Something I don't understand about VB.Net

[John Dann]

I'm looking at switching from VB6 to .Net but there's one key aspect
that I can't get my head around:

As I understand it, anyone wanting to run an app developed under
VB.Net needs the .Net framework installed. But only WinXP currently
supplies the framework. So how do 98/ME/2K users get a copy? Well of
course business users will very likely have a high speed link for
downloading from MS and those major app developers who distribute
physical media can presumably legally get hold of the framework
installer to include on their CD.

But what about the shareware developers who rely on electronic
distribution often to users who don't have a high-speed download
facility? Trying to download 20-30 or more MB on an old-fashioned
dialup connection isn't much fun and can be pretty frustrating if you
use a cheap and cheerful ISP with busy lines.

Given that MS seemed to have abandoned distribution of service packs
etc via magazine cover CD/DVDs (I guess there must be some serious
reason for this but I can't think of one) then what other option is
there? I don't see any .NET framework CDs appearing in my local PC
store either for free or nominal cost. It looks like a substantial
percentage of my potential shareware customers will effectively be
disenfranchised from being able to use any new software I might
create.

Of course, in the long run even the late upgraders will gradually
switch to WinXP or later, but I can imagine it being 3-5 years before
this accounts for 90+% of users.

Any comments please?

John Dann

 

[Cor]

Hi John,

Is this not a little bit out dated.

20-30Mb is nothing for who have ADSL or something like that.
(And in my country that are more and more)

(And the distributing form a VB6 application needs much more data than a Net
application as far as I remember me).

Cor

 

[Armin Zingler]

[...]

Of course, in the long run even the late upgraders will gradually
switch to WinXP or later, but I can imagine it being 3-5 years
before this accounts for 90+% of users.

ACK.

I do understand both sides, MSFT as well as the users. At current we are at
a point of time where this is still a problem.

Some thoughts:
- On side: VB6 also needed runtimes. Other side: But the Framework is
larger. One side: Yes, but the Framework is more powerful. Other side: Yes,
but the average user is not interested in the power of the Framework, but
only in the features of the application itself.
- On side: What should MSFT do? Wait some years til the Framework is part of
the OS, or almost everybody has a high-speed connection? Other side:
MSFT, please split the Framework in the CLR, few basic
libs and some whatever packages that can be downloaded if required. On side:
Unfortunatelly "the producer" focuses only on the business users now :-( and
those care less (not careless *g*) about 20 MB than a private user. In
addition, splitting up the Framework would have meant that when designing
the Framework the more complicated deployment would had to be taken into
account.
- On side: The Framework needs to be downloaded only once. Other side: New
framework versions require new downloads...but they will propbably be
disguised as OS updates - what doesn't make them better. BTW, you can
also call the Framework an OS update what might make it more sensible
to download for some users.

As you said, the problem will disappear in the next years. Currently I hope
that the Framework will be split into smaller packages - but I think my
hopes won't be fulfilled.

My 2 Euro-Cents

 

[John Dann]

Is this not a little bit out dated.

20-30Mb is nothing for who have ADSL or something like that.
(And in my country that are more and more)

No I don't think it is dated (though many people with ADSL/cable
assume that it is). High speed access is only used by a minority of
Internet users and possibly by a smaller minority still of shareware
users.

Of course 20-30MB is small beer to users with high speed access, but
my whole point is about people who don't have such access.

On the VB6 point, sure the runtime added some size to the download
file, but a couple of MB which is managemable on dialup, not 20-30MB
which is marginal

JGD.

 

[John Dann]

- On side: What should MSFT do? Wait some years til the Framework is part of
the OS, or almost everybody has a high-speed connection?.....

I guess my main concern is not with the principle of needing a large
CLR etc file - I can see the arguments for this, but with the fact
that MS have effectively decreed that download is to be the only way
of getting the Framework (other, presumably, than buying an expensive
..Net-based application with physical distribution or an expensive new
Windows CD).

Magazine cover disks are an obvious way to distribute free software
such as SPs and used to good effect in the past. Why have MS decided
to stop using these now?

JGD

 

[Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]]

John,
Darn progress! ;-)

Unfortunately it is a "catch 22" as you and others have rightly identified.

In addition to Armin's comments. Most 1.0 apps will run on 1.1 as will a
number of 1.1 apps will run on 1.0 per:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/sidexsidenet.asp

So users may not need to upgrade to the current framework as often, of
course I would recommend maintaining the current version, unless your app
will not run on the current version.

This does sound like an interesting niche market, although I question how
big a market it really is. For a nominal fee offer to ship the framework on
CD to your customers. Many small share ware developers may be too small to
handle it, so they could contract with a 3rd party that handles it. I don't
know of any 3rd parties already doing this. Again I question how big a
market there really would be.

Just a thought
Jay

 

[Cor]

Hi Jay B,

Looking at your message I had to think on the Netscape versus Internet
Explorer battle.

Was IE not also on some shareware CD's?

It was definitatly in my country on the CD's supplied by the providers.
(I do not know what it is now).

)

Cor

 

[CJ Taylor]

John,

I do understand your concern, but this is simply a business decision. As
Armin stated, yeah, VB6 you had to distrubute the runtimes as well, and you
had to do that each time you distributed the software, with .NET you don't
have to, just once. Which is nice in a lot of ways.

Also, look at the demographics, a majority of users are on high speed
internet, or have access ins ome way to get to it to download and cut a CD.
Microsoft analyzes stuff like that and makes a decision for the majority.

But I think this whole argument is forgetting some major things. I'm an
ex-java developer, you want to talk about a f* up framework, there you go.
Java is the same concept, honestly, when I started developing .NET I used to
make cracks about how MS stole a lot of ideas from Java. =) Not that that
was bad, but it was the same thing. The JRE is a large download as well,
that and there are like 80 different fu**ing frameworks for it. (Swing,
Struts, Velocity, Turbine, etc...) At least Microsoft has there stuff
centralized too... I can't tell you the number of times I searched to find
a friggin class file that was missing from a jar I downloaded.

So I have to say, your idea is a little unwarrented. I understand where
your coming from, but a lot of analysis was considered for this. And why
isn't the CD distributed? Three letters, A.O.L. =)

Peace,
CJ

 

[Cor]

Hi CJ,

First time I see a long article from you and it was interesting.



Cor

 

[CJ Taylor]

Heh,

Try to keep the gloves up, no hitting below the belt. =)

 

[CJ Taylor]

Ahh yes...

and thank you. =)

Hi CJ,

First time I see a long article from you and it was interesting.



Cor
used

 

[John Dann]

Thanks for the enlightening comments. Since everyone is being so
helpful I wonder if I could tag one extra related question on to this
thread:

What are the prospects of a .NET framework being released for Linux
and/or a Mac OS? This presumably must be one of the theoretical
advantages of using eg VB.NETin being able to develop for multiple
plaforms simultaneously. But what is the reality? Would MS have to
produce it themselves or have they published enough in the way of
technical specification that eg some open source group might
conceivably be able produce an analogous framework for eg Linux? Maybe
such an effort is already under way. Or is that the stuff of dreams?

JGD

 

[CJ Taylor]

Thanks for the enlightening comments. Since everyone is being so
helpful I wonder if I could tag one extra related question on to this
thread:

What are the prospects of a .NET framework being released for Linux
and/or a Mac OS? This presumably must be one of the theoretical
advantages of using eg VB.NETin being able to develop for multiple
plaforms simultaneously. But what is the reality?

www.gomono.com


Would MS have to

 

[CJ Taylor]

sorry

www.go-mono.com

 

[Cor]

Hi John,

To the link of CJ

Maybe Tom answer you, he is active with it.

Cor

 

[Tom Shelton]

Thanks for the enlightening comments. Since everyone is being so
helpful I wonder if I could tag one extra related question on to this
thread:

What are the prospects of a .NET framework being released for Linux
and/or a Mac OS? This presumably must be one of the theoretical
advantages of using eg VB.NETin being able to develop for multiple
plaforms simultaneously. But what is the reality? Would MS have to
produce it themselves or have they published enough in the way of
technical specification that eg some open source group might
conceivably be able produce an analogous framework for eg Linux? Maybe
such an effort is already under way. Or is that the stuff of dreams?

JGD

I highly doubt that MS will will produce a version of the Framework for
any platform other then windows. That said, you may want to look at:

http://www.go-mono.com

Currently, the C# compiler is quite good on x86 Linux systems. But, they are
working on ports for other architectures and OSX. The class library is
not complete yet, but it is rapidly evolving. Version 1.0 is expected
to be released this year.

As for VB.NET support - they are working on that as well.
Unfortunately, the mbas (MonoBasic) compiler is still in the early
stages and isn't quite up to doing anything seriously useful