.Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

[RobinS]

I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the market.
The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to migrate it
to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one thing;
if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right? Anyone
know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[Patrice]

The plug in you are looking for is perhaps :
http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.as...jectName=MSBee

I don't have any stat to offer but it's likely a site that shows browser
statistics could (.NET versions installed on the client computer are part of
the user agent string).

--
Patrice

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonea écrit dans le message de news:
Os******************************@comcast.com...

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]]

I don't understand why this is a concern? Why not package the framework
along with your application? I mean, if your app is going to have an
install package, why not just make it install .NET 2.0?

I don't believe the install of .NET requires a reboot. Even if it did,
it's not the worst thing in the world, is it?

--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard.caspershouse.com

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Yes, we developers always want that :) , the very same happen in my current
company.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

You will have to do the same with either framework. What if the target
computer has win2K?
Besides IIRC XP SP2 shipped with .NET 1.0, not 1.1 ( I may be wrong with
this though). Additionally 2.0 has been pushed using MS Update for a while
now.

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

What is wrong with a old good reboot? :)

Besides installing either framework does not requires a reboot.

[Luc The Perverse]

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

I have never in my life run an installation package and decided to uninstall
it because it required a reboot.

Download size is understandable - but you have an install program anyway.

Unless you are writing a virus, I don't think you should need to worry about
it ;)

--
LTP

:)

[RobinS]

To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not
discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers on
my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO of
the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks?

So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement isn't
getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-(

Robin S.
------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[RobinS]

Not to me, it's not. See my general response to my original post.

Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can
install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway.

Robin S.
---------------------
"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard.caspershouse.comwrote in
message news:uw**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

I don't understand why this is a concern? Why not package the
framework along with your application? I mean, if your app is going to
have an install package, why not just make it install .NET 2.0?

I don't believe the install of .NET requires a reboot. Even if it
did, it's not the worst thing in the world, is it?

--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard.caspershouse.com

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[RobinS]

Thanks for that. I'll check it out.

Robin S.
------------------------
"Patrice" <http://www.chez.com/scribe/wrote in message
news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

The plug in you are looking for is perhaps :
http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.as...jectName=MSBee

I don't have any stat to offer but it's likely a site that shows browser
statistics could (.NET versions installed on the client computer are part
of the user agent string).

--
Patrice

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonea écrit dans le message de news:
Os******************************@comcast.com...

>>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[RobinS]

"Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP )" <machin TA laceupsolutions.comwrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Hi,

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Yes, we developers always want that :) , the very same happen in my
current company.

>Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

You will have to do the same with either framework. What if the target
computer has win2K?
Besides IIRC XP SP2 shipped with .NET 1.0, not 1.1 ( I may be wrong with
this though). Additionally 2.0 has been pushed using MS Update for a
while now.

Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install.
However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require,
the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is
widespread, it's better to do 1.1

Are you *SURE* about .Net 2.0 being pushed by Windows Update? If that was
true, then I could probably use that as a selling point.

>

>If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

What is wrong with a old good reboot? :)

Besides installing either framework does not requires a reboot.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[Bob Milton]

Robin,
How do you know any of your customers have 1.1 installed? That is not a
given, except for Server 2003. While 1.1 is in SP2 of XP, it was NOT
automatically installed. If you don't want to install anything else ever,
don't use .NET (or java for that matter).
Bob
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:6u******************************@comcast.com. ..

To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not
discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers on
my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO of
the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks?

So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement
isn't getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-(

Robin S.
------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[RobinS]

I don't know they have 1.1 installed. This is a product for the general
public. The question is if anybody knows how many of the general public
have any version of the .Net framework installed, and if they know the
distribution.

Robin S.
--------------------------
"Bob Milton" <Do********@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:ux**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Robin,
How do you know any of your customers have 1.1 installed? That is not
a given, except for Server 2003. While 1.1 is in SP2 of XP, it was NOT
automatically installed. If you don't want to install anything else ever,
don't use .NET (or java for that matter).
Bob
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:6u******************************@comcast.com. ..

>To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not
discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers
on my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO
of the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks?

So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement
isn't getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-(

Robin S.
------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com ...

>>>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net
framework before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers
to acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is
moot, unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to
stay with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[PS]

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

Where was this "concern" when the project was started? Were they too busy
playing golf?

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

This can be dependent on what other updates the user has on their computer.
My experience is that no reboot is ever required for both.

>
Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Based on managements concern, sticking with 1.1 would seem to be the best
"marketing" decision however we are programmers here so we are probably
biased towards 2.0. E.g. once you use generics, there is no going back (i
know it doesn't rhyme!!!).

>
Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

google MSBee

>
I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

My advice is to include the 2.0 framework in the installation package, keep
the code at 1.1 and only install the 2.0 framework if 1.1 is not installed.
Then later if you migrate to 2.0 a lot of your existing customers will be
ready to go.

PS

[Peter Bromley]

RobinS wrote:

>
Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Vista ships with .NET 2.0, so over time more users will already have
..NET 2.0.

FYI, our product is in the same position, developed with 1.1 and VS2003.
We support either 1.1 or 2.0 and install 2.0 if neither version is
installed. No reboot required.

Cheers,

[John]

RobinS wrote:

Are you *SURE* about .Net 2.0 being pushed by Windows Update? If that was
true, then I could probably use that as a selling point.

Of course it's not pushed as a "critical" patch,
but if they click the 'Microsoft Update' or Windows update (whatever)
and then click the 'Custom' button instead of the 'Express' button, then
they will see the .NET Framework under "Software, Optional" link.
Selecting that will install it.

So, it is part of the auto update, but it's optional.

[Susie DBA [MSFT]]

Patrice;

thank you-- this is in the proxy log information?
I don't know how I never realized this.

This was a MAJOR problem for me-- not knowing which version of the
framework is on machine X.
Thanks
-Susie

On Mar 28, 10:20 am, "Patrice" <http://www.chez.com/scribe/wrote:

The plug in you are looking for is perhaps :http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.as...jectName=MSBee

I don't have any stat to offer but it's likely a site that shows browser
statistics could (.NET versions installed on the client computer are partof
the user agent string).

--
Patrice

"RobinS" <[e-mail] écrit dans le message de news:
[e-mail]...

I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Susie DBA [MSFT]]

I'm sorry bud.

..NET is _NOT_ PUSHED via Windows Update
it _SHOULD_BE_ but it's not.

it is an OPTIONAL download; you have to go under custom in order to
see this.

I think that MS should push the damn framework into every machine in
the world.
I'm serious
and for the record, _NEITHER_ .NET 1.0 or 1.1 are installed with XP.

_RIGHT_?


On Mar 28, 10:59 am, "Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)" <machin TA
laceupsolutions.comwrote:

Hi,

"RobinS" <[e-mail] in message

news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Yes, we developers always want that :) , the very same happen in my current
company.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

You will have to do the same with either framework. What if the target
computer has win2K?
Besides IIRC XP SP2 shipped with .NET 1.0, not 1.1 ( I may be wrong with
this though). Additionally 2.0 has been pushed using MS Update for a while
now.

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

What is wrong with a old good reboot? :)

Besides installing either framework does not requires a reboot.

[Susie DBA [MSFT]]

Robin;

have you considered using Vb6?

VB6 runtime is on every machine in the real world


On Mar 28, 2:01 pm, "RobinS" <[e-mail]:

To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not
discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers on
my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO of
the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks?

So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement isn't
getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-(

Robin S.
------------------------------------"RobinS" <[e-mail] in message

news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Luc The Perverse]

"Susie DBA [MSFT]" <su******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@r56g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...

I'm sorry bud.

.NET is _NOT_ PUSHED via Windows Update
it _SHOULD_BE_ but it's not.

it is an OPTIONAL download; you have to go under custom in order to
see this.

I think that MS should push the damn framework into every machine in
the world.
I'm serious
and for the record, _NEITHER_ .NET 1.0 or 1.1 are installed with XP.

_RIGHT_?

It would appear you have never tried to download the frameworks on a modem

--
LTP

:)

[Susie DBA [MSFT]]

well if Microsoft can't get the frameworks on EVERY MACHINE EVERYWHERE
then they just need to go back to Vb6

I swear to god; clientside deployment of the framework is the ONLY
reason I'm such an asshole when it comes to .NET

more importantly-- is 1.0 / 1.1 _REQUIRED_ for XP SP2?

I wish I would have known that; I've always had the worst time trying
to figure out what version of the framework is on a particular machine

if the WINVER / Proxy Command string is right-- I can't wait to look
it up in the proxy logs i've got @Home


On Mar 28, 5:32 pm, "Luc The Perverse"
<[e-mail]:

"Susie DBA [MSFT]" <[e-mail] in messagenews:11*********************@r56g2000hsd.go oglegroups.com...

I'm sorry bud.

.NET is _NOT_ PUSHED via Windows Update
it _SHOULD_BE_ but it's not.

it is an OPTIONAL download; you have to go under custom in order to
see this.

I think that MS should push the damn framework into every machine in
the world.
I'm serious

and for the record, _NEITHER_ .NET 1.0 or 1.1 are installed with XP.

_RIGHT_?

It would appear you have never tried to download the frameworks on a modem

--
LTP

:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Luc The Perverse]

"Susie DBA [MSFT]" <su******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...

well if Microsoft can't get the frameworks on EVERY MACHINE EVERYWHERE
then they just need to go back to Vb6

I swear to god; clientside deployment of the framework is the ONLY
reason I'm such an asshole when it comes to .NET

more importantly-- is 1.0 / 1.1 _REQUIRED_ for XP SP2?

I wish I would have known that; I've always had the worst time trying
to figure out what version of the framework is on a particular machine

if the WINVER / Proxy Command string is right-- I can't wait to look
it up in the proxy logs i've got @Home

Bundle your installations with a .NET framework. It's not that big of a
deal.

If it bothers you so much you could write your apps in assembly language/old
windows SDK.

BTW - don't top post.

Microsoft ~HAS~ a forced upgrade strategy. It is called Vista - they are
working on it.

--
LTP

:)

[Smokey Grindel]

Just to let you know, if you deploy to vista machines .NET 2.0 is installed
there by default! which is nice for once to finally have it installed by
default

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[Andy]

On Mar 28, 5:04 pm, "RobinS" <[e-mail]:

Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install.
However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require,
the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is
widespread, it's better to do 1.1

I haven't had to reboot after installing the framework. Not even to
install my own software. I can understand download size being
discouraging, but rebooting? I'm sorry, but that part of the argument
is just plain stupid. Its was pretty standard to have to reboot after
installing ANYTHING in windows for a while, so much that its a running
joke in Linux crowds.

Are you *SURE* about .Net 2.0 being pushed by Windows Update? If that was
true, then I could probably use that as a selling point.

Yes, although I think its an optional component, so your use may have
to go to the windowsupdate site on their own. Actually, .Net 3 is now
available on WU as well.

Andy

[Andy]

Oh, if you find that .Net 1.1 isn't as common as you like, go to .net
2. The reason to choose .Net 2 is for the features it offers your
developers. There's no other reason to pick framework really...
almost no one cares what you use to build your application.

[Andy]

On Mar 28, 6:14 pm, Peter Bromley <[e-mail]:

RobinS wrote:

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Vista ships with .NET 2.0, so over time more users will already have
.NET 2.0.

FYI, our product is in the same position, developed with 1.1 and VS2003.
We support either 1.1 or 2.0 and install 2.0 if neither version is
installed. No reboot required.

Cheers,

Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually..

[pvdg42]

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

Another points to consider is that Vista installs .NET 3.0 automatically,
and 3.0 is 2.0 with some additional Vista stuff. 100% of Vista machines will
run your app if you go 2.0.

[jeff]

and there in lies your arguement with the CEO ...

CEO's should be concerned with one thing .. supplying those that do the work
with the appropriate tools and work environment. period. I know this may
sound ridiculas ... but who came first the software or the CEO ...

If you want to produce state-of-the-art technology or best of the bread
software (terms CEO's understand) - you cannot restrict your developers to
OLDER technologies simply because they have some preconceived idea that if a
user has to reboot they won't want your product!!! Get proof that user's
hate to reboot after installing your software ... I am sorry, but if your
software is that good ... the CEO and User will not care if they have to
reboot after install. If your CEO is bent on 'if the user needs to reboot,
use a lesser technology' , then you have a very strong case for VB6 ...
'cause you can be certain that they user will not need to reboot...

As far as reboot after .net2 framework is installed, this is not the case -
I just released a new application to a client with over 50 desktops (all of
which needed the .net 2 framework) and they did not have to reboot once...

So, before you go down any path, I would strongly recommend that you test
the install of the various .net framework's in all situations...so you can
say for sure what is happening ... and what will be required by your
potential 'general public' customers.

I bet if you made a business case as to why you want .net2 framework (added
functionality, added productivity, added features ...) you would not be
having this discussion with your 'paycheck' signature.

Plus, any NEW computer comes / ships with .net 2.0 framework...that should
be proof in-itself that you should be using 2.0 framework. Try to draw a
line for your CEO showing the planned path of Microsoft and they support and
upgrade paths ... show him or her how 1.1 goes and 2.0 goes...

I just cannot believe that a CEO is making such a technical decision that
ultimately impact the future of the product, based on the fact of a single
reboot!!! WOW !!! get off the boat now !!!

Jeff.

PS: your CEO probably believes that 10 'junior' - dime a dozen - programmers
writing 10,000 lines of code each are better than 2 'seasoned' - hard to
find, easy to retain if kept interested and viod of decision as mentioned -
programmers writing 5,000 lines of code each! More lines code = better
product ... or this maybe your managers 'yard stick' for evaluating you and
your peers.

Good luck.

"Smokey Grindel" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:eF**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Just to let you know, if you deploy to vista machines .NET 2.0 is
installed there by default! which is nice for once to finally have it
installed by default

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

>>
I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:9e******************************@comcast.com. ..

>
Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install.
However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require,
the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is
widespread, it's better to do 1.1

I have been isntalling the framework for a while now, and I dont remember
ever having to reboot to install the framework

[CodeMonkey]

I believe that the machine will only need to be rebooted if it's doing
something with IIS. For what it's worth, I have only had to reboot one
server when installing .Net 2 when I needed to put SQL Server 2005
Express on it.

RobinS wrote:

Not to me, it's not. See my general response to my original post.

Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can
install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway.

Robin S.

[CodeMonkey]

RobinS wrote:

I don't know they have 1.1 installed. This is a product for the general
public. The question is if anybody knows how many of the general public
have any version of the .Net framework installed, and if they know the
distribution.

Robin S.

This is not going to be an answerable question, Robin. It was a lot like
the original VB runtimes. Most users really didn't know if they had it
or not. It's the same with .Net. Most users don't really know if they
have it or not... This is especially true for the general public. If you
had an IT department at your client's site, then they would probably know...

[RobinS]

"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 28, 6:14 pm, Peter Bromley <[e-mail]:

>RobinS wrote:

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Vista ships with .NET 2.0, so over time more users will already have
.NET 2.0.

FYI, our product is in the same position, developed with 1.1 and VS2003.
We support either 1.1 or 2.0 and install 2.0 if neither version is
installed. No reboot required.

Cheers,

Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually..

..Net 3.0 is .Net 2.0 plus some extra stuff. So the fact that MS has sold 20
million consumer copies of Vista may help me.

Robin

[Andy]

On Mar 29, 11:25 am, "RobinS" <[e-mail]:

.Net 3.0 is .Net 2.0 plus some extra stuff. So the fact that MS has sold 20
million consumer copies of Vista may help me.

Yes, but my point was you could move right to .Net 3 and use WPF, you
already are starting to get spread as Vista sells.

Try to sell the developers standpoint; .Net 2 DOES make things much
easier to do than in .Net 1.1. I haven't looked at .Net 1.x since I
started on 2.0.

The refactoring tools alone in VS 2005 could be major selling point.

[Martin Carpella]

Hi,

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrites:

Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can
install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway.

We are distributing a software package that downloads the .NET 2.0
runtime if required (after a user prompt). The download & install works
without problems on our testing farm (most of them virtual machines), no
reboot is required. We are using NSIS, not MSI, but I do not know if
that would make any difference.

Best regards,
Martin

[Al Reid]

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message news:fv******************************@comcast.com. ..

Not to me, it's not. See my general response to my original post.

Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can
install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway.

Robin S.
---------------------

I've installed .Net 2.0, along with our applications, on about 25 PC's. About 2/3 were XP and the rest Windows 2000. I have never
had to reboot a single machine after the .Net 2.0 install.

--
Al Reid

[Bruce Wood]

On Mar 28, 7:07 pm, "Susie DBA [MSFT]" <[e-mail]:

well if Microsoft can't get the frameworks on EVERY MACHINE EVERYWHERE
then they just need to go back to Vb6

I swear to god; clientside deployment of the framework is the ONLY
reason I'm such an asshole when it comes to .NET

OK... that was rolling-on-the-floor hilarious.

[Peter Bromley]

Andy wrote:

>
Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually..

Yes, my bad. But, in my defence, the BCL version is 2.0, the added
features are 3.0. :-)

[Susie DBA [MSFT]]

hey I thought that 3.0 was installed on Vista machines!

Is there somewhere IN WRITING that says that M$ _GUARANTEES_ 2.0 stuff
to work for 3.0 and vice versa?

thanks
On Mar 29, 3:54 am, "Smokey Grindel" <[e-mail]:

Just to let you know, if you deploy to vista machines .NET 2.0 is installed
there by default! which is nice for once to finally have it installed by
default

"RobinS" <[e-mail] in message

news:Os******************************@comcast.com. ..

I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
migrate it to .Net 2.0.

Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
acceptance".

If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
maybe some kind of number of computers?

Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
with 1.1.

Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
Anyone know where it is?

I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

Thanks,
Robin S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[RobinS]

"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...

On Mar 29, 11:25 am, "RobinS" <[e-mail]:

>.Net 3.0 is .Net 2.0 plus some extra stuff. So the fact that MS has sold
20
million consumer copies of Vista may help me.

Yes, but my point was you could move right to .Net 3 and use WPF, you
already are starting to get spread as Vista sells.

Try to sell the developers standpoint; .Net 2 DOES make things much
easier to do than in .Net 1.1. I haven't looked at .Net 1.x since I
started on 2.0.

The refactoring tools alone in VS 2005 could be major selling point.

Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care
about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though.

Robin S.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

On Mar 30, 6:02 am, "RobinS" <[e-mail]:

The refactoring tools alone in VS 2005 could be major selling point.

Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care
about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though.

If that's truly the case, you should consider leaving. I know it
doesn't solve your current issue, but if management can't see that
working more efficiently impacts the bottom line, they're not worth
working for.

Jon

[Jim Rand]

"but if management can't see that working more efficiently impacts the
bottom line"

One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you are
creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible resource hog
when it comes to designing forms. In my case, I can't have the design
window open and work in the code behind window if it is a complex form as
this causes 1 to 3 second lag times between key strokes. When working in
the form designer, the refractoring is a real pain in the butt when it comes
to renaming a control from "textbox1" to something meaningful like
"customerName". Sometimes this takes 1 to 2 seconds. Also, moving controls
around on the form may take 3 to 5 seconds.

This perfomance problem never occurred with VS 2003 when running with 512
meg of memory (since upgraded to 1 gig of memory for VS 2005).

Question? Would I go back to .Net 1.1 with VS 2003. Answer. No. Partial
classes and binding sources are two things I would not give up as they
really do impact developer productivity.

As a side note, my maxed-out 4 year old Toshiba Satellite is slated for
replacement in 2008 once Vista settles down and VS 2008 is available. With
a water-cooled tripple-quad core Intel processor with 16 gazillion gigs of
memory, performance should not be an issue.

I'd buy a brand new machine today but management (me) said no, you (me) have
to wait it out during this transition period.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

On Mar 30, 1:58 pm, "Jim Rand" <[e-mail]:

"but if management can't see that working more efficiently impacts the
bottom line"

One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you are
creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible resource hog
when it comes to designing forms.

Out of interest, is this still true with VS2005 SP1 applied? I can't
say I've noticed problems with VS2005 myself, but I don't use the
forms designer much...

Jon

[Jim Rand]

I don't know for sure. According to various sources, SP1 does not address
the performance issue. After reading about some of the problems with SP1,
I've elected not to attempt to install SP1 given the fact that VS 2008 is
right around the corner.

Jim

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 30, 1:58 pm, "Jim Rand" <[e-mail]:

>"but if management can't see that working more efficiently impacts the
bottom line"

One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you
are
creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible resource
hog
when it comes to designing forms.

Out of interest, is this still true with VS2005 SP1 applied? I can't
say I've noticed problems with VS2005 myself, but I don't use the
forms designer much...

Jon

[Chris Dunaway]

On Mar 29, 6:21 pm, "Susie DBA [MSFT]" <[e-mail]:

hey I thought that 3.0 was installed on Vista machines!

Is there somewhere IN WRITING that says that M$ _GUARANTEES_ 2.0 stuff
to work for 3.0 and vice versa?

..Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
same.

[Andy]

On Mar 30, 1:02 am, "RobinS" <[e-mail]:

Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care
about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though.

Then its time to find another job. If they don't care about
developers view points, then they are going to have a lot of
problems. The first one being that their product may take longer to
get to market because you're developers don't as sophisticated tools
as your competitors do.

[Andy]

On Mar 30, 8:58 am, "Jim Rand" <[e-mail]:

One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you are
creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible resource hog
when it comes to designing forms. In my case, I can't have the design
window open and work in the code behind window if it is a complex form as
this causes 1 to 3 second lag times between key strokes.

How old is your machine? The designer can be slow, but once I switch
to the code view things are fine... and I don't have the newest
machine out there.

When working in
the form designer, the refractoring is a real pain in the butt when it comes
to renaming a control from "textbox1" to something meaningful like
"customerName". Sometimes this takes 1 to 2 seconds. Also, moving controls
around on the form may take 3 to 5 seconds.

So, how long would it be for you to rename the same control in two
different files? Probably longer than 1 or 2 seconds. This is
especially true if you're working in a code library and change the
name of a public or internal member.. its not instant, but its quicker
and more reliable than doing it myself. I don't have as many problems
moving controls around on a form... unless I have nested table layout
controls, but you're not supposed to nest them anyway..

This perfomance problem never occurred with VS 2003 when running with 512
meg of memory (since upgraded to 1 gig of memory for VS 2005).

I have 1GB RAM as well, and a crummy builtin video card.

[Andy]

On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <[e-mail]:

.Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
same.

Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
to be a known troll.

[Peter Duniho]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:58:54 -0700, Jim Rand <ji*****@ix.netcom.comwrote:

One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you
are creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible
resource hog when it comes to designing forms. In my case, I can't
have the design window open and work in the code behind window if it
is a complex form as this causes 1 to 3 second lag times between key
strokes.

It sounds to me as though you have something wrong with your computer.
Or, you haven't upgraded your hardware in a decade (and performance issues
should then be no surprise).

When VS2005 first came out, I was using it on a laptop with a PIII 550Mhz
CPU, and 512MB of RAM.

Was it sluggish? Sure. But it was still very usable, even with large
numbers of source files and/or forms open.

I can't imagine anyone with anything approximating a modern PC having any
real performance trouble. If you have hardware that ought to run VS2005
in a usable way and it doesn't, it seems likely you have some sort of
configuration problem. And my experience has been that VS2005 is usable
on fairly low-end, aged hardware (my laptop was from mid-2001).

Pete

[Chris Dunaway]

On Mar 30, 10:06 am, "Andy" <[e-mail]:

On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <[e-mail]:

.Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
same.

Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
to be a known troll.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I optimistically tend to give people the
benefit of the doubt. In this case, I didn't want Susie's post to
confuse anyone else.

Chris

[RobinS]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 30, 1:58 pm, "Jim Rand" <[e-mail]:

>"but if management can't see that working more efficiently impacts the
bottom line"

One huge drawback of .Net 2.0 is that you have to use VS 2005. If you
are
creating Windows forms applications, VS 2005 is an incredible resource
hog
when it comes to designing forms.

Out of interest, is this still true with VS2005 SP1 applied? I can't
say I've noticed problems with VS2005 myself, but I don't use the
forms designer much...

Jon

What improved it greatly for me was making the size of my swap file more
appropriate, and not letting Windows handle it. I saw another post (I think
it was one of yours) saying to eliminate your swap file (set size = 0), but
when I did that, Photoshop Elements wouldn't run (sigh). So I looked up how
to set it, did that, and VS has worked much better since then.

I think SP-1 helped, too. It fixed so many bugs, I wouldn't run VS2005 w/o
it.

Robin S.

[RobinS]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@b75g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 30, 6:02 am, "RobinS" <[e-mail]:

The refactoring tools alone in VS 2005 could be major selling point.

Um, management doesn't care about the developer's viewpoint. They care
about selling a product to an end consumer. Thanks, though.

If that's truly the case, you should consider leaving. I know it
doesn't solve your current issue, but if management can't see that
working more efficiently impacts the bottom line, they're not worth
working for.

Jon

That's one viewpoint. I can also understand theirs. Fortunately for me and
my management, today I set up a new VM with Windows XP. Neither 1.1 nor 2.0
required reboots to install, so that pretty much wipes out their only
objection.

They have also asked me to internationalize their app, and that is a lot
more robust in 2.0 than in 1.1, and that will help as well.

Thanks,
Robin S.

[RobinS]

"Chris Dunaway" <du******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 30, 10:06 am, "Andy" <[e-mail]:

>On Mar 30, 10:49 am, "Chris Dunaway" <[e-mail]:

.Net 3.0 *is* .Net 2.0 with some extra assemblies added to support WF,
WPF, and WCF. The .Net 2.0 Assemblies have not changed. They are the
same.

Its probably best to ignore posts from Susie DBA [MSFT], as she seems
to be a known troll.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I optimistically tend to give people the
benefit of the doubt. In this case, I didn't want Susie's post to
confuse anyone else.

Chris

That's a good reason to respond to the troll. About the only reason I can
think of, too.

Robin S.