here, and it destroyed the BIOS. Permanently, the same as if
you make a mistake flashing an update. On the older BIOS' that didn't
have a recovery mechanism (like today's BIOS) this was fatal to the
mobo. If the CMOS was socketed it could be replaced, but otherwise...


You're correct about MBRs.

>
>
> Finally, the only damage caused by an endless loop is the waste of
> cycles, plus whatever the indirect consequences might be of having some
> piece of software get "stuck" (assuming that it was doing something
> useful in the first place).

If the heat sinking capability of the machine isn't designed well
enough, continuous 100% CPU work can (and has) fried CPUs. I saw this
with P2-era Gateways, which used passive cooling on CPUs which ran
north of 30 watts.

-John O

[[email protected]]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:13:05 -0500, "Steve King"
>>
>>Moving even further into off topic..... If I format a drive on a PC as FAT
>>16 can it be read by a MAC? If not, is there anyway that a drive can be
>>used by both PC and MAC?
>
> Yes. OS X has no problem reading and writing FAT 16 partitions.
>
> You can read NT filesystems, but not write them. In general, nobody really
> handles NT filesystems very well other than Windows, in part because nobody
> has really reverse-engineered them well enough and the internals are all
> sadly undocumented.

They are partly documented in the VMS manuals. And books on ODS-2.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----