How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

[Georg Scholz]

We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322
However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.
My concerns are:
- the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
- you must use the language version which matches your OS language
- you must have admin rights
I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.
I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.
What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?
Any opinion is highly appreciated!
Thanks in Advance
Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

On Sep 28, 3:02 pm, Georg Scholz <georgsch...@gm ail.comwrote:

We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

That sounds like the environments are likely to have a reasonable
network connection - at which point 23MB for the framework shouldn't
be much of an issue even if it's not installed already. If multiple
people within an organisation require the app, you'll only need to
download the framework once.

..NET has been out for about 5 years now, and I believe it's included
in most new system installs.

The best way to find out for *your* users, however, is to write a very
small unmanaged app (e.g. in VB6) which detects whether or not the
framework is present. Collect that information for a representative
sample of users, and you'll be much better informed.

Jon

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

"Georg Scholz" <ge*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ 50g2000hsm.goog legroups.com...

We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322

If I were you I would go to 2.0. There are several reasons why, first even
as 1.1 is supported in Vista the preffered is 2.0 besides VS 2003 in vista
is not supported. VS 2005 target only 2.0 . And you like it or not soon all
the machines will be running Vista.

>
My concerns are:
- the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB

Unless you are on dialup this is not that much. Not only that but the
framework is being pushed by windows update for a while now. Most probably
they will have it installed already.

- you must use the language version which matches your OS language
- you must have admin rights

I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.

I do not see how going to use VB6 will solve your languages problems, or not
needed admin rights.

[Samuel R. Neff]

Hospitals tend to have more locked down computers due to security
requirements and privacy concerns so if you're building a commercial
app and depending on ability of direct customers (as opposed to
customer's IT staff) to install the framework, then it could be a
concern.

We deal almost exclusively with hospitals but we ship out app on new
computers with all the software we need pre-installed. :-)

HTH,

Sam
------------------------------------------------------------
We're hiring! B-Line Medical is seeking .NET
Developers for exciting positions in medical product
development in MD/DC. Work with a variety of technologies
in a relaxed team environment. See ads on Dice.com.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:02:48 -0700, Georg Scholz
<ge*********@gm ail.comwrote:

>We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

....

>
Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

You should go track down my posts ranting about this
(http://tinyurl.com/2kk5a8).

We built and shipped a commercial .Net app, and have had nothing but
problems due to the lack of widespread .Net deployment. Nothing has helped,
to be honest.

With that said, I think you would be nuts to go with VB6. It's obsolete, and
has quite a few drawbacks. It's past it's end of lifecycle, and really
doesn't seem a viable option.

To me, there seem to be two legit options:
1 - To me, the current verstion of Delphi looks like the best answer right
now for building widely deployed desktop applications.

2 - Use .Net, then statically link your app using RemoteSoft or one of the
other static .Net linkers.

3 - Use MFC. To me, this is the least attractive of the 3 options.

--
Chris Mullins, MCSD.Net, MCPD:Enterprise , Microsoft C# MVP
http://www.coversant.com/blogs/cmullins

"Georg Scholz" <ge*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ 50g2000hsm.goog legroups.com...

We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322
However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.
My concerns are:
- the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
- you must use the language version which matches your OS language
- you must have admin rights
I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.
I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.
What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?
Any opinion is highly appreciated!
Thanks in Advance
Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at

[Michael Rubinstein]

Georg,

I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.

You could use virtualization technology on the application level. Xenocode
Postbuild www.xenocode.com has on option of embedding into the application
the entire .NET run time visible to the application only. This could take
care of admin rights and complexity concerns. Of course, in your case the
setup size would balloon to around 20 MB. I have been burnt by installation
issues more then once. Not every organization has an IT department, and
asking end users if their PC has .NET framework installed is
counter-productive. Most have no clue and get irritated by such questions. I
avoid this embarrassment by making installs with two application
components - one with embedded .NET runtime, another without. At
installation time the setup checks the users machine for .NET framework and
installs the appropriate component without bothering the user. Works on
Windows 2000, XP, Vista with UAC enabled. Besides, Postbuild also obfuscates
the application. This is why I bought it in the first place.

I am not affiliated with Xenocode (the company name is actually Code
Systems Corp.), I am just a happy user of their products.

Michael

"Georg Scholz" <ge*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ 50g2000hsm.goog legroups.com...

We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322
However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.
My concerns are:
- the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
- you must use the language version which matches your OS language
- you must have admin rights
I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.
I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.
What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?
Any opinion is highly appreciated!
Thanks in Advance
Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at

[Georg Scholz]

Thanks a lot Chris,

I also read your other thread - this confirms my concerns, and we will
definitively switch back to VB6.

I'm a long-year expert both on C++ (Win32+MFC) and VB6; I have always
been mixing the best of these two worlds together. For this app I
prefer VB6 as it is more user-interface oriented.

To me, .NET and C# have a GREAT DESIGN; and we have been developing
for more than one year now indivudal software for clients.

However, finally, the end-user does not care about HOW my app was
written - a software needs to be user-friendly, and installing it
should be a pleasant experience, not an annoying one.

Therefore, unfortunately, the framework seems to be unuseable for mass-
distribution of *small* applications.

Best regards
Georg
---
Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at


On Sep 28, 11:10 pm, "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmull...@yahoo .com>
wrote:

You should go track down my posts ranting about this
(http://tinyurl.com/2kk5a8).

We built and shipped a commercial .Net app, and have had nothing but
problems due to the lack of widespread .Net deployment. Nothing has helped,
to be honest.

With that said, I think you would be nuts to go with VB6. It's obsolete, and
has quite a few drawbacks. It's past it's end of lifecycle, and really
doesn't seem a viable option.

To me, there seem to be two legit options:
1 - To me, the current verstion of Delphi looks like the best answer right
now for building widely deployed desktop applications.

2 - Use .Net, then statically link your app using RemoteSoft or one of the
other static .Net linkers.

3 - Use MFC. To me, this is the least attractive of the 3 options.

--
Chris Mullins, MCSD.Net, MCPD:Enterprise , Microsoft C# MVPhttp://www.coversant.c om/blogs/cmullins

"Georg Scholz" <georgsch...@gm ail.comwrote in message

news:11******** **************@ 50g2000hsm.goog legroups.com...

We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.

Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322

However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.

My concerns are:
- the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
- you must use the language version which matches your OS language
- you must have admin rights

I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.

I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.

What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?

Any opinion is highly appreciated!

Thanks in Advance

Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Georg Scholz]

Hospitals tend to have more locked down computers due to security

requirements and privacy concerns so if you're building a commercial
app and depending on ability of direct customers (as opposed to
customer's IT staff) to install the framework, then it could be a
concern.

Yeah, right; this is also my experience with all big companies: Either
they have rolled out the Framework to ALL computers, or none ...

[Georg Scholz]

You could use virtualization technology on the application level. Xenocode
Postbuildwww.xe nocode.com has on option of embedding into the application
the entire .NET run time visible to the application only.

This is another very interesting option, I will have a look at this.
However, for our current plans this might not be useful . I want a
small distribution size - small - quick - easy ... that's out goal.

Best regards
Georg

[Georg Scholz]

2 - Use .Net, then statically link your app using RemoteSoft or one of the

other static .Net linkers.

I have now been looking onto the RemoteSoft site.
This sounds very very good .. Do you have some experience with it? Is
it really as good as they say? Are apps getting really so small?

Georg