Have you distributed a .Net application?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Hubbard
  • Start date Start date
J

Jim Hubbard

Have you distributed a .Net application? How about one to the general
public?

I am writing an application that I had rather do in .Net, however, the
20+ MB dotnetfx.exe worries me. What about potential users on 56k modems
(still almost 50% of internet users in the US alone)? Do they dl or just
skip it?

It'd be neat if MS would send out something that urged (required may be
nice) ALL MS os users to run an activex control that installed the .Net
framework. To do this though, it may take MS making a KILLER app in .net
and giving it away. (That'd be better than requiring them, but would still
miss many users I'm sure.)

Your observations are welcome.
 
If your clients will be web based (which it sounds like they will be), then
why not make your application an ASP.NET Web Project? This way the only
thing your clients need is a browser (which they already have). The .NET
Framework only need be on the web server and there is nothing to distribute.
 
My 2 cents, Canadian ;)

I have distributed a .NET app to the public. Since our application's setup
without .NET Framework Redist is still 80mb, another 20mb isn't an issue.
We also distribute on CD.

Pretty soon I imagine a lot of software will have the .NET Runtimes on CD as
well (i.e. Office)
Also, newer computers are coming with Framework 1.1 pre-installed (Dell for
example)
So I don't think it will be an issue in the next year or two.
Also in Canada the majority of Internet users seem to have Broadband :)

-
Paul
 
That's not an option with this particular application. It is designed to
interact with the user's desktop.

Thanks for your input

Jim
 
Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
redistribution.

I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school right
now....at least until the framework is distributed more.

Thanks for your input.

Jim
 
Jim Hubbard said:
Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
redistribution.

I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school right
now....at least until the framework is distributed more.

Thanks for your input.

Jim
Click to expand...
You'll not have long to wait, as the .NET framework will be in all future
Windows OS versions, IIRC. That will remove your concern.
 
Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it
kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim
 
win95 still...uckk!
That has got to suck developing for. Most new technologies arn't supported
on win95 any longer.

good luck,
Paul

Jim Hubbard said:
Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it
kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Could have sworn I read somewhere that running the .NET Framework on Win95
is not supported.


Jim Hubbard said:
Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it
kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
..NET isn't supported on Win95, Neither is DirectX 8.1 or DirectX 9
Heck the machines that came with Win95 on them would probably have a hard
time running most modern software applications.

Glad my company decided to follow suit and ditched requiring our products to
be supported on '95.

-
Paul

Scott M. said:
Could have sworn I read somewhere that running the .NET Framework on Win95
is not supported.
Click to expand...
 
Really.... I was one of the geeks in line outside CompUSA at midnight to
get the first release of Win98.

I feel left behind now if I'm not running the current beta on at least one
machine.

I can't imagine being that far behind. In fact, I sometimes have trouble
remembering the stuff I need to to program for those old machines - so I
keep a large library and push customer to upgrade a lot.

I have found that a lot of small businesses have a legitimate concern when
upgrading their OS. The older software they bought for the older OS
obviously hasn't been tested or approved for the new OS, and moving to an
untested OS frequently voids their support options. This means that not
only do they have the expense of a new OS and a knowledgeable person to
install it, they also have to buy a whole slew of new programs, take time to
upgrade the machines and take time to learn the nuances of the new OS and
software packages.

So they are looking at considerable time and money expenditures to upgrade.
A lot of them don't have the budget for IT (get it?).

MS should make all OS upgrades backwards compatible for 2 versions (just
like reputable software manufacturers do). Of course some people would
still wait until the last minute before making a change.

Jim


Paul Hetherington said:
win95 still...uckk!
That has got to suck developing for. Most new technologies arn't supported
on win95 any longer.

good luck,
Paul
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top