.NET 3.0 interesting note

[kleinma]

The .NET 3.0 redist package is pretty nice compared to its predecessors in that it is only 2.8MB and will connect to Microsoft via the web to download everything else it needs.

I thought about using it for one of my .NET 2.0 apps, because it would make it 3.0 ready, and also make it easier to distribute.

After some testing though. I found out this information, which may be useful to someone else:

1) .NET 3.0 is just an extension of .NET 2.0 (which is why it works with VS 2005)

2) .NET 3.0 is NOT a full framework. It is a supplement to 2.0. If a system does NOT have .NET 2.0 on it, and you install .NET 3.0, it installs BOTH. you will notice that the .NET 3.0 folder does not contain all the normal framework files, just the things new to 3.0. Everything else is managed by .NET 2.0, including code access security.

3) .NET 3.0 will only run on the following operating systems
Windows XP SP2
Windows 2003 Server SP1
Windows Vista
(Note that on Vista you can NOT install .NET 3.0, it is included out of the box, along with ALL other .NET framework versions to date)

4) So unless you can limit your client base to only having XP SP2, which I know I can't do, you will need to stick with .NET 2.0 which will run on systems as far back as 98 (as long as its all patched up)

[warrenayen]

Microsoft is doing it's best to ensure older systems, like 98 (which can still be viable), aren't targeted by developers anymore.

It's going to be a while until I even think of moving to Vista. I'm stickin with what I've got now.

[kleinma]

I don't have a problem moving to Vista, but my customers are a mix of everything from Windows 95 to Windows XP, so I can't just demand they all upgrade to something newer.

[warrenayen]

That's true. Same here. Some of our computers run 98 on them (our EDI export can't use 2000 or higher), and so I'll need to keep that legacy software around. I thought about moving the big stuff for the company to Vista and .NET 3 on a separate development computer, and keep legacy apps on this one.

[Arrow_Raider]

I don't have a problem moving to Vista, but my customers are a mix of everything from Windows 95 to Windows XP, so I can't just demand they all upgrade to something newer.

Why? I hate it when people run old systems.

[warrenayen]

Why? I hate it when people run old systems.

You might, but there can be reasons. For instance, our EDI software through out VAN would cost 20k to upgrade. We're not willing. However, it can't work on Windows 2000 or higher, but since it works perfectly for us anyway (and EDI is simply text files), we keep it on a legacy 98 machine.

[JuggaloBrotha]

if EDI is simply text files, why not make your own EDI app that does run on the framework?

[jmcilhinney]

There is absolutely no point having support for older OSes in .NET 3.0. All .NET 3.0 is is .NET 2.0 with support added for WWF, WPF and WCF, all of which are new Vista features. That means that Vista is the only OS that can benefit from .NET 3.0. XP is supported to allow developers using that platform to develop Vista applications. Who is developing Vista apps with VS 2005 on anything less than XP? Noone is, so what use can support for those older OSes in .NET 3.0 be? None.

Also, the VS 2005 bootstrapper allows you to specify that the Framework will be downloaded from Microsoft when your app is installed anyway, so there's no need to distribute it with your application.

[szlamany]

if EDI is simply text files, why not make your own EDI app that does run on the framework?

Because in a production shop you measure return-on-investment before jumping off a cliff.

Writing your own EDI translator can be done - the files are simple.

But having a commercial translator means it's doing x-number of validations on the EDI transmissions and translating them nicely from EDI to whatever your shop need for import (flat, sql, csv, tdf - whatever). And it can handle whatever your shop needs for export transmissions from you...

The real problem here is that applications - like this EDI one - do not continue to move along with OS-upgrades. Could be they went out of business - could be simply moved along with newer versions that ran on new OS's. Either way having to support legacy app's in a production environment stinks - the hardware and support costs associated with keeping a win-95 or win-98 box viable are always a problem...

As a software vendor my contracts with customers demand I stay viable with current OS/framework/sql db versions...

But forcing the customer to switch when the new product is available is not in my control.

[kleinma]

Also, the VS 2005 bootstrapper allows you to specify that the Framework will be downloaded from Microsoft when your app is installed anyway, so there's no need to distribute it with your application.

That implies the VS setup project is being used. I use INNO setup because it provides me more functionality, and also is a single setup.exe file.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is still no way with the VS setup project to get a single setup file. You still get a setup, and an msi, etc...

This is no good for downloading of software, as it would require an additional packaging into a self extracting exe.

[warrenayen]

if EDI is simply text files, why not make your own EDI app that does run on the framework?

We do, actually. Our AutoSend program converts our Sales Orders into multiple EDI formats for various MFG's, but we can't just "send" them. Each of those MFG's has different VAN's, formats, software, EDI transmission types, like EDI, EDI email, or EDI-X12. It would cost us more to pay me to build an EDI app than to continue using the now long since paid-for-itself Windows 98 legacy app we use.

[penagate]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is still no way with the VS setup project to get a single setup file. You still get a setup, and an msi, etc...

As far as I know the msi only launches the setup exe anyway.

[kleinma]

I thought it was the other way around... either way.. it still requires more than 1 file to be distributed, which is not good if you expect your non computer savvy customers to download and run setup.exe to install your program.

Like I said, I know I can add in another step of just packing the exe up in some self extracting installer, but INNO does that for me. I haven't seen anything that has made me want to switch to using the VS installer at this time.

[penagate]

Yes, but only one of the msi or exe is needed. Can't remember which one though.

[warrenayen]

the MSI is the only file needed. It's what contains the actual files inside of it. The Setup Program is just....for legacy.

[jmcilhinney]

The MSI is what installs your application, but if you want any prerequisite components installed, like the Framework itself, then you need to run Setup.exe because that's where the bootstrapper is. It is Setup.exe that will install the Framework, SQL Server Express, Crystal Reports, etc., before invoking your MSI package and installing your app.

[kleinma]

Don't you also need to distribute Windows Installer 3.0 or higher redist incase they don't have it?

[RobDog888]

doesnt that get prompted to update/download too? (installer 3.0).

[kleinma]

Rob,

For which version of the framework? 2.0 or 3.0?

I know in 3.0 it doesn't because 3.0 requires XPSP2, which already has a high enough Windows Installer version. I am not sure about the 2.0 framework setup downloading Windows Installer (or are you saying the bootstrapper will download it for you?)

[RobDog888]

Not sure about downloading but I remember there was a prompt for me to update the installer to 3.0 and it did it via an download. It might have been when I installed SP2 so you would be right that it would already be updated.

[skea]

Why? I hate it when people run old systems.

I have two Oses on my System. Win 2K and Win XP. I mostly use and develop Apps on Win 2K because i know its much more stable than XP. I use XP to see how my Apps will function on a Win XP Machine. I am waiting on Vista,if its more stable then i will completely disband Win 2K.
So if .NET 3.0 can't work on my 2K, then i will be forced to move extremely fast. Disband WinXp and Win 2K.

[RobDog888]

XP SP2 is much more stable then without a SP and would be recommended over 2000 Pro SP4. 2000 Pro is coming up on 7 years old now.

[penagate]

2000 Pro is coming up on 7 years old now.

6 years. It was released in Feb '01.

[RobDog888]

Well I had the beta versions back in the summer of 2000. So there