.Net - when will it be everywhere?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I enjoy writing .Net applications; for me, C# has made developing fun once again. :)

My only beef with .Net development is the fact that so few end users have the .Net framework installed, most of them cannot run the applications I build. Additionally, with the framework being over 21 MB, it is a very hefty requirement to force such a download on the user.

My question is, when is Microsoft planning on distributing .Net to the masses? Is the company just waiting until Longhorn? The way I see it, only Microsoft can get everyone in the Windows world .Net-ready; you guys could bundle the framework with Office or XP Service Pack 2 - is something like this planned or are we forced to wait until Longhorn?
 
Hi Gabriel,

It is already for a long time in the standard update from Microsoft.

Server 2003 has it standard

I hope this answers your questions?

Cor

I enjoy writing .Net applications; for me, C# has made developing fun once again. :)

My only beef with .Net development is the fact that so few end users have
Click to expand...
the .Net framework installed, most of them cannot run the applications I
build. Additionally, with the framework being over 21 MB, it is a very hefty
requirement to force such a download on the user.
My question is, when is Microsoft planning on distributing .Net to the
Click to expand...
masses? Is the company just waiting until Longhorn? The way I see it, only
Microsoft can get everyone in the Windows world .Net-ready; you guys could
bundle the framework with Office or XP Service Pack 2 - is something like
this planned or are we forced to wait until Longhorn?
 
Gabriel said:
My question is, when is Microsoft planning on distributing .Net to the
masses? Is the company just waiting until Longhorn? The way I see it,
only Microsoft can get everyone in the Windows world .Net-ready; you
guys could bundle the framework with Office or XP Service Pack 2 - is
something like this planned or are we forced to wait until Longhorn?
Click to expand...

You'll have to wait for Longhorn to be preinstalled on every os. But I hope
that MS decide to include .NET in the next windows service packs

bye
 
What about new XP machines? If I went and bought a new computer from Dell today, would it come with .Net? Not that I know of (maybe I'm wrong). Does it come with a Java Virtual Machine? Yep

I'm not sure if Microsoft is aware of this, but there are a number of small companies out there that have opted for Java over .Net simply because they don't want to force a 21 MB download on their customers. I've been involved with such a company recently; a lot of the developers wanted to go with .Net, but it would be suicide for a web-based business to force 21 MB on their users, so they opted for J2EE development

Please Microsoft, distribute .Net everywhere. Developers use DirectX because they know virtually anyone with a video card can run it. Developers would take the same approach to .Net if we could be assured the framework was installed on virtually all recent Windows boxes

----- Lawrence Oluyede wrote: ----

You'll have to wait for Longhorn to be preinstalled on every os. But I hop
that MS decide to include .NET in the next windows service pack

by
 
Yes, Server 2k3 has it, but I'm talking about average end users here. As hard as it is to believe, average end users usually do not visit Windows Update. Even those that do often choose to not install the optional updates (.Net being an optional download for XP)

Quite a few people still use Java because Joe End User almost certainly has a Java Virtual Machine installed. I think a lot of developers would flock to .Net if end users could run their content without downloading 21MB of requirements.
 
Hi Gabriel,
Quite a few people still use Java because Joe End User almost certainly
Click to expand...
has a Java Virtual Machine installed. I think a lot of developers would
flock to .Net if end users could run their content without downloading 21MB
of requirements.

You think they buy direct Longhorn when it comes in the shop?

Dotnet updates even W98 to a higher level cheaper than any open software
product.

I real do not understand what you want with this message.

Cor
 
=?Utf-8?B?R2FicmllbA==?= said:
I'm not sure if Microsoft is aware of this, but there are a number of
small companies out there that have opted for Java over .Net simply
because they don't want to force a 21 MB download on their customers.
I've been involved with such a company recently; a lot of the
developers wanted to go with .Net, but it would be suicide for a
web-based business to force 21 MB on their users, so they opted
for J2EE development.
Click to expand...

If they're a web-based business, no users should have to have either
the JVM *or* the .NET framework - they should just have to have a
browser. J2EE development usually doesn't involve the *users* having
Java.
 
----- Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: -----

If they're a web-based business, no users should have to have either
the JVM *or* the .NET framework - they should just have to have a
browser. J2EE development usually doesn't involve the *users* having
Java.

You're right, it isn't typical, but this particular business offers a service which cannot be offered with standard html/javascript. They offer a service that requires a more powerful language to run their content. For the past 6 years, they've used Java and Java applets embedded in web browsers. But with the recent Sun lawsuit coupled with the JVM mess (with some users having only the MS JVM, running Java 1.3 content, while others having Sun's JVM, running 1.4 content) and the planned end of life for the MS JVM, the company knew they had to change; either force users to get the Sun JVM (already has a decent installation base, and is a much smaller download on users) or force users go get .Net (currenly a very small installation base among users, and a very large download).

As I mentioned before, they decided to start supporting the Sun JVM, while phasing out Java altogether and opt for standalone unmanaged content hosted in a browser. This is despite a lot of developers wanting to use .Net, myself included.

Jon, can you give us the company's plan for .NET distribution? Are you guys waiting until Longhorn before rolling out .NET? Does Microsoft expect developers to redistribute .Net to end users? Are there any plans on bundling the framework with a service pack or other standard Microsoft software (like Internet Explorer, Office, etc) before Longhorn is released?

Any light you can shed on the subject is greatly appreciated.
 
[*Please* fix your newsreader to wrap lines properly. Wrapping all of
your posts for you is getting very annoying...]

=?Utf-8?B?R2FicmllbA==?= said:
----- Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: -----

If they're a web-based business, no users should have to have either
the JVM *or* the .NET framework - they should just have to have a
browser. J2EE development usually doesn't involve the *users* having
Java.

You're right, it isn't typical, but this particular business offers a
service which cannot be offered with standard html/javascript. They
offer a service that requires a more powerful language to run their
content. For the past 6 years, they've used Java and Java applets
embedded in web browsers. But with the recent Sun lawsuit coupled
with the JVM mess (with some users having only the MS JVM, running
Java 1.3 content, while others having Sun's JVM, running 1.4 content)
and the planned end of life for the MS JVM, the company knew they
had to change; either force users to get the Sun JVM (already has
a decent installation base, and is a much smaller download on users)
or force users go get .Net (currenly a very small installation base
among users, and a very large download).
Click to expand...

None of that means they couldn't use .NET on the server side though.
Nor does using .NET on the client side mean they couldn't keep using
J2EE on the server side.
As I mentioned before, they decided to start supporting the Sun JVM,
while phasing out Java altogether and opt for standalone unmanaged
content hosted in a browser. This is despite a lot of developers
wanting to use .Net, myself included.
Click to expand...

I see no particular reason to phase out Java if it's working for them,
myself. WebStart in particular works pretty well.
Jon, can you give us the company's plan for .NET distribution? Are
you guys waiting until Longhorn before rolling out .NET? Does
Microsoft expect developers to redistribute .Net to end users?
Are there any plans on bundling the framework with a service pack
or other standard Microsoft software (like Internet Explorer,
Office, etc) before Longhorn is released?

Any light you can shed on the subject is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

I think you may have mistaken me for a Microsoft employee - I'm not.

However, I believe .NET is already in XP SP1, and will almost certainly
be in XP SP2 if not. It's been on Windows Update for ages, too.
 
Jon Skeet said:
[*Please* fix your newsreader to wrap lines properly. Wrapping all of
your posts for you is getting very annoying...]
Click to expand...

<snip>

Apologies for this - I was getting confused due to the new MS web-news
system making all posters have UTF-8 encoded names. It makes keeping
track of posters somewhat tricky...
 
I understand perfectly what you mean, and have wondered the same
myself many times. I think the best solution would be to have MS
include it on their freely mailed CD's for the MSN internet service.
That way, people would not have to download it, and would have the
option to install it along with MSN or just install it whether they use
the MSN service or not.

In fact, now that I think about it, why not get AOL to put it on their
mass-mailed CD's as well? They certainly wouldn't lose anything
and I know there's enough space on those CD's. I have about a
dozen of them.

Gabriel said:
I enjoy writing .Net applications; for me, C# has made developing fun once again. :)

My only beef with .Net development is the fact that so few end users have
Click to expand...
the .Net framework installed, most of them cannot run the applications I
build. Additionally, with the framework being over 21 MB, it is a very hefty
requirement to force such a download on the user.
My question is, when is Microsoft planning on distributing .Net to the
Click to expand...
masses? Is the company just waiting until Longhorn? The way I see it, only
Microsoft can get everyone in the Windows world .Net-ready; you guys could
bundle the framework with Office or XP Service Pack 2 - is something like
this planned or are we forced to wait until Longhorn?
 
Back
Top