none
.NET Framework installations take 30 minutes on XP 64 RRS feed

  • Question

  • We install .NET FW 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 (and patches that are part of the 3.5 download) using msiexec and wusa (/quiet /norestart). The total installation time for all .NET Framework versions is 30 minutes on Windows XP 64-bit:

    • .NET FW 1.1: 2 minutes
    • .NET FW 2.0: 5 minutes
    • .NET FW 3.0: 10 minutes
    • .NET FW 3.5: 8 minutes
    • .NET FW 3.5 patches: 5 minutes

    Vista 64-bit only takes 3 1/2 minutes for .NET FW 3.5 and 1 patch. Why does XP 64 take 10 minutes for the same operations?

    Is there anything that can be done to speed up these installations?

    Friday, February 19, 2010 11:11 PM

Answers

  • Hi Bakerb,

    Thank you for your reply.

    We install the .NET FW packages on clean operating systems. Nothing else has been installed before the .NET FW installations.

    I'm sure if you were to install .NET FW 3.5 on Windows XP 64-bit, you would see the same performance.

    Did you install .NET 2.0 >> 3.0 >> 3.5 in order or directly install .NET 3.5 on Windows XP 64 bit machine?

    As I mentioned above, since .NET Framework 3.5 installation will install .NET 2.0 with SP1 and .NET 3.0 with SP1 as prerequisite.

    If you directly install .NET 3.5 on Windows XP, this means that it will install the entire .NET 2.0 with SP1, .NET 3.0 with SP1 and .NET Framework 3.5.
    If you directly install .NET 3.5 on Windows Vista, it will upgrade .NET 2.0, .NET 3.0 to SP1 and install .NET 3.5 since .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 are shipped with Windows Vista as one of OS component.

    Even you install .NET 3.5 on the machine that already has .NET 2.0 and 3.0 installed, for different machines and different OS, the .NET Framework installer would detects what needs to be installed and attempts to install these required components during installation. Thus, the speed would be different on Windows XP and Windows Vista.

    I can understand your concern on installation slowness. Thank you for your suggestion on .NET Framework products. If it doesn't disturb you a lot, I'm willing to help you to submit this suggestion on our Connect portal site:

        https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/ 

    Every feedback submitted will be evaluated carefully by our engineers. If this suggestion is reasonable and other customers have the similar concern on this feature, they will let us know their comments further through that portal. This would be helpful to improve .NET Framework products.

    Thank you for your help.

    Hope this helps! If you have any concern, please feel free to let me know.

    Best regards,
    Yichun Chen
    MSDN Subscriber Support in Forum
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact msdnmg@microsoft.com
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    Welcome to the All-In-One Code Framework! If you have any feedback, please tell us.
    • Marked as answer by YiChun Chen Friday, February 26, 2010 2:33 AM
    Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:47 AM

All replies

  • Hi Bakerb,

    Welcome to MSDN forums.

    As we know, the installation depends on the hardware and software environment of one machine.

    For hardware, generally, .NET Framework 3.5 installation requires:

    Minimum Software:
    Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 with Service Pack 1
    Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8 for data access applications
    Windows Installer version 3.0

    Processors:
    Minimum                        Recommended
    400 megahertz (MHz)      1 gigahertz (GHz)

    RAM:
    Minimum                        Recommended
    96 megabytes (MB)         256 megabytes (MB)

    Hard Disk Space: (Minimum)
    32-bit                            64-bit
    280 MB                          610 MB

    If we have recommended hardware requirement, the performance will be better.


    For software, the .NET Framework installer would detects what needs to be installed and attempts to install these required components during installation. Thus, for different machines which have different environment, the speed would be different.

    For the .NET Framework installation, there are two installers that we can obtain from the official website:

    The one is bootstrapper while the other is full package.

    Referring to the difference between bootstrapper and full package:
    - Bootstrapper is a very lightweight setup package, which determines what needs to be installed and attempts to download these required components from the web during installation.
    - Full package is a stand-alone installer package that contains all required components to deploy different platforms.

    Both of them have their advantages. If you have the network connection, I think that bootstrapper will be better since it has smaller size than full package. To save the time for installation, full package would be better because we don't need to download the components from the web.

    Vista 64-bit only takes 3 1/2 minutes for .NET FW 3.5 and 1 patch. Why does XP 64 take 10 minutes for the same operations?

    Moreover, for Windows Vista, .NET Framework 2.0 is shipped with it as one of OS component.
    Windows Vista SP1 (all editions) includes the .NET Framework 2.0 SP1 and 3.0 SP1 as OS components.

    .NET Framework 3.5 will install .NET 2.0 with SP1 and .NET 3.0 with SP1 as prerequisite.
    .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 will install .NET 2.0 with SP2 and .NET 3.0 with SP2 as prerequisite.
    Thus, when we install .NET Framework 3.5 and SP1 on Vista, this will reduce some time for installation compared to Windows XP.

    Hope this helps! If you have any concern, please feel free to let me know.

    Best regards,
    Yichun Chen
    MSDN Subscriber Support in Forum
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact msdnmg@microsoft.com
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    Welcome to the All-In-One Code Framework! If you have any feedback, please tell us.
    Monday, February 22, 2010 7:33 AM
  • Hi Bakerb,

    Does the above suggestion work?

    If you have any concern, please feel free to let me know.

    Best regards,
    Yichun Chen
    MSDN Subscriber Support in Forum
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact msdnmg@microsoft.com
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    Welcome to the All-In-One Code Framework! If you have any feedback, please tell us.
    Wednesday, February 24, 2010 6:13 AM
  • Thank you for the reply.

    Our hardware and drive space requirements exceed the recommended requirements.

    We automate .NET FW installations using msiexec with /quiet /norestart switches. Our systems are isolated for security and do not have internet access, therefore we use the full installer packages.

    We install the .NET FW packages on clean operating systems. Nothing else has been installed before the .NET FW installations.

    I'm sure if you were to install .NET FW 3.5 on Windows XP 64-bit, you would see the same performance.

    Thanks again,
    Bill

    Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:56 PM
  • Hi Bakerb,

    Thank you for your reply.

    We install the .NET FW packages on clean operating systems. Nothing else has been installed before the .NET FW installations.

    I'm sure if you were to install .NET FW 3.5 on Windows XP 64-bit, you would see the same performance.

    Did you install .NET 2.0 >> 3.0 >> 3.5 in order or directly install .NET 3.5 on Windows XP 64 bit machine?

    As I mentioned above, since .NET Framework 3.5 installation will install .NET 2.0 with SP1 and .NET 3.0 with SP1 as prerequisite.

    If you directly install .NET 3.5 on Windows XP, this means that it will install the entire .NET 2.0 with SP1, .NET 3.0 with SP1 and .NET Framework 3.5.
    If you directly install .NET 3.5 on Windows Vista, it will upgrade .NET 2.0, .NET 3.0 to SP1 and install .NET 3.5 since .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 are shipped with Windows Vista as one of OS component.

    Even you install .NET 3.5 on the machine that already has .NET 2.0 and 3.0 installed, for different machines and different OS, the .NET Framework installer would detects what needs to be installed and attempts to install these required components during installation. Thus, the speed would be different on Windows XP and Windows Vista.

    I can understand your concern on installation slowness. Thank you for your suggestion on .NET Framework products. If it doesn't disturb you a lot, I'm willing to help you to submit this suggestion on our Connect portal site:

        https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/ 

    Every feedback submitted will be evaluated carefully by our engineers. If this suggestion is reasonable and other customers have the similar concern on this feature, they will let us know their comments further through that portal. This would be helpful to improve .NET Framework products.

    Thank you for your help.

    Hope this helps! If you have any concern, please feel free to let me know.

    Best regards,
    Yichun Chen
    MSDN Subscriber Support in Forum
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact msdnmg@microsoft.com
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    Welcome to the All-In-One Code Framework! If you have any feedback, please tell us.
    • Marked as answer by YiChun Chen Friday, February 26, 2010 2:33 AM
    Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:47 AM
  • Hi Bakerb,

    I've marked my reply as answer. If you have any concern, you can unmark my reply and let me know.

    Have a nice day!

    Best regards,
    Yichun Chen
    MSDN Subscriber Support in Forum
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact msdnmg@microsoft.com
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    Welcome to the All-In-One Code Framework! If you have any feedback, please tell us.
    Friday, February 26, 2010 2:32 AM
  • We do install .NET FW 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 in order. Would you say that this it would be quicker to just install .NET 1.1 and 3.5? Does the .NET FW 3.5 installation also install .NET FW 1.1?

    My main concern is XP64:
    On Windows XP 32-bit, installing .NET FW SP 1 and 3 patches takes 7.5 minutes.
    On Windows XP 64-bit, installing .NET FW SP 1 and 1 patch takes 13 minutes

    I will post this on the Connect portal site.

    Thank you again for your support.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 6:18 PM
  • Hi Bakerb,

    It's my pleasure!

    We do install .NET FW 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 in order. Would you say that this it would be quicker to just install .NET 1.1 and 3.5? Does the .NET FW 3.5 installation also install .NET FW 1.1?

    .NET Framework 3.5 installation doesn't install .NET Framework 1.1 together.
    .NET Framework 3.5 will install .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 together. Thus, if you just install .NET Framework 1.1 and .NET Framework 3.5, it might save some time since you don't need to manually install .NET 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 in order.

    Hope this helps! If you have any concern, please feel free to let me know.

    Best regards,
    Yichun Chen
    MSDN Subscriber Support in Forum
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact msdnmg@microsoft.com
    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    Welcome to the All-In-One Code Framework! If you have any feedback, please tell us.
    Monday, March 1, 2010 2:49 AM