Final footprint using Redist Net 2.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Kraft
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark Kraft

Hi,

In adding .Net 2.0 I find my footprint growing quite large. I last added
..Net to my image using redistribution msi. My starting footprint for my
image was 227MB. After installing 2.0 it grew to 539MB. I thought the size
was closer 90MB?

Can anyone provide insight?

Thanks

--
Mark Kraft
Design Engineer
Lehigh Electric Products Co.
Tel: 610-395-3386
Fax: 610-395-7735
email: (e-mail address removed)
website: www.lehighdim.com
 
Hi Mark,
In adding .Net 2.0 I find my footprint growing quite large. I last added
.Net to my image using redistribution msi. My starting footprint for my
image was 227MB. After installing 2.0 it grew to 539MB. I thought the size
was closer 90MB?

Can anyone provide insight?
Click to expand...
I suppose .Net got some more dependencies to your image aside it's own
huge size.
Personally I install .Net during the first boot, running the following
command:
dotnetfx-2.0.exe /q /c:"msiexec.exe /i netfx.msi ADDEPLOY=1 /qb"

My main concern was not even the size, but security. I'm not sure that
cloned image has all .Net security stuff personalized properly. That's
why I install it after deployment. Would be happy to get other opinion...
 
Net dependencies have little impact. Based on TD the footprint estimate is
not even close to actual once >Net is completely installed to the image. TD
estimate sees approx. 90MB. There is some variation in size when using the
component or .msi install on the post-FBA image but that difference is
insignificant compared to the final size. Final size impact is a 270MB
adder. Although I did use the command line as described in your post and it
did minimize the size adder to 200MB. Still quite a hit considering most XPe
image sizes. Include hibernation and footprint is even more substantial.

Hopefully this thread will be of some benefit in what to expect when using
..Net with XPe, it's impact on image size. If using HD it is not so much a
problem. Using CF it can add cost because of the additional space required.

Unfortunately an application designed for this product was written using
..NET to speed development. It is a nice program. However the downside to
that decision is just becoming evident.

Thanks for your input!
 
Back
Top