Have you distributed a .Net application?

[Jim Hubbard]

Have you distributed a .Net application? How about one to the general
public?

I am writing an application that I had rather do in .Net, however, the
20+ MB dotnetfx.exe worries me. What about potential users on 56k modems
(still almost 50% of internet users in the US alone)? Do they dl or just
skip it?

It'd be neat if MS would send out something that urged (required may be
nice) ALL MS os users to run an activex control that installed the .Net
framework. To do this though, it may take MS making a KILLER app in .net
and giving it away. (That'd be better than requiring them, but would still
miss many users I'm sure.)

Your observations are welcome.

--
Jim Hubbard

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

[Scott M.]

If your clients will be web based (which it sounds like they will be), then
why not make your application an ASP.NET Web Project? This way the only
thing your clients need is a browser (which they already have). The .NET
Framework only need be on the web server and there is nothing to distribute.
"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:OT**************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Have you distributed a .Net application? How about one to the general
public?

I am writing an application that I had rather do in .Net, however, the
20+ MB dotnetfx.exe worries me. What about potential users on 56k modems
(still almost 50% of internet users in the US alone)? Do they dl or just
skip it?

It'd be neat if MS would send out something that urged (required may be nice) ALL MS os users to run an activex control that installed the .Net
framework. To do this though, it may take MS making a KILLER app in .net
and giving it away. (That'd be better than requiring them, but would still miss many users I'm sure.)

Your observations are welcome.

--
Jim Hubbard

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

[Paul Hetherington]

My 2 cents, Canadian ;)

I have distributed a .NET app to the public. Since our application's setup
without .NET Framework Redist is still 80mb, another 20mb isn't an issue.
We also distribute on CD.

Pretty soon I imagine a lot of software will have the .NET Runtimes on CD as
well (i.e. Office)
Also, newer computers are coming with Framework 1.1 pre-installed (Dell for
example)
So I don't think it will be an issue in the next year or two.
Also in Canada the majority of Internet users seem to have Broadband :)

-
Paul

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

If your clients will be web based (which it sounds like they will be), then why not make your application an ASP.NET Web Project? This way the only
thing your clients need is a browser (which they already have). The .NET
Framework only need be on the web server and there is nothing to distribute.

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:OT**************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Have you distributed a .Net application? How about one to the general public?

I am writing an application that I had rather do in .Net, however, the 20+ MB dotnetfx.exe worries me. What about potential users on 56k modems (still almost 50% of internet users in the US alone)? Do they dl or just skip it?

It'd be neat if MS would send out something that urged (required may

be

nice) ALL MS os users to run an activex control that installed the .Net
framework. To do this though, it may take MS making a KILLER app in ..net and giving it away. (That'd be better than requiring them, but would

still

miss many users I'm sure.)

Your observations are welcome.

--
Jim Hubbard

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

[Jim Hubbard]

That's not an option with this particular application. It is designed to
interact with the user's desktop.

Thanks for your input

Jim

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

If your clients will be web based (which it sounds like they will be), then why not make your application an ASP.NET Web Project? This way the only
thing your clients need is a browser (which they already have). The .NET
Framework only need be on the web server and there is nothing to distribute.

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:OT**************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Have you distributed a .Net application? How about one to the general public?

I am writing an application that I had rather do in .Net, however, the 20+ MB dotnetfx.exe worries me. What about potential users on 56k modems (still almost 50% of internet users in the US alone)? Do they dl or just skip it?

It'd be neat if MS would send out something that urged (required may

be

nice) ALL MS os users to run an activex control that installed the .Net
framework. To do this though, it may take MS making a KILLER app in ..net and giving it away. (That'd be better than requiring them, but would

still

miss many users I'm sure.)

Your observations are welcome.

--
Jim Hubbard

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

[Jim Hubbard]

Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
redistribution.

I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school right
now....at least until the framework is distributed more.

Thanks for your input.

Jim

"Paul Hetherington" <pN*****************@vNiOsSuPaAlMstatement.com> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

My 2 cents, Canadian ;)

I have distributed a .NET app to the public. Since our application's setup without .NET Framework Redist is still 80mb, another 20mb isn't an issue.
We also distribute on CD.

Pretty soon I imagine a lot of software will have the .NET Runtimes on CD as well (i.e. Office)
Also, newer computers are coming with Framework 1.1 pre-installed (Dell for example)
So I don't think it will be an issue in the next year or two.
Also in Canada the majority of Internet users seem to have Broadband :)

-
Paul

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

If your clients will be web based (which it sounds like they will be),

then

why not make your application an ASP.NET Web Project? This way the only
thing your clients need is a browser (which they already have). The ..NET

Framework only need be on the web server and there is nothing to

distribute.

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:OT**************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Have you distributed a .Net application? How about one to the general public?

I am writing an application that I had rather do in .Net, however, the 20+ MB dotnetfx.exe worries me. What about potential users on 56k modems (still almost 50% of internet users in the US alone)? Do they dl or just skip it?

It'd be neat if MS would send out something that urged (required may be

nice) ALL MS os users to run an activex control that installed the

..Net framework. To do this though, it may take MS making a KILLER app in

.net and giving it away. (That'd be better than requiring them, but would

still

miss many users I'm sure.)

Your observations are welcome.

--
Jim Hubbard

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

[Peter van der Goes]

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:P9****************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
redistribution.

I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school right
now....at least until the framework is distributed more.

Thanks for your input.

Jim

You'll not have long to wait, as the .NET framework will be in all future
Windows OS versions, IIRC. That will remove your concern.

--
Peter - [MVP - Academic]

[Jim Hubbard]

Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it
kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim

"Peter van der Goes" <p_**********@mars.cox.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:P9****************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
redistribution.

I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school right
now....at least until the framework is distributed more.

Thanks for your input.

Jim

You'll not have long to wait, as the .NET framework will be in all future
Windows OS versions, IIRC. That will remove your concern.

--
Peter - [MVP - Academic]

[Paul Hetherington]

win95 still...uckk!
That has got to suck developing for. Most new technologies arn't supported
on win95 any longer.

good luck,
Paul

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:pN***************@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it
kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim

"Peter van der Goes" <p_**********@mars.cox.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:P9****************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
redistribution.

I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school right now....at least until the framework is distributed more.

Thanks for your input.

Jim

You'll not have long to wait, as the .NET framework will be in all future Windows OS versions, IIRC. That will remove your concern.

--
Peter - [MVP - Academic]

[Scott M.]

Could have sworn I read somewhere that running the .NET Framework on Win95
is not supported.
"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:pN***************@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it
kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim

"Peter van der Goes" <p_**********@mars.cox.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:P9****************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
redistribution.

I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school right now....at least until the framework is distributed more.

Thanks for your input.

Jim

You'll not have long to wait, as the .NET framework will be in all future Windows OS versions, IIRC. That will remove your concern.

--
Peter - [MVP - Academic]

[Paul Hetherington]

..NET isn't supported on Win95, Neither is DirectX 8.1 or DirectX 9
Heck the machines that came with Win95 on them would probably have a hard
time running most modern software applications.

Glad my company decided to follow suit and ditched requiring our products to
be supported on '95.

-
Paul

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:ug**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Could have sworn I read somewhere that running the .NET Framework on Win95
is not supported.
"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:pN***************@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it

kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim

"Peter van der Goes" <p_**********@mars.cox.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:P9****************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
> redistribution.
>
> I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school

right > now....at least until the framework is distributed more.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Jim
>
You'll not have long to wait, as the .NET framework will be in all future Windows OS versions, IIRC. That will remove your concern.

--
Peter - [MVP - Academic]

[Jim Hubbard]

Really.... I was one of the geeks in line outside CompUSA at midnight to
get the first release of Win98.

I feel left behind now if I'm not running the current beta on at least one
machine.

I can't imagine being that far behind. In fact, I sometimes have trouble
remembering the stuff I need to to program for those old machines - so I
keep a large library and push customer to upgrade a lot.

I have found that a lot of small businesses have a legitimate concern when
upgrading their OS. The older software they bought for the older OS
obviously hasn't been tested or approved for the new OS, and moving to an
untested OS frequently voids their support options. This means that not
only do they have the expense of a new OS and a knowledgeable person to
install it, they also have to buy a whole slew of new programs, take time to
upgrade the machines and take time to learn the nuances of the new OS and
software packages.

So they are looking at considerable time and money expenditures to upgrade.
A lot of them don't have the budget for IT (get it?).

MS should make all OS upgrades backwards compatible for 2 versions (just
like reputable software manufacturers do). Of course some people would
still wait until the last minute before making a change.

Jim
"Paul Hetherington" <pN*****************@vNiOsSuPaAlMstatement.com> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

win95 still...uckk!
That has got to suck developing for. Most new technologies arn't supported on win95 any longer.

good luck,
Paul

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:pN***************@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

Sounds great....but I am still working with people on Win95 and Win98.

Can you believe it? They are mostly not very technically savvy (to put it

kindly) and stick with the bare minimum required to do a job.

It's a sad, sad world.

Jim

"Peter van der Goes" <p_**********@mars.cox.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Jim Hubbard" <va***@email.address> wrote in message
news:P9****************@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Hmmmm.... my app will be *much* smaller than the .net framework
> redistribution.
>
> I would love to write it in .Net, but I think I will go old school

right > now....at least until the framework is distributed more.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Jim
>
You'll not have long to wait, as the .NET framework will be in all future Windows OS versions, IIRC. That will remove your concern.

--
Peter - [MVP - Academic]