Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86)

1.0 stars

"Lousy, lousy, lousy."

March 13, 2012  |   By OldGrumpy

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

Couldn't find a single solitary one pro.

Cons

I wanted to download Net 2.0; my computer already had 4.0 installed, but the program I was attempting to run said it needed both 2.0 and 4.0 to run properly. Since I already had 4.0, my computer refused to add 2.0 Consequently, I never got to add 2.0 and my program malfunctioned without it's addition just as its designer said that it would.

Summary

Sometimes Windows determination that it knows better than you how to run the computer on which it is installed is very good; it's a big improvement over the time when one had to enter everything with a code to print, or save, display, or whatever. But there are other times when Windows stubborn refusal to follow the simple instructions of its owner make its owner want to throw Windows and the computer it controls out the nearest window, and return to the good old un-automated Mac. This was one of those times for me. It is analogous to the automatic shift in an automobile as opposed to the standard. Most of the time, the automatic is preferable; but there are some occasions when the automatic simply will not do what the stick shift can, and then one wishes one had not spent the extra bucks for the automatic. But having made the decision automatic or stick at the time one bought the car, it is too late to change later on when one needs the performance possible with the stick even if it only happens once every 30,000 miles. That was my case here. (I solved my problem by putting my program on a Vista machine. It already had 2.0, and didn't need 4.0 to work; awkward for my use, but doable.)

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (0) (0)

3.0 stars

"Didn't work for me"

June 7, 2011  |   By divaliya

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

I assume its a great product

Cons

Didn't load for me on my system no matter what. I was still getting error message that I needed to install .NET framework version 2.0 to continue.

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (0) (0)

1.0 stars

"Why are people using this Horrid framework ???""

January 16, 2011  |   By Joshua_Friend

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

It free and you can trick business in using it because business loves Microsoft and only will use TRUSTED ??? Microsoft in most cases.

Cons

It is as big as an elephant. Older .net apps don't work on it. You have to decompile and recompile in Version 3.5. I suppose software developers don't mind this if you bought their software. improve your chance of getting viruses.

Summary

I was wrong, I mean a whale and it is slower than the slowest dog on the track. Opp's I was wrong again a turtle is faster..

Takes ages and ages to process data which should take seconds. I suppose business like paying people to sit back in the chair, waiting for their data to be processed. (VB1 with DOS is way faster)

In the mean time buy an Iphone you need it for the wait...

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (0) (1)

1.0 stars

"A bloated mess. Avoid .Net apps if you can..."

March 31, 2010  |   By aissacf

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

Takes a boatload of hard disk space. And you thought Visual Basic runtime was big and applications where sluggish. Really, .Net has grown to mamooth proportions.

Cons

One has to wonder why does MSFT need to create a runtime on Windows? at least Java is multi-platform and java based apps like jDownloader or OpenOffice or Azureus / Vuze give the customer freedom to chose his operating system. .Net is windows-only.

Summary

89 megabytes of hard disk space. Every .Net release includes all previous releases (so you install .Net 3.5 and actually get .net 2.0 sp2 and .net 1.1 installed along as well). This is microsoft's idea of software bloat.

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (1) (2)

3.0 stars

"It is needed for funcion of another prgram"

January 31, 2009  |   By petnerha

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

Just what I needed

Cons

Nothing specially

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (2) (2)

4.0 stars

"More and more necessary"

October 21, 2008  |   By bewc

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

Sits in the background; doesn't take up too much memory or space; works my stuff.

Cons

It's made by MS ;[

Summary

A necessary product. Must get v2 or above for it to be useful to new software.

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (6) (2)

5.0 stars

"A necessary application."

November 3, 2007  |   By Zane77

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

The Microsoft .Net Framework 2.0 is needed to make certain program's function properly. Some of the program's downloaded from download.com require the Microsoft .Net Framework 2.0 .

I tried to download the Microsoft .Net Framework 2.0 from Microsoft web site. But it would never complete the download, it would download at about 75% and give me a system error 0x80131107 and fail to download. It downloaded completely from download.com with no error.

Cons

The file size shown here 22.42MB IS 89.9MB after it is installed.

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (20) (1)

5.0 stars

"bueno"

August 21, 2007  |   By Masenoc

Version: Microsoft .NET Framework Redistributable Package (x86) 2.0

Pros

super

Cons

de lujo

Reply to this review

Was this review helpful? (5) (3)