What is the best way to update applications?

[jim]

Let's just say that I am foolish enough to code and distribute a free app to
the general public over the web.

What is the best (cheapest, smallest bandwidth, easiest to code) way to
publish updates to my .Net application?

I'd like to save bandwidth by only updating the changed portions if
possible.

Thanks!

jim

[rowe_newsgroups]

On Jan 30, 3:43 am, "jim" <[e-mail] rote:

Let's just say that I am foolish enough to code and distribute a free app to
the general public over the web.

What is the best (cheapest, smallest bandwidth, easiest to code) way to
publish updates to my .Net application?

I'd like to save bandwidth by only updating the changed portions if
possible.

Thanks!

jim

It depends a lot on your architecture and deployment. ClickOnce offers
automatic update functionality, but I have never used it so I can't be
of too much help there. Also, if you architectured the program with
dll's you could just release a new version of the dll. Besides that,
here are a few links you might want to read:

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/instal...tpatching.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/IP/ApplicationUpdate.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/instal...ate_Part1.aspx

I haven't read them, but they seem to be dealing with your topic.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgUml0Y2hpZSBbQyMgTVZQXQ==?=]

Cheapest is probably ClickOnce, it also requires no coding.

I don't know what sort of bandwidth it uses; but that would involve
comparing to another method of updating anyway.

--
Browse http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ and vote.
http://www.peterRitchie.com/blog/
Microsoft MVP, Visual Developer - Visual C#
"jim" wrote:

Let's just say that I am foolish enough to code and distribute a free app to
the general public over the web.

What is the best (cheapest, smallest bandwidth, easiest to code) way to
publish updates to my .Net application?

I'd like to save bandwidth by only updating the changed portions if
possible.

[jim]

"Peter Ritchie [C# MVP]" <PR****@newsgro ups.nospamwrote in message
news:AE******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

Cheapest is probably ClickOnce, it also requires no coding.

I don't know what sort of bandwidth it uses; but that would involve
comparing to another method of updating anyway.

--
Browse http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ and vote.
http://www.peterRitchie.com/blog/
Microsoft MVP, Visual Developer - Visual C#

ClickOnce is the cheapest. Unfortunately it is also the msot restricitive
in terms of the .Net security model.

And, asking users to slosh through arcane instructions (to most of them
anyway) just to enable an app to save a file to the hard drive is not
something that we are comfortable with.

ClickOnce was a great idea (almost wet myself when I first heard of the
basic concept). Unfortunately, reality set in quickly upon realizing just
how basic the apps are that you can send over the internet with ClickOnce
without requiring end users to mess with stuff they are as apt to screw up
as get right.

Whatever happens, we don't want to be tagged as "the people that messed up
my PC" is a user screws around with .Net security and doesn't get it right.

Microsoft gets more thing *almost* right than any other company....ever .
And that's a shame.

Heck - activeX controls are more powerful (and easier to host) than
ClickOnce apps over the web.

jim

[RobinS]

"rowe_newsgroup s" <ro********@yah oo.comwrote in message
news:9a******** *************** ***********@k39 g2000hsf.google groups.com...

On Jan 30, 3:43 am, "jim" <[e-mail] rote:

>Let's just say that I am foolish enough to code and distribute a free app
to
the general public over the web.

What is the best (cheapest, smallest bandwidth, easiest to code) way to
publish updates to my .Net application?

I'd like to save bandwidth by only updating the changed portions if
possible.

Thanks!

jim

It depends a lot on your architecture and deployment. ClickOnce offers
automatic update functionality, but I have never used it so I can't be
of too much help there. Also, if you architectured the program with
dll's you could just release a new version of the dll. Besides that,
here are a few links you might want to read:

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/instal...tpatching.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/IP/ApplicationUpdate.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/instal...ate_Part1.aspx

I haven't read them, but they seem to be dealing with your topic.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

I can speak for ClickOnce. It handles incremental updates automatically.
That's one of the main reason why my company uses it.

RobinS.
GoldMail, Inc.

[RobinS]

"jim" <ji*@home.netwr ote in message
news:z_******** ***********@big news3.bellsouth .net...

>
"Peter Ritchie [C# MVP]" <PR****@newsgro ups.nospamwrote in message
news:AE******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

>Cheapest is probably ClickOnce, it also requires no coding.

I don't know what sort of bandwidth it uses; but that would involve
comparing to another method of updating anyway.

--
Browse http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ and vote.
http://www.peterRitchie.com/blog/
Microsoft MVP, Visual Developer - Visual C#

ClickOnce is the cheapest. Unfortunately it is also the msot restricitive
in terms of the .Net security model.

And, asking users to slosh through arcane instructions (to most of them
anyway) just to enable an app to save a file to the hard drive is not
something that we are comfortable with.

ClickOnce was a great idea (almost wet myself when I first heard of the
basic concept). Unfortunately, reality set in quickly upon realizing just
how basic the apps are that you can send over the internet with ClickOnce
without requiring end users to mess with stuff they are as apt to screw up
as get right.

Whatever happens, we don't want to be tagged as "the people that messed up
my PC" is a user screws around with .Net security and doesn't get it
right.

Microsoft gets more thing *almost* right than any other company....ever .
And that's a shame.

Heck - activeX controls are more powerful (and easier to host) than
ClickOnce apps over the web.

jim

Obviously you needed to read Brian Noyes' ClickOnce book. We are using
ClickOnce very successfully. It installs the application into the user's
profile, so it does not mess with anything else on the user's computer, and
can't mess anything up. We are deploying part of DirectX with our
application, and it does not conflict with the user's version in any way,
shape, or form. You just have to know how to get it done.

RobinS.
Goldmail, Inc.

[Ian Semmel]

"jim" <ji*@home.netwr ote in message
news:YM******** ***********@big news8.bellsouth .net:

Let's just say that I am foolish enough to code and distribute a free
app to
the general public over the web.

What is the best (cheapest, smallest bandwidth, easiest to code) way to
publish updates to my .Net application?

I'd like to save bandwidth by only updating the changed portions if
possible.

Thanks!

jim

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

The cheapest and easiest is to re-install the entire app. This is the
way most applications are updated via the web.

If you make sure that your website gives detailed information on the
reason for a new release and whether it is critical or not, the users
can decide whether it is worth upgrading. Other solutions are going to
increase the workload (and potential for error) on you, and more
importantly, the user.

..NET apps aren't that big compared to native code.

[ShaneO]

Ian Semmel wrote:

>>
What is the best (cheapest, smallest bandwidth, easiest to code) way to
publish updates to my .Net application?

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

Actually, my experience has proven that you'd obtain 3 out of 3 using
ClickOnce!

Apart from what's already been mentioned, ClickOnce will only download
what needs to be updated. Some of my applications use 3rd party DLL's
etc and, because of this, these application can blow-out to greater than
30 or 50MB for the initial installation. Once the application is
installed, I've found that subsequent updates only download the
"changed" items, and as this is usually just my main code, ends-up being
less than 2MB. I have many Users who have low-bandwidth Internet
connections, and these Users are very pleased that updates take no time
at all to complete.

Yes, ClickOnce would be my recommendation as it meets all of your
requirements. I distribute my apps and updates this way and would never
consider any of the other options being promoted, and I have tried other
options. Those that are criticising ClickOnce obviously haven't ever
used it!

ShaneO

There are 10 kinds of people - Those who understand Binary and those who
don't.