Is .Net requirement an issue?

[bahramvb]

Hi,

For distributing .NET application, client need to install .NET framework.

Especially for win98/Me users, installing the framework need to restart
computer and it takes a quite long time for the whole installation process.

Do you think it is a serious disadvantage for developing application in .NET at this moment? main program size is small, but the
whole installation package is quite large.

I want to develop a software and I think small package size is important for users
which language program do you suggest
and is it possible to write a self-reliant software with VC++ or VB 2010?

I am quite worrying about this..

[Nightwalker83]

Well, I know that Visual Studios, 2008 - 2010 creates a click once package when you publish your program. Not sure if that is what you mean?

[bahramvb]

Yes, you mean in the way user don't need .Net framework?
but anyway, could you please say How?

I am new to 2010

[TheBigB]

I think you should stop supporting below Windows XP. That already solves a big part of the problem.
If I'm not mistaken, Vista comes shipped with .NET 2.0 built-in and Win7 with .NET 3.5.
XP does require installation of .NET.

It shouldn't really be a problem to have a .NET 2.0 requirement. A lot of other software uses that (or higher) nowadays.

But there's also VB6. As long as you don't diverge from the standard components those programs will run without any installation, whatsoever. But the question if VB6 runtime will be built-in in the next Windows versions.

I don't know about VC++, but as far as I'm concerned it isn't dependencyless (or it might depend on the complexity and component usage).

VB2010 uses .NET and if I'm not mistaken the lowest target you can set it to is 2.0.

[JuggaloBrotha]

bahramvb, the TheBigB has a number of valid points here. You're wanting to allow your program to run on 11 & 13 year old operating systems while you want to use the latest dev tools to make the program. Sure .Net 2.0 will run on Win98 & ME, but even there, there's things that just wont work and if you think about it: why would you want to create a new program that runs on something that old anyways? Is there a specific reason you want to put that extra time into maintaining a program that's for win98 and newer?

Plus the .Net Framework was pushed out to WinXP some 3 or 4 years ago so the chances of the XP (and newer) computers already having the .Net Framework is significantly high, though having an installer to distribute your app is something you should still do because in the off-chance that the computer doesn't have it (like the 98, ME or that one XP computer) the installer will go download it, install it, then install your app & the FW is a one time install so you'd be doing them a favor.

Also, VS2010 supports targetting .Net 2.0 and newer.

[bahramvb]

Thank for the information, I know the user of Win98 are few but I was worried abou XP users, now that I know newer XP have .Net 2, I think I can go ahead

but when I want to target the .net framework in VC2010 it asks me to download .Net framework 2
but what should I download the Redistributable Package (x86).... which is 20Mg
or SDK which is 345 mg

[bahramvb]

among .Net languages, which one is faster
I mean sensable faster ( a some ms difference is not an issue)

[TheBigB]

Both C#.NET and VB.NET are compiled into the same intermediate language. So performancewise there is very little difference.
C# though does support the use if pointers which in some cases can give you some speed increase.
It all depends on what kind of application it is and what it does.

[bahramvb]

what about VC++ (compared with this two)

[Nightwalker83]

what about VC++ (compared with this two)

To quote abhijit:

I am not sure what you mean. Microsoft has always had a VC++ compiler in their Visual Studio Product.

Here is a list of compilers although it doesn't say whether or not the compiler is different for the above mentioned languages.

Edit:

That is unless the compiler is actually a part or each language. For example VB and C# each having their own compiler.

[tengo]

At the end, it's all CLR, and chances are that maximising the efficiency of your code will have more of an affect on runtime performance than which .NET language you are using.
I don't know anyone who has used Win98 in a good few years, and .NET framework is required for a few extremely common programs, so it's very widely distributed on across windows platforms, easy to get access to otherwise.
It seems like you're worrying too much.

[Lord Orwell]

c++ can be faster, if you are running unmanaged code. If you are running managed code, you require the net framework anyway. I agree with others though. .net is required for a lot of stuff today, including ati drivers. Chances are if you target net 2.0, they already have it. The redistributable is what the end user gets. If you are developing, you should get the sdk.

[bahramvb]

Thanks I am developing it with C# .Net,
hope its a good choice
my code mainly engaged with Database and I am using Ado. Net