Maybe Dot.Net isn't so bad after all.

[IanS]

For years I've avoided deploying anything based on dot.net but now I've started playing with c# and getting to like it. Understanding more about the framework and starting to think that maybe it ain't so bad after all.

What I'd like to know is - in your opinion what percentage of users will already have FrameWork v2 installed on their computers ? That's 'normal' users, not developers or computer experts.

I develop/sell shareware applications. I've been doing this for about 20 years and you may disagree but experience tells me that a user is more likely to complete the install and therefore eventually buy a product if it is small, downloads quickly, installs cleanly and without sending the user off to download other stuff such as frameworks or other modules, drivers, dlls etc that aren't included in the deployment.

I think I'll start my next project targeting FW2 because I think that 'most' potential users will already have FW2 installed.

Maybe you'd suggest other/newer versions of the FW. In that case please tell me - also your reasoning - but please give your vote to my poll about FW2.

Thank you.
Ian

[FunkyDexter]

I have no evidence beyond the anecdotal but I suspect it would be almost all - certainly if you include business users. So many apps use it that you can pretty much rely on it being pre-installed.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

As it gets pushed down with Windows Updates i would also say that the vast majority will have the framework installed.

Your only issues will be with those companies that for whatever reason have lots of old version of Windows (XP and below) where they turn of Windows Updates and dont push updates out via a Central policy.

The 2.0 Framework is likely to be more widely installed than later versions so i would say that it is a good one to target.

I develop/sell shareware applications. I've been doing this for about 20 years and you may disagree but experience tells me that a user is more likely to complete the install and therefore eventually buy a product if it is small, downloads quickly, installs cleanly and without sending the user off to download other stuff such as frameworks or other modules, drivers, dlls etc that aren't included in the deployment.

I thought we had already covered this in another thread, you can actually include not only the dependency to the .Net Framework in your application, requiring it to be installed before you application, but you can also package the Framework along with your application as well so that it is all part of 1 download and your deployment package will then install the Framework first then your application.

This Article explains how - Here (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480239.aspx)

Juts scroll down until you see the section titled - Installing the .NET Framework 2.0 Using the Visual Studio 2005 Bootstrapper Setup

[JuggaloBrotha]

Since generally everyone has windows updates enabled and doing automatic updates, plus since just about everyone has winxp or newer, I'd say probably 75% to 80% already have .Net 2.0 installed. Also with Win7's popularity I'd say probably 70% of people out there have the 3.5 FW installed already. This is all just my opinion, I don't have anything to prove any of this.

[IanS]

I thought we had already covered this in another thread,

Yes, but back then I was "against" deploying .net apps but thanks to those threads I'm now turning round and do intend to start deploying - THIS thread is looking for confirmation that FW2 is the best one for my requirements.


. . . but you can also package the Framework along with your application as well so that it is all part of 1 download and your deployment package will then install the Framework first then your application.


I DO NOT intend to package the framework. My webserver provider is already complaining about the amount of bandwidth my VS6 based downloads are using on his network. The whole thing is currently just 2 or 3MB so adding the FW would make my provider bust a blood vessel.

I would offer it as an optional download (maybe link to MS for the actual download - but I hope this would only be a minority - that's why I'm running this poll. if you guys tell me that 50% of people DO NOT have FW2 then I'll stick with VS6
[/QUOTE]

[JuggaloBrotha]

I DO NOT intend to package the framework. My webserver provider is already complaining about the amount of bandwidth my VS6 based downloads are using on his network. The whole thing is currently just 2 or 3MB so adding the FW would make my provider bust a blood vessel.

I would offer it as an optional download (maybe link to MS for the actual download - but I hope this would only be a minority - that's why I'm running this poll. if you guys tell me that 50% of people DO NOT have FW2 then I'll stick with VS6I would make an installer and have the 2.0 FW as a pre-req and if the user doesn't have the 2.0 FW then the installer itself can go download it from MS directly. It wouldn't hurt to provide a link on your site to the 2.0 FW download, but I wouldn't stress over it too much.

Also if you create 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0 apps you can deploy it the same way, if the end user doesn't have that version of the FW, again have the installer download them right from MS directly and don't worry about the FW's not being hosted on your site.

[si_the_geek]

Setting it up as a pre-requisite should do the job nicely, but make sure that you have a note for those who are going to install your program on a computer that doesn't have an internet connection - telling them that for XP and earlier they should download the framework, and install it (or try to) before your app.

[FireXtol]

I don't. :wave:

I simply don't use any .NET applications, and have no reason to have it installed. Don't feel hurt! I also won't install Java. ;)

I used to notice more .NET applications, but they seem to have diminished. Most commercial/popular software still seems to be not .NET. Most .NET apps I see seem to be from independents(not implying most independents use .NET).

What a weird name ".NET". :lol:

[JuggaloBrotha]

I don't. :wave:

I simply don't use any .NET applications, and have no reason to have it installed. Don't feel hurt! I also won't install Java. ;)

I used to notice more .NET applications, but they seem to have diminished. Most commercial/popular software still seems to be not .NET. Most .NET apps I see seem to be from independents(not implying most independents use .NET).

What a weird name ".NET". :lol:If you're running Linux (which I'm 99.9999% sure you are, based on your post in the other thread) then you can't run .Net, you can run Mono which is a different Framework, but you certainly can't run .Net so I'm not even sure why you're posting here.

[FireXtol]

If you're running Linux (which I'm 99.9999% sure you are, based on your post in the other thread) then you can't run .Net, you can run Mono which is a different Framework, but you certainly can't run .Net so I'm not even sure why you're posting here.

I use multiple OS. :wave:

[chris128]

I used to notice more .NET applications, but they seem to have diminished. Most commercial/popular software still seems to be not .NET. Most .NET apps I see seem to be from independents(not implying most independents use .NET).


I dunno I find quite the opposite - that more and more software now is using the .NET framework, and not just small independent apps. The main program that we use for the majority of the day at work is written in .NET (I'm an IT admin not a developer), the software that our accounts department uses all day was written in .NET by a fairly large company and several of the utilities that I use in day to day tasks are written in .NET.

Having said that, I dont quite share everyone else's optimism that pretty much everyone has .NET installed - there are so many people that do not have automatic windows updates turned on for a start. I think for .NET 2.0 it is probably around 70% of average users (home and business) that would have it. Coming back to the OP's question though, I think .NET 2.0 is definitely the best to go for as more people will have that than any other version of the framework. I make all of my apps target 2.0 for that very reason, unless I really need to use something that is only available in the later versions.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have no sound basis for any estimate of the installed base, so I opted not to vote. It would be nothing more than a guess. However, I would suggest targeting 3.5 just because of some of the features that were added there. Of course, the installed base isn't quite as large. I currently have a program deployed via ClickOnce that uses the 3.5 framework. It doesn't deploy the framework directly, but links to MS to get the framework, if needed, so that should, also, avoid the bandwidth from the provider.

[chris128]

To be honest if I was going to use 3.5 for the extra features I would just use .NET 4.0 instead as you can target the client profile which is only a 20 MB download (yes the client profile feature existed in 3.5 SP1 but its much improved in 4.0) and get the new features that are in 4.0 as well.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Isn't the installed base for 4.0 down near zero, while Windows 7 came with 3.5 installed? I was basing my suggestion on that assumption coupled with absolutely no clue what the installed base for 2.0 is.

[chris128]

Isn't the installed base for 4.0 down near zero, while Windows 7 came with 3.5 installed? I was basing my suggestion on that assumption coupled with absolutely no clue what the installed base for 2.0 is.

Yeah but bearing in mind most people do still have XP, a lot of people are going to have to download 3.5 through your installer anyway so doesn't really matter if a few more have to because you have used 4.0 and then you get to use the new features in 4.0 as well. I guess not everyone will agree with that but that's my opinion on it anyway :)

[Shaggy Hiker]

Actually, 3.5 was also pushed out as an update, but an optional one, so it will be on a fraction of XP boxes, as well, though probably a small fraction.

[IanS]

Thank you everyone for your comments and votes in the Poll.



Most commercial/popular software still seems to be not .NET.


They're NOT .net - If they're not .net, in your opinion then, what are they ? Thanks.

[techgnome]

C.... C++ .... maybe Java... Considering how often my JVM gets invoked when running apps... my bet would be on C/C++.

-tg

[Max Peck]

As a developer I was resistant to .Net for many years. I just didn't see any point in the new technology as VB6 seemed adequate to produce anything I could imagine.

VB6 is still one of my old favorites. I loved developing with it. It abstracted Windows so nicely that I could really raise the bar on my development ability.

More recently, though, I finally "discovered" .Net. Decided to write my own version of a critical component I need for my business. Decided to move to C# to do it.

I won't turn back. The learning curve on .Net is steep - however after a year or so you wonder how you ever did without the language features and code library. I discovered that I could pull off things that were far more difficult with ease using true OO techniques. I'd say I'm 300% more efficient at implementing difficult algorithms in C# (or even VB.Net) than I ever could be with the previous iteration of the technology.

.Net just plain rocks.

Even an old dog can learn new tricks. ;-)


-Max :-)

[FireXtol]

Thank you everyone for your comments and votes in the Poll.




They're NOT .net - If they're not .net, in your opinion then, what are they ? Thanks.

Compiled with one of these: http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-compilers/

Probably. That's what most seasoned professionals use for proprietary Intel(x86, et al)-based (mostly Win but also, to a lesser extent, Mac) systems, afaik. Since Intel is pretty much king of compilers. :wave:

Pretty sure that's also what a lot of Windows' internals uses.

I'm not saying .NET is bad. I just see no reason to install it. Every .NET app I've ever used was bloated, slow, and feature anemic. Great combination(for the recycle bin)! I'm sure .NET programmers will catch up in another decade or what-have-you(if it's still around).

I see the web taking over, though. Such as Chrome OS. A lot of people lately seem to think "why can't you just put that on a web page?". YouTube has built-in video editing now. There are web-based Photoshop clones. Web-based IM, and even web-based emulators for game consoles. It goes on. The most popular ones are usually the ones which require the least amount of downloads/installs/etc. ideally none beyond the browser. I've even seen Flash-based RAT technology. There's practically nothing left out of the web's possibilities.

And the next generation which is geared towards 'easy access' web pages. Admittedly it's far easier to forward a link to a web app than to forward a link to a download, a link to the instructions for installation, and another link for the instructions on configuring the application.

Then there's the mobile craze. Where people want these technologies on devices which don't really offer the computational capacity required for 'larger-scale desktop' apps, and, it just so happens, they're also willing to pay ludicrous amounts for the most asinine apps. Win-win for developers and users.

Indeed, great example of .NET use, Max. In-house apps. I mean.... Why go with a 3rd party application when you can toil with some aspect of business logic that has already been done, and redone by dozens of others? Probably many of which are FLOSS, and could be extended if absolutely required.