Why I'm abandoning VB.NET after 6 months

[RMReynolds]

WHY I AM ABANDONING VB.NET AFTER SIX MONTHS OF DEVELOPMENT:

I am a software developer for a company that I own. I have spent half a year migrating from Visual Basic 6.0 to VB.NET. I completed a project for release in VB.NET a month ago. That is when my .NET nightmare began.

The installation and deployment project in Visual Studio does not, and cannot, install the .NET framework. This oversight can be worked around by a setup program published on the MSDN site, but this results in a tiny non-descript dialog box being displayed for LONG time while the .NET framework SLOWLY infiltrates the operating system. Alot of end-users would think the installation was STUCK. WHY does it take so LONG for just 20MB to load from a CD? The hard drive bangs around like every system file in the computer is being rewritten.

There are third-party products, such as InstallShield, that try to approach this problem. However when InstallShield runs dotnetfx.exe, the progress bar on the dialog box runs over and over, and again, giving the end-user the impression that the installation is STUCK.

Secondly, dotnetfx.exe has MULTIPLE depdendicies. NOT everyone has wide-band internet access. Leaving out Win 95 users hurts the potential market in a product, but the .NET framework goes way beyond that. The computer must have Internet Explorer version 5.1 or higher, MDAC, etc. What if a user deleted IE and is using another web browser? Again, InstallShield helps here partially, but the installation STOPS if IE 5.1 or higher isn't there. <sigh>

Also, in the limited beta testing I did, some systems that did have all of the many dependencies present would CHOKE during the .NET framework infiltration and it would then ABORT after giving out a cryptic error message. Not what you want an end-user to see or deal with.

I would suggest that Microsoft develops just ONE LARGE FILE that contains ALL OF THE MANY DEPENDENCIES for a NET application, and that during installation, any dependency (IE 5.01, etc.) will automatically install, but only IF approved by the end-user. Also, the progress bar in the install dialog should really represent what is going on. ALso, it would be nice if they installation could be speeded up so it doesn't feel like you are loading in a new operating system.

For me, and I imagine many others, I've abandoned what is otherwise a really wonderful new language and programming environment. However I would go BROKE with technical support phone calls regarding installation issues if I tried to send out a .NET Windows application now.

I'm back to VB 6.0 for my next project. <sigh>

Robert Reynolds
First Solo Software
rmr7718@swbell.net

[Edneeis]

Is the dotnetfx.exe the same as dotnetredist.exe which is one big 20MB file?

[RMReynolds]

I believe when you run the later longer file name, then several files are extracted for use. One is dotnetfx.exe

[Edneeis]

So basically the longer filename isn't very helpful either.

[hellswraith]

Sounds like your only problem is deployments. Sorry that you have bad experiences with it. I don't deal with the issues you discussed, I rely on the user visiting Windows Update. If I get an email for installation support, I just tell them to go to Windows Update and download all the critical files. Problem solved.

I know this won't work for everyone though...

[Nucleus]

Try the freeware version of innosetup, it might be the ticket:
http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php

As time moves on everyone will have the framework installed and it only has to go on once. Teething problem I agree, but depending on your clients, certainly not worth giving up on. Just get their IT department to upgrade IE, MDAC and install the framework themselves. Then it an install is much easier than VB6 :)

It will be a while before the revolution is complete, but certainly not that long....

[MrPolite]

aah you're scaring me....
I made 2 year book programs with vb6 before. It is used for a persian school in sandiego (for little kiddies). I assume that I'm going to be making another one this year. It's not just a picture browser, you know:D
Well the thing is that I have to be sure that almost everyone can run the program with no issues. Dealing with 7 yr old children and trying to solve their technical problems would be a PAIN!!!!!:eek: So should I use VB.NET for the next yearbook that I'm gunno make? sounds scary

[RMReynolds]

Mr. Polite . . .don't be scared!

If you were writing a program to install at a controlled and limited location, like a school or business, then I think VB.NET or C#.NET would be a wonderful way to go. I wouldn't anticipate that VB.NET would have any higher frequency of problems than a VB 6.0 application ............... ONCE THE FRAMEWORK AND THE PROGRAM WAS INSTALLED.

The main problem I see is INSTALLATION and DEPLOYMENT. However, this is not an issue is you are writing software for one or a limited amount if companies.

However, if your software product is for mass market RETAIL use, then it is a BIG BIG PROBLEM. In fact, I think I'd have to be insane to try and attempt it.

InnoSetup or any other install program doesn't fully solve the problem because: they simply launch Microsoft's dotnetfx.exe to do a silent framework install. The install program then loses control and can't process "error messages" or "time estimates until the install is complete" etc. So you do nothing while the hard drive bangs for 5 minutes (on a fast system) during the framework installation . . . or you can be honest about it and put up a dialog box for the user that says: "The FRAMEWORK is now infiltrating your operating system. This process takes a LONG TIME. Cross your fingers that you have IE 5.01 or higher, MDAC, etc. cause it will abort if you don't. When this is finally done....if it works, then the installer will install the program you purchased."

I said I'm giving up on DOT.NET a little tongue in cheek. What I mean is that I'm not going to use it for my software products that are for retail distribution to home users. However, I'll continue to use it. I do really think VB has come a LONG LONG WAY and is so much more POWERFUL with .NET . . . I just wish Microsoft had focused a little more attention on the BIG PICTURE and had a better approach to DEPLOYMENT and INSTALLATION. Perhaps though they did this on purpose, because they don't want .NET apps out in the retail market until some time has passed to work out the kinks.

[hellswraith]

However, if your software product is for mass market RETAIL use, then it is a BIG BIG PROBLEM. In fact, I think I'd have to be insane to try and attempt it.

I must be insane, but no problems yet. My apps are not 'mass market' by what the term means, but they do get used. Like I said, I leave it up to the consumer to update their windows. If they can't do such a simple thing, then I don't want them using my app anyway.:) Those are the people that give you the most support requests. I handle any problems with installation the exact same way: Pre made email that states to the user to visit windows update, and update their computer. I don't get any emails after that.

[techgnome]

RMReynolds..... sorry to hear about your experiences too.....
One comment though... the reason IE is needed, is because the inter..... no wait.... that's the IDE I'm thinking of..... so. WHY DOES IE need to be installed??? I agree some people don't use it, but I don't think most people are savvy enough to know how to take it off. Personaly I left mine alone when I swithed to Mozilla. For time to time I find myself visiting a site that uses IE specific tags that I have no choioce but to fire up IE (man I hate that.....)
At any rate. as for deployment, it should get easier (operative word should) as the OS from now on will already have the framework installed by default. It's only in the deployment to existing systems that will be a pain. As for supporting Win95 -- I don't think they should. How long do you support an OS before you say enough? At some point it needs to be cut off -- it's nearly 7yrs old! As it is, they barely support Win98 (which I think they will only do for another year).
They are also doing it with Office. The newest version (Office 11, in beta now) doesn't support Win9x -- Only Win2K and XP. At some point, you have to turn off the light and say "Sorry, can't help you any more."

[RMReynolds]

Hellswraith - I'd like some more information about how you distribute your application if you don't mind sharing.

Do you distribute via the net or on CD? What install program do you use? I thought InstallShield Express did the most to at least try to solve part of this problem. Have you ran into issues if a Windows user was running Netscape and had partially deleted Internet Explorer?

Please don't take any offense to the "insane" remark . . . that was directed to myself only.

[A$$Bandit]

Well indeedy, abandoning VB.NEt is a good idea. You should definitely migrate to C#.

[techgnome]

Originally posted by A$$Bandit
Well indeedy, abandoning VB.NEt is a good idea. You should definitely migrate to C#.
The framework problem would still exist. Based on what I read, it wasn't so much the language, but the install & deployment of the .NET framework.
Maybe as more tools get converted to .NET, things will get better.

[hellswraith]

I use the installer that is built into .Net. It creates one MSI file that I am able to distribute. I distribute through the internet, so I have to worry about size and that is why I don't include the framework or IE. The good thing about this though is that if they get my app, then that means they have access to the internet. That means they can visit windows update also.

The way I look at it, if I make it my responsibility to get the framework and newest version of IE out, I am taking the blame from the users. If I make them get the framework and IE from MS, they dislike MS, not me. This leaves me as the good guy, and ms as the bad guy that is making them download 30 megs. My app is only 1.2 megs.

You can customize your install to fit what you need. Your just worried that users are going to think that the framework install is hanging. Put up a dialog saying that it will take a while for the framework to be installed and not to worry. Leave them an option to cancel or go with it. If they cancel, make sure you throw another dialog at them saying that your application can not run without the framework installed. Tell them that they can install the framework from your CD or by visiting windows update and updating their computer.

[Cander]

Even so, stick with ASP.NET if do any web devlopment, because distribution wouldn't be an issue.

Here is something you should know. There is an Ultima Online Server emulator being written in C# and they havent had many issues with people going to install the .NET framewok from what I here.

[MrPolite]

Originally posted by A$$Bandit
Well indeedy, abandoning VB.NEt is a good idea. You should definitely migrate to C#. did you read the post carefully?:D



There is an Ultima Online Server emulator being written in C# and they havent had many issues with people going to install the .NET framewok from what I here.

umm I dont get it. So it's a website or what?

[techgnome]

Originally posted by MrPolite
umm I dont get it. So it's a website or what?
A SERVER..... for running an Ultima Online server.
It isn't a website. You'ld connect to it using Utlima.

[techgnome]

One more interesting fact: The IDE for .NET was written in C#.

[hellswraith]

Well indeedy, abandoning VB.NEt is a good idea. You should definitely migrate to C#.
I think it was a joke. Even if it was a joke, you should go to C#, it kicks a$$. :)

[PT Exorcist]

Originally posted by techgnome
One more interesting fact: The IDE for .NET was written in C#.

why dont they put that code as free open source code? :D

[hellswraith]

Because that is the only part of .Net they are selling. You can download the compiler for free and just use notepad or other free editors if you wish. MS wouldn't make any money if anyone could get the source, compile it, and use it.

MS is going to make money with the IDE though, even though you can do .Net apps for free. This is because there IDE just kicks a$$ compared to what is out there.

[Hu Flung Dung]

Originally posted by techgnome
One more interesting fact: The IDE for .NET was written in C#.


:eek: :eek: :eek:


Does that mean you can decompile it with the Salamander decompiler?

[afterMoon]

Does that mean you can decompile it with the Salamander decompiler?

Ah! it sounds interesting.

[area91]

where cam get this decompiler?

[Pirate]

guys never try to think about finding a decompiler one day :cool:
coz i spent most of my life looking for that.:D

[Hu Flung Dung]

Originally posted by pirate
guys never try to think about finding a decompiler one day :cool:
coz i spent most of my life looking for that.:D

What the heck does that mean? :confused:

=====

www.remotesoft.com/salamander
I believe this is the URL, go ahead and give it a try!

[Arc]

RM..it sounds to me as though you are trying to install your program and the .net framework both with 1 install.exe.

You should make 2 installs, 1 for your program and 1 for the framework. Make it clear that your program needs to have the framework in order to work and like hellswrath said, tell them they can either install it from your CD or off the net...But that technically it is not part of your program and you can't be held responsible if they can't install it.

It's like when you buy a Video game.. they have minimum requirements that you need in order to run the game. It's not thier fault if your computer doesnt live up to the requirements...It wouldnt be your fault if the user doesnt have the Framework or refuses to get it...:)