PC World dings software publisher for using .Net

[Robert Jacobson]

I just noticed this review of Drive Image (a drive-imaging utility) from the
September 2003 issue of PC World:

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...,111800,00.asp

The author (Jon L. Jacobi) gives the software extenive praise for having a
good interface, being robust and being twice as fast as a competing product.
However, he then faults the software for being based on the .Net platform:

"Despite these improvements, however, I have one major beef: Drive Image 7
includes Microsoft's .Net framework, and that adds software I never wanted
along with a whopping 40MB to DI 7's 45 MB installation footprint."

This is the only complaint he raises. He ends up giving the product a
three-star rating (out of five.)

Ugh. What is he complaining about exactly -- that the installation takes 85
MB on his hard drive (which probably has dozens of gigabytes to spare)?
That it's part of an evil conspiracy by Microsoft to take over his computer?

Are all reviewers this misinformed?

[William Ryan]

IMHO, I read the article and he's no dummy. That doesn't mean he's totally
objective. What is his gripe with the Framework? Not mentioned. So, I ask
you this, if I was your boss, and I fired you....without citing reason...who
would that reflect on, me or you? If my argument was sooo compelling,
certainly I would cite a reference and claim it to be self-evident.

He has a right to not want the framework installed on his machine. But
think about it...what OS and SP must he be running to not have it already
installed...."Robert Jacobson" <rj**********************@nospam.com> wrote
in message news:Ob**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

I just noticed this review of Drive Image (a drive-imaging utility) from the September 2003 issue of PC World:

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...,111800,00.asp

The author (Jon L. Jacobi) gives the software extenive praise for having a
good interface, being robust and being twice as fast as a competing product. However, he then faults the software for being based on the .Net platform:

"Despite these improvements, however, I have one major beef: Drive Image 7
includes Microsoft's .Net framework, and that adds software I never wanted
along with a whopping 40MB to DI 7's 45 MB installation footprint."

This is the only complaint he raises. He ends up giving the product a
three-star rating (out of five.)

Ugh. What is he complaining about exactly -- that the installation takes 85 MB on his hard drive (which probably has dozens of gigabytes to spare)?
That it's part of an evil conspiracy by Microsoft to take over his computer?
Are all reviewers this misinformed?

[General Chaud Caliente]

I am mixed. You can almost hear me arguing with myself over this one...

It seems to me that his gripe with the .net framework is that it requires 40
MB of space on his system, just to support this one application. I think it
is a valid argument, although he makes it seem like a broad-stroke
condemnation of .net.

Part of the problem is that many people aren't clear on the fact that .net
is necessarily a new platform. If, back in the DOS days, you had bought a
copy of Partition Magic for DOS, and in order for it to run on your system,
it had to install Windows For Workgroups 3.11, you'd probably have the same
complaint. In fact, if you aren't planning on running any other .net
applications, then installing the framework on your computer just for Drive
Image is worthy of ridicule. In fact to the casual user, a 45MB program
just for imaging one's hard drive, is ridiculous.

Many people aren't running a version of Windows new enough to already have
the .net framework installed. If I were in charge of the DriveImage team, I
would have pushed hard to have it designed such that it could easily be
ported to the .net framework in the future (maybe with Delphi?), but I would
have released it as a Win32 app now (probably with Delphi.). Of course I am
not part of that team, so I can't possibly imagine what troubles they may
have run into trying to design it that way, or if they even considered it.

That said, everything Microsoft is going the way of .net. it is only a
matter of time before the author of the story is running an OS with the
framework built-in. In fact, I can't imagine someone tech-savvy as a
PC-World technical writer wouldn't be running the latest version of whatever
OS he chooses.

And what did he mean by...

"and that adds software I never wanted"...

Exactly which part of the framework did he not specifically want? Seems to
me that if he wanted DriveImage, and DriveImage is a .net application, then
he in fact *DID* want the framework, he just didn't know it.

While his complaint is valid, it appears to me that he holds some kind of
animosity toward Microsoft in general, or the .net initiative specifically.

--
GCC