468,457 Members | 1,771 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,457 developers. It's quick & easy.

when can .NET Framework be assumed?

Hello,

The .NET Framework is about 20MB which is large compared to some apps.
Can I assume that the Framework is on modern PCs? Does modern mean PCs
sold in the last 6 months, 12 months, etc??

Cheers

Geoff
Aug 14 '05 #1
11 1475
Geoff,

You can almost never assume that because you don't know if it is the correct
one for your application.
(Or you should build your application for Net 1.0 because the others are
compatible with that).

See this link

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/do...r/default.aspx

I hope this helps,

Cor
Aug 14 '05 #2
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:39:04 +0200, "Cor Ligthert [MVP]"
<no************@planet.nl> wrote:
Geoff,

You can almost never assume that because you don't know if it is the correct
one for your application.
(Or you should build your application for Net 1.0 because the others are
compatible with that).

See this link

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/do...r/default.aspx
Cor,

Thanks for the info and the link.

Am I correct in thinking that if I wish to develop a really simple app
VB6 or VB 5 would be sufficient? In both cases a Win32 .exe would be
created and could be installed under Windows98, 2000 and XP without
the need for any runtime software to be added?

This app would display a picture and ask the user to indicate a
reaction between 2 extremes, say very Good and Very bad, by
positioning a slider/trackbar. A button would be clicked to move to
the next question/slider choice and after the last question the slider
values would be saved to a file.

Any thoughts?!

Cheers

Geoff



I hope this helps,

Cor


Aug 14 '05 #3
Geoff,

AFAIK you can not run VB4, 5, without any runtime it is or apart or
implemented.

However you can of course try unmanaged VS 2003 C++.

I hope this helps,

Cor
Aug 14 '05 #4
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:07:38 +0200, "Cor Ligthert [MVP]"
<no************@planet.nl> wrote:
Geoff,

AFAIK you can not run VB4, 5, without any runtime it is or apart or
implemented.

However you can of course try unmanaged VS 2003 C++.
Cor,

Not sure what "unmanaged" means?

Can you create unmanaged C# code with C# Visual 2005 Express Beta 2?

Cheers

Geoff


I hope this helps,

Cor


Aug 14 '05 #5
Geoff,

Can you create unmanaged C# code with C# Visual 2005 Express Beta 2?

No only with C++

Cor
Aug 14 '05 #6
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:44:24 +0200, "Cor Ligthert [MVP]"
<no************@planet.nl> wrote:
Geoff,

Can you create unmanaged C# code with C# Visual 2005 Express Beta 2?
No only with C++


Cor,

Can you explain this for me? If I install an application (one which I
have downloaded from the Iinternet say) on Windows 98(SE) or XP there
is no mention of .NET or any other runtime software so I am assuming
that it is possible to write code which needs nothing that which
Windows 98 provides. If so, how would this code be written? Could it
be VB5 or VB6?

I have yet to install any software whihc required the .NET Framework -
as far as I know. Could it be that I have but was not aware of doing
so?

I suppose I could use C or C++ without the need for an IDE - except
that this would be difficult for someone only just getting interested
in writing software for Windows!

Cheers

Geoff


Cor


Aug 14 '05 #7
Geoff,

If you see the size of a normal install package of a small VBNet program and
from a VB4 program than you see where the difference is. With VB4 and VB5
you are (if you create a deploy package) installing everytime the runtimer.

For an VBNet program you have in fact only to xcopy the exe, which can be
for simple Hello World window application in VBNet 10Kb. You will not see
that with VB4 or VB5.

I hope this gives an idea.

Cor
Aug 14 '05 #8
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:09:32 +0200, "Cor Ligthert [MVP]"
<no************@planet.nl> wrote:
Geoff,

If you see the size of a normal install package of a small VBNet program and
from a VB4 program than you see where the difference is. With VB4 and VB5
you are (if you create a deploy package) installing everytime the runtimer.

For an VBNet program you have in fact only to xcopy the exe, which can be
for simple Hello World window application in VBNet 10Kb. You will not see
that with VB4 or VB5.
But Cor, surely most PCs do not have the .NET Framework software on
them? So the user must also install about 20MB of .NET Framework and
wouldn't that normally come with the package to be installed?

Am I missing something?!

Geoff


I hope this gives an idea.

Cor


Aug 14 '05 #9
Geoff,

But Cor, surely most PCs do not have the .NET Framework software on them?

Am I missing something?!


Yes the word "Once" that is one of the advantages from Net. All Net
programlanguages use the same runtime what is a part of the Framework.

When you now sent an update of your program by instance with VB4 or VB5 you
are sending all kind of runtimers or whatever or let the user install that.
(Or you should create special update procedures for your client assuming he
has the correct runtime already)

As well you have no conflicts because a collegue of you have placed another
runtime in another directory than you asume, or a systemadmin has deleted
all runtimes because there where such a terrible amount of them on the
system, while one central placed is enough in his opinion.

Cor
Aug 14 '05 #10
Geoff,
In addition to the other comments:

Only Windows Server 2003 currently ships with .NET 1.1 installed.

A number of Tablet PCs ship with .NET 1.1 installed, however it is not
"guaranteed", I know mine came with it installed.

As Cor suggests, you could use VB6 or C++ to develop an app that does not
require the .NET runtime. I would consider VB6 or C++, however I would avoid
VB5 as it is "well outside" being supported. Even VB6 is rapidly approaching
the non-supported stage...

However!! You then loose out on all the benefits that .NET brings you, such
as: full OO, rich runtime, rich framework, simplified deployment, and
others...

Unfortunately .NET requires the 20MB Framework. :-(

Fortunately!!! this 20MB Framework is a one time install!!!! :-))

Once the Framework is installed for a .NET application, it is installed for
*ALL* .NET applications! Granted you get into the version 1.0, verses 1.1,
verses 2.0 "problem". Microsoft has stated that 1.0 & 1.1 apps will run "as
is" on 2.0. You can use VS2003 to create apps that run on either 1.0 or 1.1
by avoiding the 1.1 features (see article below). NOTE: VS2003 still
creates a 1.1 app, however its app.config is set to redirect to 1.0
assemblies. 1.0 apps will run on 1.1.

In other words if you ship a 1.1 app, and a user downloads the framework for
your app. The user just downloaded the framework for all apps! Microsoft &
other companies are releasing more & more apps that require the framework.

For details of side by side & having an assembly run under a different
version of the framework see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...dexsidenet.asp

I currently target .NET 1.1, when 2.0 ships I will probably mostly target
2.0 as it has a significant number of user & developer improvements in it.
IMHO getting more developers to deploy .NET apps helps ensure that the
Framework is installed more places...

Hope this helps
Jay

<Geoff Cox> wrote in message
news:sl********************************@4ax.com...
| Hello,
|
| The .NET Framework is about 20MB which is large compared to some apps.
| Can I assume that the Framework is on modern PCs? Does modern mean PCs
| sold in the last 6 months, 12 months, etc??
|
| Cheers
|
| Geoff
Aug 15 '05 #11
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:09:35 -0500, "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]"
<Ja************@msn.com> wrote:

Jay,

Many thanks for your thoughts. A convincing case for .NET framework!
Increasing use of broadband also means it gets easier to download it.

Cheers

Geoff

Geoff,
In addition to the other comments:

Only Windows Server 2003 currently ships with .NET 1.1 installed.

A number of Tablet PCs ship with .NET 1.1 installed, however it is not
"guaranteed", I know mine came with it installed.

As Cor suggests, you could use VB6 or C++ to develop an app that does not
require the .NET runtime. I would consider VB6 or C++, however I would avoid
VB5 as it is "well outside" being supported. Even VB6 is rapidly approaching
the non-supported stage...

However!! You then loose out on all the benefits that .NET brings you, such
as: full OO, rich runtime, rich framework, simplified deployment, and
others...

Unfortunately .NET requires the 20MB Framework. :-(

Fortunately!!! this 20MB Framework is a one time install!!!! :-))

Once the Framework is installed for a .NET application, it is installed for
*ALL* .NET applications! Granted you get into the version 1.0, verses 1.1,
verses 2.0 "problem". Microsoft has stated that 1.0 & 1.1 apps will run "as
is" on 2.0. You can use VS2003 to create apps that run on either 1.0 or 1.1
by avoiding the 1.1 features (see article below). NOTE: VS2003 still
creates a 1.1 app, however its app.config is set to redirect to 1.0
assemblies. 1.0 apps will run on 1.1.

In other words if you ship a 1.1 app, and a user downloads the framework for
your app. The user just downloaded the framework for all apps! Microsoft &
other companies are releasing more & more apps that require the framework.

For details of side by side & having an assembly run under a different
version of the framework see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...dexsidenet.asp

I currently target .NET 1.1, when 2.0 ships I will probably mostly target
2.0 as it has a significant number of user & developer improvements in it.
IMHO getting more developers to deploy .NET apps helps ensure that the
Framework is installed more places...

Hope this helps
Jay

<Geoff Cox> wrote in message
news:sl********************************@4ax.com.. .
| Hello,
|
| The .NET Framework is about 20MB which is large compared to some apps.
| Can I assume that the Framework is on modern PCs? Does modern mean PCs
| sold in the last 6 months, 12 months, etc??
|
| Cheers
|
| Geoff


Aug 23 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

2 posts views Thread by barkha shah | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by SMP_DG | last post: by
20 posts views Thread by Geoff Cox | last post: by
28 posts views Thread by Peter Olcott | last post: by
66 posts views Thread by Jon Skeet [C# MVP] | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Tim | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by subhajit12345 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.