This article presents results of an investigation of the usage of .NET on five versions of Windows. The operating system files for the first version of Windows tested, XP Pro with Service Pack 2 applied, did not use .NET at all. This is understandable because XP was released before .NET was first released. The next version of Windows was the PDC 2003 build of Longhorn. This has a similar number of unmanaged executable files as XPSP2 but it also had thirty five .NET assemblies. Amongst these assemblies were two services.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Have you checked that those numbers you quote scale linearly past 1 application? It's fairly likely that adding a second .Net app will have significantly less memory load since the interpreter and most libraries are shared.
This is correct. You can't get an accurate benchmark of .NET performance vs. unmanaged using trivial apps like Hello World. You pay an initial cost due to GC, security, and other services that get initialized. If the app is of any size, and/or you are running multiple .NET apps, the numbers get closer to unmanaged code. There are several commercial apps from MS and third parties that use managed code. In the Vista timeframe, any application that uses Avalon, Indigo, WinOE, WinFS (to use the codenames that may be more familliar to people) will be using .NET.
Member since:
2005-11-18
Have you checked that those numbers you quote scale linearly past 1 application? It's fairly likely that adding a second .Net app will have significantly less memory load since the interpreter and most libraries are shared.
As an example, one of my .Net apps in bytecode form is only 24kb. So odds are, given enough .Net executables, you might actually see an overal memory savings. Obviously a caveat here is how many non-native data types your .Net apps use.