469,270 Members | 1,083 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,270 developers. It's quick & easy.

Stand Alone EXE

I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE program
in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another language would
be ok. Thanks for the assistance
Jul 21 '05
121 8645

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
> Note the lack of a mention of Windows 95. As I said, Thinstall itself
> may work on 95, but that doesn't mean that programs which themselves
> don't run on Windows 95 are going to run on 95 under Thinstall.


You are right. I didn't fully answer your question before - my bad.

Any application that you wrap with Thinstall must be able to run without
Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.


Absolutely. So where exactly does the following paragraph written by
you come into the equation?

<quote>
Financial constraints are eliminated (from the software's end-user
standpoint) because they don't need to upgrade their OS to use your
Thinstall applications.
</quote>


I didn;t mean upgrade to another OS. I meant the costs associated with
upgrading the OS with the .Net framework. For most business users, they
have to get sys admins involved and there can be a legitimate expense in
upgrading and testing all systems to use a new application framework or
"fix".

<argumentative stuff snipped>
The same goes for the DLLs that you wrap with your application. If your
application calls API functions that are only available on XP, the
application will fail to run on Win98 and Win2000 - with or without
Thinstall.

Sorry for the confusion about the Win95 + .Net issue.

Do you still have many Win95 customers?


No - but then I wasn't the one posting an article about how loads of
companies still use Windows 95. Was there a point to posting that
article?


To show that you can't depend on users to be on the latest OS with .Net
built in. It just won't happen.

Jim Hubbard
Jul 21 '05 #101

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
Perhaps I am mis-reading your posts, but you only seem to want to
argue
about a product you are not interested in purchasing or even trying.
You've most definitely mis-read my posts if you think I'm not
interested in trying it. Unfortunately, without using my work email
address, I *can't* try it.


Your phone works, right? Call them. They are nice people, they'll work
with you.

BTW, why can't you use your work email?
I don't work for Thinstall. I use it. I like it. I recommend it.
You recommend it for invalid reasons, such as meaning that people won't
need to upgrade their OS to use an application.


Please wait for clarification of something I said when you don't understand
it. "Upgrading" your operating system doesn't changing to the next higher
OS. Upgrading an operating system can simply be the addition of code to
allow new functionality like adding the.Net framework (1 or all 3 of them).
You later admitted that
if an application is going to work under Thinstall on a particular OS,
it would have to be able to work on that OS without Thinstall too.
This was always the case. I never said otherwise. I was not clear in one
of my posts to you concerning win95 and the .Net framework - however, I have
replied to that post in the correct portion of this thread.

You not only recommend Thinstall though - you spread FUD about .NET,
with posts like the one about the KB list. It's not like .NET is the
only product to have a list of problems/fixes.
Pointing out obvious flaws is not spreading FUD. It's called pointing out
obvious flaws to make a point.

FUD (and terms like it) are typically used by language evangelicals to
attack anyone that points out flaws in their chosen langiage or platform.
Let's try and not get into a jihad over it, OK?

Since I am recommending Thinstall, people want to know why. The 1,596 (and
growing) errors in the .Net frameworks are a big reason why I use and
recomend Thinstall.

..Net is certainly not the only product to have a list of problems and fixes.
And, Thinstall is not a .Net only application. It works just as well with
C++, Delphi and a list of other languages - all of which have their own good
and bad points.

As this is the microsoft.public.dotnet.general newsgroup, I felt it
necessary to restrict my comments to the languages and potential helpful
applications (like Thinstall) pertinent to this newsgroup. Hope that 's OK
with you.
Do you think the
knowledge bases for the various versions of Windows themselves are
empty?
Really?
Do you know every single issue raised about every version of
Windows your apps support?
Most of them. We support a limited set of OSs just for that reason. For
instance, my company does not write applications for specific use on NT,
2000 or Win98. We do test Thinstall wrapped apps on those OSs if we haven't
used OS-specific calls that would invalidate our software on them. If those
tests work out - we mark our app as tested for use with those OSs.
However, I don't have the time or inclination to try and convince
someone so determined NOT to test or use a product to do so. I am happy
to
help those that I can, but I am loathe to devote time to convincing
someone
of the usefulness of a product against their will.


As I've said before, I'd like to test the product. I'm interested in it
as a technology, even though I don't currently have a commercial reason
to use it. Jitit don't want me to test it though. Shame, really. It
doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling about them.


JIT doesn't normally get involved with people that aren't serious about
purchasing the application. I can't say that I blame them.

Jim Hubbard
Jul 21 '05 #102
OK....it has happened.

Typically a thread runs for a while with people actually interested in the
topic and a lot of good questions and answer posts are made....then the
discussion will degrade into a jihad of ideologies that in no way represent
the original intent of the thread.

IMHO this is now happening in this thread - so I am out.

In leaving, let me suggest that you get in touch with JIT at
www.thinstall.com if you are really interested in trying out Thinstall.
Although it ain't much, Jonathan will give you at least a 5% discount if you
tell them I sent you.

I tried Thinstall. I loved it. I bought it and will continue to use it in
my distribution of .Net, Visual Basic 6 and C++ applications. I recommend
that you look into it if you distribute software to the masses in your job.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.

Thanks for the honest questions and opinions of Thinstall. I'll pass them
along to Jonathan and the JIT team.

I wish you all smooth installs and stable systems - no matter what
distribution method you choose.

Jim Hubbard - Hubbard Software
Jul 21 '05 #103
Jim,

Why are your messages forever completely fulfilled with this kind of
sentences in it.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.


What do you mean with that. What persons are excluded in your message and
what can we do with Thininstall when we are in the category "and those that
make a living selling software or supporting large company infrastructures".

In addition please not a kind of message in return, "When you don't see that
you are an amateur", however arguments.

I see in your message a kind of denying that it is good for shareware and
those professionals are in my opinion the only ones who are on your side.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #104

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Jim,

Why are your messages forever completely fulfilled with this kind of
sentences in it.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.


What do you mean with that. What persons are excluded in your message and
what can we do with Thininstall when we are in the category "and those
that make a living selling software or supporting large company
infrastructures".


I mean that Thinstall, because of the price, is probably not worth it if you
develop freeware or if your software is of limited distribution. Only you
can tell if your current software sales will justify the purchase.

Almost any Windows application distribution can benefit from Thinstall.
Whether it is financiall beneficial is a call for each developer.

Jim Hubbard
Jul 21 '05 #105
Jim,

I mean that Thinstall, because of the price, is probably not worth it if
you develop freeware or if your software is of limited distribution. Only
you can tell if your current software sales will justify the purchase.

Almost any Windows application distribution can benefit from Thinstall.
Whether it is financiall beneficial is a call for each developer.


We disagree with the last sentence (with what nothing is wrong, future will
learn), however now it is clear for me what you mean.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #106
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> schrieb:
Is Delphi planning on continuing as is or is it going to be sucked into
the .Net vacuum as well?


Delphi still supports creating Win32 applications. .NET is "optional"...

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Jul 21 '05 #107
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
If there were legal issues, I'm sure that Microsoft would not have issued
this review, and would have surely contacted JIT with any concerns by
now.
So why haven't they given their official blessing to it?


You, an MVP, are honestly asking me to explain Microsoft's actions?


I'm suggesting that if MS haven't given their blessing to it, it's not
such a legally clear-cut case as you seem to think it is.
To me, this is further proof that you are not really interested in
Thinstall. It seem to me that you are interested only in asking rhetorical
or argumentative questions.

Please stick to asking questions that a USER of Thinstall (that's me) would
be able to answer.
It was indeed a rhetorical question, but one to make what I still think
is a valid point.
I *am* interested in Thinstall, mostly in my capacity as an MVP.
Unfortunately, that capacity doesn't seem to make me good enough to
deserve an evaluation...
So why all the questions about a product you are not interested in?
IMHO,
you really should try Thinstall (or any application) before you pass
judgement.


I *would* try it - if their wretched web site allowed me to, as an
enthusiast. However, in order to get an evaluation version, I'd have to
use my work email address. As I would be evaluating it as an MVP rather
than for work (at the moment) they've cut me out of evaluation. Not
exactly an encouraging start, frankly.


Have you called them? Try that. Then get back to me.


I'm not going to make a call to a US company from the UK - and I
shouldn't have to. Pretty much every product I want to evaluate for
free, I can do so. Why is Thinstall stopping me?
That means it effectively penalises those who already *have* the
framework, and want to download just your application, rather than half
of the framework again. If you've already got the framework, 2.7MB for
a "hello world" program is utterly ridiculous.


Then don't use it. Gamble on their not having "fixes" in that will break
your code or that tthey will not install them in the future or that they
have admin rights to install and run your app or that another app won't
overwrite the DLLs you may want to register and use in your .Net
application.


While you gamble with Thinstall not having any bugs which may bite you
later, and that Jitit will continue to exist. Thinstall isn't magically
removing all problems - just changing them.
You seem happy with what you have. I say stick with it.
And I will - but I'd still like to investigate Thinstall, as I've said
before.
Because those external dependencies may already be there, I may well
already have a separate licensing model to integrate into other parts
of my app, I may not want or even desire auto-update, my app may well
require admin privileges to install anyway, I may have no particular
desire to encrypt my internal executables, and I may wish to get the
benefit of improvements to the framework that service packs etc make
available without having to redistribute my app.


Maybe you should not use Thinstall.


Indeed. Shame I can't even evaluate it though...
1) Potential legal issues. You may have dismissed them as not a
problem, but that doesn't mean everyone else will. Heck, even the
vendors recognise is as a problem. (It's in the "Cons" section on one
of their pages.)


I'd like to see that. Please post the link.


Sure:
http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?
microsoft_netframeworklinki.htm

See the "Disadvantages" section.
2) Cost.


Nothing I can do. Talk to JIT.


I'm not suggesting there's anything you can do other than accepting
that it *is* a problem for
3) Discouraging interested parties from evaluating it.


Have you called them?


I don't need to - they've already been discouraging on their web site.
I'm sure if I pester them I could evaluate it, but the attitude they're
displaying on my website doesn't help them at all.
4) If a customer downloads several Thinstall products (or even several
versions of my Thinstall product) they'll have downloaded more than if
they'd downloaded the framework once and then the products
individually.


Not neccesrily. Thinstall includes the ability to check for and use the
local .Net framework (if you trust it), to assist the user in downloading
the framework if it isn't there or to include it all in your Thinstall EXE.


So either you have to support both the normally installed framework
version *and* the "link in" version (doubling testing) or you get rid
of a lot of the point of using Thinstall in the first place (for many
people).
5) For system administrators, having control over the installed
application using the framework security control panel is better than
the app having full control. Of course, this may not be an issue - I
wouldn't know, as JITIT have decided that my sk***@pobox.com email
address isn't good enough to deserve an evaluation.


Call them.


I'm not going to waste money on international phone calls just because
their website deems me to be a timewaster. I *might* register with my
work email address, but it's all a hassle that puts them in a bad
light, frankly.
6) Unless debugging protection is enabled, I *suspect* that there are
still (reasonably easy) ways to decompile the .NET code, using cordbg
to get access to the decrypted resources. If I ever get to evaluate
Thinstall properly, I'll give it a try.


Let us know.


Will do. (I'll let Jitit know as well - they may be able to make it
harder.)
7) Slower startup time (as acknowledged on the Thinstall site).


Yes. It does seem that if you start a virtual machine before running an app
there may be added time to the process.


Yup - and it's good to see that's acknowledged.
8) Harder to debug (I gather).


Not really. Call them and get a demo.


Well, I was going by posts on the forums, partly. The page about
debugging under Visual Studio also sounded a bit of a pain. Nothing to
write home about, but harder than if you're not using Thinstall to
start with.
9) Another potential point of failure - it's an extra technology rather
than a replacement one; if JITIT decides to up its prices, or goes
belly-up, you're back to square one.


And if Microsoft decides to trash .Net for .Whatever you're toast.


Yes, but that failure point *still* exists if you're using Thinstall to
run a .NET program.
With Avalon, it will ONLY run on Longhorn. have fun with that.


Maybe you missed Microsoft's recent announcement about backporting
Avalon to XP.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #108
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
I didn;t mean upgrade to another OS. I meant the costs associated with
upgrading the OS with the .Net framework.
Ah. In that case there's no straight financial implication, because the
framework is free.
For most business users, they
have to get sys admins involved and there can be a legitimate expense in
upgrading and testing all systems to use a new application framework or
"fix".


That's the administrative side of things, yes - but you also referred
to a separate financial side.

I suspect I wasn't the only one to think that you meant upgrading to a
new OS...
No - but then I wasn't the one posting an article about how loads of
companies still use Windows 95. Was there a point to posting that
article?


To show that you can't depend on users to be on the latest OS with .Net
built in. It just won't happen.


And that's why you can easily get the .NET framework installed for
free.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #109
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
You've most definitely mis-read my posts if you think I'm not
interested in trying it. Unfortunately, without using my work email
address, I *can't* try it.
Your phone works, right? Call them. They are nice people, they'll work
with you.


I've never had to pay costs, even a phone call, to evaluate other
products - why should Thinstall be any different? Why do they have to
turn away people who just want to try it?

(I've just seen on their website that they have a UK office, so I take
back the previous comment about the phone call being international.
Whether the UK office would be able or willing to sort me out with an
eval copy, I don't know.)
BTW, why can't you use your work email?
a) It's the weekend. I have some free time today, I'd like to download
it today. I don't have access to my work email from home.

b) It's not strictly to do with work, which is what my work email is
meant to be for.

c) I really don't see why I should have to. There's a point of
principle here. If Jitit don't think that as a developer who is not
only a professional, but is interested in technology outside his work,
I'm worth even giving an evaluation copy to, I'm less than impressed. I
could quite understand them giving the evaluation with no support to
those who are just evaluating it from an interested perspective, but
flatly discouraging people like myself leaves a nasty taste in the
mouth.
I don't work for Thinstall. I use it. I like it. I recommend it.


You recommend it for invalid reasons, such as meaning that people won't
need to upgrade their OS to use an application.


Please wait for clarification of something I said when you don't understand
it. "Upgrading" your operating system doesn't changing to the next higher
OS. Upgrading an operating system can simply be the addition of code to
allow new functionality like adding the.Net framework (1 or all 3 of them).


Given that you talked about financial costs (separate to administrative
costs), and that it was a post in relation to Longhorn, I'm sure I'm
not the only one to interpret your post as talking about upgrading to a
new operating system.
You later admitted that
if an application is going to work under Thinstall on a particular OS,
it would have to be able to work on that OS without Thinstall too.


This was always the case. I never said otherwise. I was not clear in one
of my posts to you concerning win95 and the .Net framework - however, I have
replied to that post in the correct portion of this thread.


Indeed.
You not only recommend Thinstall though - you spread FUD about .NET,
with posts like the one about the KB list. It's not like .NET is the
only product to have a list of problems/fixes.


Pointing out obvious flaws is not spreading FUD. It's called pointing out
obvious flaws to make a point.


And when you start a new thread on a .NET newsgroup *just* to point out
that there are problems in the framework (like that's not going to
happen with every framework available - I notice you omitted the fact
that kbalertz shows about as many problems for VB6, by the way), it
counts as FUD to me. Statements like:

<quote>
Looking at all of the errors and quirks sometimes makes me wonder if
this thing is really ready for prime time.
</quote>

without reference to the fact that there are the same kind of problems
in other environments doesn't make you look like you're trying to give
a balanced viewpoint. Instead, you're coming over as someone who is
griping about .NET really because of the way that the VB->VB.NET
migration has been handled, rather than because of problems inherent to
..NET. Now, that may well not be an accurate appraisal of how you
actually feel, but it's the way you're coming across to me.

People who start threads in newsgroups just to try to put people off
the topic of those newsgroups are rarely seen to come from an unbiased
viewpoint.

Imagine someone had made a post like yours in the VB newsgroup - how do
you think people would have reacted?
FUD (and terms like it) are typically used by language evangelicals to
attack anyone that points out flaws in their chosen langiage or platform.
Let's try and not get into a jihad over it, OK?
I'm not the one who's been evangelising on this thread - and I'm quite
happy to accept flaws in the framework and languages. Indeed, I've been
very ready to point them out.
Since I am recommending Thinstall, people want to know why. The 1,596 (and
growing) errors in the .Net frameworks are a big reason why I use and
recomend Thinstall.
Out of interest, how many of those errors do you think affect more than
a handful of people? (Not that they're all errors, of course - some are
just announcing the availability of other hotfixes which are already
listed.)

I accept it's a reasonable reason to use Thinstall in certain
situations. I don't accept it as a reasonable reason not to use .NET in
the first place.
.Net is certainly not the only product to have a list of problems and fixes.
And, Thinstall is not a .Net only application. It works just as well with
C++, Delphi and a list of other languages - all of which have their own good
and bad points.
Sure.
As this is the microsoft.public.dotnet.general newsgroup, I felt it
necessary to restrict my comments to the languages and potential helpful
applications (like Thinstall) pertinent to this newsgroup. Hope that 's OK
with you.


When you say that developing in .NET is basically a bad idea, you
should provide the comparitive context, however.
Do you think the
knowledge bases for the various versions of Windows themselves are
empty?


Really?


Not sure what your question means here.
Do you know every single issue raised about every version of
Windows your apps support?


Most of them. We support a limited set of OSs just for that reason. For
instance, my company does not write applications for specific use on NT,
2000 or Win98. We do test Thinstall wrapped apps on those OSs if we haven't
used OS-specific calls that would invalidate our software on them. If those
tests work out - we mark our app as tested for use with those OSs.


You've really read most of the KB articles available about Windows? I'm
impressed - I've always got the impression that there are far too many
to keep up with. Most of
As I've said before, I'd like to test the product. I'm interested in it
as a technology, even though I don't currently have a commercial reason
to use it. Jitit don't want me to test it though. Shame, really. It
doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling about them.


JIT doesn't normally get involved with people that aren't serious about
purchasing the application. I can't say that I blame them.


There are plenty of people who can influence purchasing decisions
without being direct purchasers, however. If I were able to evaluate
Thinstall, I would have a better idea of its technical abilities and
could potentially recommend it to other people. If the need ever *did*
arise where Thinstall could be useful, I'd have a much better
impression of the company than I do now, so would be more likely to
look closely at it.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #110
J L
Hi Jim,
I found the thread to be very informative and thought provoking.
Thanks all who did participate.

One last thought...wouldn't it be valuable for Jonathan to come on
this NG and discuss his product and answer questions? I, for one,
would not consider that unwanted promotion but rather providing an
insider view of this type of new tool...how they really intended it to
be used/what market they were addressing/answers to many of the
unanswered questions of "why" and "how". If it were my company and I
saw so much interest, I would definetly jump into the fray with my
2cents.

Just a thought....

John

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 05:48:42 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:
OK....it has happened.

Typically a thread runs for a while with people actually interested in the
topic and a lot of good questions and answer posts are made....then the
discussion will degrade into a jihad of ideologies that in no way represent
the original intent of the thread.

IMHO this is now happening in this thread - so I am out.

In leaving, let me suggest that you get in touch with JIT at
www.thinstall.com if you are really interested in trying out Thinstall.
Although it ain't much, Jonathan will give you at least a 5% discount if you
tell them I sent you.

I tried Thinstall. I loved it. I bought it and will continue to use it in
my distribution of .Net, Visual Basic 6 and C++ applications. I recommend
that you look into it if you distribute software to the masses in your job.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.

Thanks for the honest questions and opinions of Thinstall. I'll pass them
along to Jonathan and the JIT team.

I wish you all smooth installs and stable systems - no matter what
distribution method you choose.

Jim Hubbard - Hubbard Software


Jul 21 '05 #111
Jim,

Your always talking about how great their support is. I emailed them
through their website asking about pricing info. That was on Friday
morning. Haven't heard anything. Problems?

Brett
Jul 21 '05 #112

"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:nh********************************@4ax.com...
Hi Jim,
I found the thread to be very informative and thought provoking.
Thanks all who did participate.

One last thought...wouldn't it be valuable for Jonathan to come on
this NG and discuss his product and answer questions? I, for one,
would not consider that unwanted promotion but rather providing an
insider view of this type of new tool...how they really intended it to
be used/what market they were addressing/answers to many of the
unanswered questions of "why" and "how". If it were my company and I
saw so much interest, I would definetly jump into the fray with my
2cents.

Just a thought....

John


I'll definitely pass it along. Although, as a business, he may not want to
risk incurring the wrath of those self-appointed newsgroup police that may
consider it a breach of Usenet protocol to discuss your product in a
non-commercial newsgroup.

I think it'd be a great idea myself. He could definitely give you more
definitive answers about some of the questions raised here than I can.

I am still learning about all that is possible with Thinstall. Hopefully, I
can answer some of those questions better myself in the near future.

Thanks for your post and thanks for participating in the thread.

Jim Hubbard - Hubbard Software
Jul 21 '05 #113
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
I'll definitely pass it along. Although, as a business, he may not want to
risk incurring the wrath of those self-appointed newsgroup police that may
consider it a breach of Usenet protocol to discuss your product in a
non-commercial newsgroup.
I think it would be reasonable given that there's already been
discussion here. It's not like he'd be coming to advertise out of the
blue, is it? I see the risk though.
I think it'd be a great idea myself. He could definitely give you
more definitive answers about some of the questions raised here than
I can.
Right.
I am still learning about all that is possible with Thinstall.
Hopefully, I can answer some of those questions better myself in the
near future.


I still haven't been able to get an eval copy, and it looks like I
really won't be able to without specifying my real company information,
which I'm loathe to do.

In the interests of following up the security angle, is there any
chance you could mail me (or make available on a website) a "hello
world" Thinstall-ed .NET application, preferably including a class
which isn't referenced (to see if I can "find" it)?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #114
> Your always talking about how great their support is. I emailed them
through their website asking about pricing info. That was on Friday
morning. Haven't heard anything. Problems?


I signed up for an eval version and did get a reply back over the weekend.
But to be honest, I'd be laughed at if I suggested we spend $4k on a single
software package that doesn't actually do anything that we can't already do
albeit not as easily.

Rob.
Jul 21 '05 #115
> Ok Rob. Sure thing. What do I need an adapter, a different antenna for
my cell phone? Can I pick those up at Radio Shack or Target?


Dunno but mobile phones is at least one area where ROTW got it right, well
maybe not right, but better :-) It was a jibe!

Cheers, Rob.
Jul 21 '05 #116
> It does run on Win95A+. It does so by basically creating a virtual
machine that your original exe and dependencies run in. Since your
application is running in a virtual machine (with a virtual registry) you
actually don't alter the core OS at all.
Ahh, I'm beginning to understand what thinstall is now if it's all about
virtual machines. How does it handle the hardware?
Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional developers
will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.


I doubt it I'm afraid. Good developers should never believe in the silver
bullet.

But if they can sell for that price, then go for it. It's a free market.

Rob.
Jul 21 '05 #117
> Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.


I thought it was a virtual machine?

Rob.
Jul 21 '05 #118

Jim Hubbard wrote:

(snip)
you really should try Thinstall (or any
application) before you pass judgement.

I (and I'm sure many others) would very much like to try it.

But not fs that needs an upfront payment of US $4000 !!!

TC

Jul 21 '05 #119
Rob Nicholson <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> wrote:
Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.


I thought it was a virtual machine?


I don't think it really is, from what I've read - at least, not to the
extent that a JVM or CLR is. It looks to me like it's really the
virtual file system and virtual registry which forms the basis of it -
it's as if it takes over certain Win32 functions and redirects them to
the appropriate bit of the original exe (decrypting as it goes) or
going to the in-memory registry. Presumably it also lets you go to the
real registry or file system as well (otherwise you couldn't use it for
anything which would have to save or load real files!).

That's just my current understanding though.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #120
Jim Hubbard wrote:
The only problem with Linux is the GPL. I completely agree with an open API structure, but the open source thing has simply resulted in hundreds of Linux distros that are just different enough to make programming more complex.


I'm a programmer. The different Linux distros do NOT make programming
more complex. The basic APIs are identical for all Linux distros.

The GPL is what makes this possible. If it weren't for the GPL,
companies could produce distros that were "just different enough to
make programming more complex". This happened in fact with Unix in the
1980s. There was Digital Unix, Silicon Graphics Unix etc and they were
"just different enough" and were proprietary.

So contrary to what you believe, GPL is the solution. Not a problem.

Retlak

Jul 21 '05 #121

<re****@go.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Jim Hubbard wrote:
The only problem with Linux is the GPL. I completely agree with an

open API
structure, but the open source thing has simply resulted in hundreds

of
Linux distros that are just different enough to make programming more

complex.


I'm a programmer. The different Linux distros do NOT make programming
more complex. The basic APIs are identical for all Linux distros.

The GPL is what makes this possible. If it weren't for the GPL,
companies could produce distros that were "just different enough to
make programming more complex". This happened in fact with Unix in the
1980s. There was Digital Unix, Silicon Graphics Unix etc and they were
"just different enough" and were proprietary.

So contrary to what you believe, GPL is the solution. Not a problem.

Retlak


I disagree. While programming in a very basic way is most certainly
possible on multiple Linux distros, you must use only the most basic
functionalities of the kernel. This does not allow you to port your
applications if you take advantage of any of the additional APIs added by
the hundreds of distros.

Why would you take advantage of APIs not in most distros? To make
programming easier. To no re-invent the wheel.

I am no Linux programmer. However, I am a programmer and a business owner.
As such, I think I can speak to a fundamental short-coming in the Linux
community.

If you, or the Linux Community in general, want to see Linux overtake
Windows on the desktop, there is a simple solution. (Simple solutions do
seem to evade the Linux community.)

Make a Visual Basic-like programming IDE for Linux. The thing that makes
Windows so popular and an absolute necessity is the vast number of
applications available for it. Linux does have an impressive number of
applications - but they are usually free - that means that no business is
supporting them - that means that business can't use those Linux
applications.

Until you take over the business desktop, you will not take the home
desktops.

One of the biggest boons to Windows ever was the development of Visual
Basic. It was (in Microsoft's own words) for "task oriented developers".
What's that mean?

It simply means that Visual Basic was a simplified programming tool for
non-professional programmers. Accountants could write a small,
business-specific accounting application. If things went well, this
application usually launched a business to support it.

This happened millions of times, with millions of non-professional "task
oriented" developers. This is what made, and continues to make, Windows the
most used desktop in the world by an overwhelming margin.

Do people want to be tied to Windows? Nope. Too expensive. Too many
forced changes.

So, I beg you. If you want to help Linux succeed, speak with other Linux
developers that you know and give us a Visual Basic-like programming IDE for
Linux.

Linux needs to be totally visually oriented (i.e. a user should never have
to see a command line - FOR ANY REASON). This gives the (frankly speaking)
dumbed down environment that makes Windows so popular.

And the second thing it needs is a Visual Basic-like language and IDE so
that the people that work at the companies that run Windows can start moving
their companies to Linux from within - WITHOUT having to become a
professional Linux programmer.

Do these 2 things, and you'll be able to watch Microsoft's lead melt away
like butter on hot pavement.

Jim Hubbard
Jul 21 '05 #122

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

9 posts views Thread by none | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Todd D. Levy | last post: by
151 posts views Thread by David Pendrey | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Ulrich Wisser | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by skneife | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.