.Net framework as a prerequisite...and hassle

S

stoymigo

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
975
Reaction score
26
Have you ever done or heard of someone abandoning .net for the sole reason of the .net framework prerequisite on pcs that use Windows xp for example?

Currently I'm working on VS 2008, so I'd need the 3.5 version, windows 7 has it, not sure about vista but maybe it has an earlier version, and then windows xp is most likely to need the .net framework installation unless the pc has been regularly updated.

I guess one could bundle the .net framework and the relevant app in a cd, but if it comes to online downloading, I'd prefer a once off installation.

Is java/python better for this? (For the record I've heard of such a scenario, when a company decided to move from vb6 to python because they didn't want the installer/admin guy to have to worry about the .net framework prerequisite)


Thx
 
Won't touch .net. Went from Visual Studio 6 to other tools. Not getting burned by M$ again.
 
Java and Python both require their own runtimes. And since neither is installed as standard with Vista and 7, they are even more likely to require installation on the users part. I think Python and Java are commonly installed with Linux distros though.

Windows Vista and 7 come with .Net installed as standard, and for XP users, nearly everyone and their dog has it. Or should.

What are you making?

For most projects, the productivity gain from using .Net is well worth requiring users to have it installed. For Vista and 7, this is a non issue anyway, since they already do. Your only other option is native development in C or C++. Its much more time consuming.

or web based?
 
I'm Busy on a VB.net app also 2008. I bundled everything as pre-requisites onto a CD (not going to make it available online).
 
You can "bind" if you want to call it that, all the references you need to the main exe in the resources.. iLMerge is an option or using a form of unpacking with an installer.. There are lots of options available if you only want to distribute one file..
 
Not web based, but will move in that direction in a few months.
I didn't know that you'd need to download extra stuff for other languages as well.
 
You need Java runtime environment for Java programs. Which is bundled with the OS already but outdated... Especially newer and advanced applications, you need the latest version.
 
If the IT departments of your clients are clued up, they'll simply push the framework through to everyone using Windows Updates. The .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 is approx 281mb if I remember correctly, but if the clients already have .NET 2 or .NET 3 installed, the download size reduces quite a bit (via Windows Updates / live installation, not the redist package).

If possible though, I'd go with .NET 4 rather than 3.5. The .NET Framework 4 is only about 50mb and has much less installation issues than 3.5.

Our software demand .NET 4, so I provide it as a prerequisite and publish the download links on our website. So far we've never had a client who refused to comply. They did use to complain a lot about .NET 3.5 SP1 though due to the large file.

If you have to go for .NET 3.5 though, make sure it is 3.5 SP1... there is a performance benefit, especially during program startup.


biometrics said:
Won't touch .net. Went from Visual Studio 6 to other tools. Not getting burned by M$ again.
Click to expand...
Don't really know what you mean... .NET is one of the better ideas Microsoft has had since... probably ever. Especially if Mono is going to work as planned, it will mean that there will be one good framework for developing applications on both Windows and Linux.
 
ViperGTI said:
.NET is one of the better ideas Microsoft has had since... probably ever. Especially if Mono is going to work as planned, it will mean that there will be one good framework for developing applications on both Windows and Linux.
Click to expand...

http://xamarin.com/

Support for other platforms is starting to happen to..
 
ViperGTI said:
If the IT departments of your clients are clued up, they'll simply push the framework through to everyone using Windows Updates. The .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 is approx 281mb if I remember correctly, but if the clients already have .NET 2 or .NET 3 installed, the download size reduces quite a bit (via Windows Updates / live installation, not the redist package).

If possible though, I'd go with .NET 4 rather than 3.5. The .NET Framework 4 is only about 50mb and has much less installation issues than 3.5.

Our software demand .NET 4, so I provide it as a prerequisite and publish the download links on our website. So far we've never had a client who refused to comply. They did use to complain a lot about .NET 3.5 SP1 though due to the large file.

If you have to go for .NET 3.5 though, make sure it is 3.5 SP1... there is a performance benefit, especially during program startup.
Click to expand...

+1 for .NET 4.

You should also be able to include the redistributable with your update.
 
If I use Visual studio 2008, then install VS 2008 SP1, will a client need to upgrade their .net framework to 3.5SP1?

Is the .net framework 4 only ~40MB as it says here enough for when developing .net applications: http://www.microsoft.com/en-za/download/details.aspx?id=17718


Edit: Sorry I see this is answered above in 2 posts, but is ~50MB the maximum?
 
Last edited:
stoymigo said:
If I use Visual studio 2008, then install VS 2008 SP1, will a client need to upgrade their .net framework to 3.5SP1?

Is the .net framework 4 only ~40MB as it says here enough for when developing .net applications: http://www.microsoft.com/en-za/download/details.aspx?id=17718


Edit: Sorry I see this is answered above in 2 posts, but is ~50MB the maximum?
Click to expand...

As far as I can remember, you can choose which .NET framework (3.5 or 3.5SP1) to point to which will determine your prerequisite. 3.5 SP1 is better however since it has notable performance improvements, especially for application startup.

.NET4 is 50mb, all in, nothing else needed. The reason .NET 3.5 is so big is because it is an extension of version 2. So your redist package, contains the redist package for .NET2, .NET3, .NET3.5 and .NET3.5 SP1 (each an individual installation). You can actually extract the .NET 3.5 SP1 redist package with WinRar and see all the individual installations for yourself.
However, I can't remember if you can use .NET 4 with VS2008. (Haven't used VS2008 since VS2010 came out).
 
Just switch to Framework 4. There's no reason to still be using 3.5. It's a small pre-requisite and works well in click-once installs, both web based and CD/DVD based.

Works on XP as well.
 
shogun said:
Just switch to Framework 4. There's no reason to still be using 3.5. It's a small pre-requisite and works well in click-once installs, both web based and CD/DVD based.

Works on XP as well.
Click to expand...

I agree, but does .NET 4 work with VS2008 (which is what the OP is using)? I can't remember.
 
ViperGTI said:
I agree, but does .NET 4 work with VS2008 (which is what the OP is using)? I can't remember.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware it doesn't. We're in 2012 though. I'm not sure why he'd be building new applications using old tech though. Visual Studio 2012 is in RC already.

With Action Packs, you can pick up all the required MS software for next to nothing. This is a whole lot better than attempting to learn a new language.

stoymigo said:
Have you ever done or heard of someone abandoning .net for the sole reason of the .net framework prerequisite on pcs that use Windows xp for example?"
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't abandon .Net. I'd pay R3400 (including VAT), get the Action Pack with a few licences to Visual Studio 2010 (and access to 2012 when it is released), SQL server, and a bunch of other software, recompile to .Net 4, deploy with Click Once and go on living a happy life.
 
ViperGTI said:
I agree, but does .NET 4 work with VS2008 (which is what the OP is using)? I can't remember.
Click to expand...
Yes I do have 2010, which is why I was contemplating .net v4.

I was concerned about this because some apps install instantly whereas the app I made took a while to install on a Windows XP SP 2 instance.
But I assume these are rare and plus if one's software is good then a client would be willing to spend a few hours or wait a few days for special fixes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X