Converting .net to independent .exe file

[Mimfa]

Hi All!

I am using vs 2005 express edition which doesn't seem to have ability on creating independent .exe file to be used on any computer even with no .net installed. I was also trying to accomplish that on vs 90day profession edition but still no luck. Can any one tell me how to do that file from my project?

Thanks.

[.paul.]

you can find your .executable file in your (app) bin/debug or bin/release folder.

any programs written in vb.net require the .net framework installed on the target PC

[kleinma]

If you plan to release any files to other people, you want to make sure you use the "release" version and not the "debug" version of your exe. The debug version contains additional code and hooks to allow the debugger to debug it. The release version is more optimized to be released for actual use.

As paul said, you MUST have the .NET framework on any machine that will run your app, the whole point of .NET applications is that they are run against the framework instead of directly against the operating system. Consider making an installer for your app so that users who install it will also have the framework installed when needed.

[RobDog888]

The only way to create a "standalone" exe is to use C++ and yet you will still have some dependancies of the OS and APIs.

[kleinma]

Or only support Vista, then you can do standalone exe's for frameworks 1.0-3.0

[RobDog888]

1.0/1.1 werent installed by default. I had to manually install them.

[kleinma]

Yeah but unless they are specifically set to only run against their given frameworks, you can run them against the 2.0 framework so long as your code base doesn't hit any of the breaking changes between versions. There were some, but not too many. I was also only half serious in my previous post. Only supporting Vista is not really a good idea, unless your app does something specific to Vista.

[RobDog888]

Oh only 50% serious lol. Yea the breaks are limited but I wouldnt want to rely upon it running against 2.0. Just my personal preference. I'd rather install 1.0/1.1 as needed.

Still there is no truely standalone executable as every process depends upon the OS APIs which vary from system OS version to system OS version.

[Mimfa]

Great thanks for every answer!

The idea compiling C++ surprised me because I thought VS compile the same way VB, C and the rest.
It looks like I need to make .dll and accommodate it in Delphi to compile it to the independent .exe file to don't bother with installing .net. It's not that big program and there should be no need for user to install anything, just copy .exe an use it.

[kleinma]

Great thanks for every answer!

The idea compiling C++ surprised me because I thought VS compile the same way VB, C and the rest.
It looks like I need to make .dll and accommodate it in Delphi to compile it to the independent .exe file to don't bother with installing .net. It's not that big program and there should be no need for user to install anything, just copy .exe an use it.

VS = Visual Studio. It is just the development environment program used to write code for any of the Microsoft languages these days. Not too long ago, each programming language had its own individual IDE.

Any of the managed .NET languages (C#, F#, VB, etc...) require the .NET framework to run, however many people do now have at least the 2.0 framework installed.

So many users will be able to "just copy and use it", however you just don't have that guarantee.

You could look into using a deployment mechanism like ClickOnce, or even a Windows Installer setup. Either approach easily adds the ability for the setup program to download and install the .NET framework from Microsoft's servers only when needed on users machines when they go to install your program.