How widespread is the .NET framework?

[Johan Tibell]

How many people can be expected to have the framework installed? I
going to write some software for the home market and I don't want to
do that in .NET if I'm only going to target 10-15% of all Windows
users. Shipping the framework with the program is not an option. Also,
does SP2 ship with the thing?

Thanks,

Johan Tibell

[Cor Ligthert]

"Johan Tibell" <jo****@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:2e**************************@posting.google.c om...

How many people can be expected to have the framework installed? I
going to write some software for the home market and I don't want to
do that in .NET if I'm only going to target 10-15% of all Windows
users. Shipping the framework with the program is not an option. Also,
does SP2 ship with the thing?

First question
Where? in China or in Sudan

I do not know the answer for Europe or US, however in Western Europe more
and more people have ADSL while most companies have fast lines so do not
bother about downloading a megabyte more or less.

Second question
That is not sure I understand yet, than I read yes and after that sometimes
no.
However why should it when your customers have fast internetconnections.
What would be the difference when it is included or not, it is downloadable
and a part of the standard update.

I hope this helps?

Cor

[Ketchup Kerry]

Johan Tibell wrote:

How many people can be expected to have the framework installed? I
going to write some software for the home market and I don't want to
do that in .NET if I'm only going to target 10-15% of all Windows
users. Shipping the framework with the program is not an option. Also,
does SP2 ship with the thing?

Thanks,

Johan Tibell

If you look at most sophisticated windows c++ apps -- the reason they are so
bloated and huge and take so long to install is that most of them have to
install the equivalent of the .NET framework in the form of .dlls

[Tampa .NET Koder]

XP SP1 comes with .NET 1.1. So, I suppose that SP2 would include everything
in SP1. But if you ask me, I would just point the users to install the .NET
framework first since this is a requirement.
Its just like you have your software that only runs on windows pc's, so if
your users have a MAC they can't use your app. Windows is a requirement to
install your program. Think of the .NET Framework requirement as being the
exact same way.
"Johan Tibell" <jo****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e**************************@posting.google.c om...

How many people can be expected to have the framework installed? I
going to write some software for the home market and I don't want to
do that in .NET if I'm only going to target 10-15% of all Windows
users. Shipping the framework with the program is not an option. Also,
does SP2 ship with the thing?

Thanks,

Johan Tibell

[Mihai N.]

> How many people can be expected to have the framework installed? I

going to write some software for the home market and I don't want to
do that in .NET if I'm only going to target 10-15% of all Windows
users. Shipping the framework with the program is not an option. Also,
does SP2 ship with the thing? Nobody I know has it, except for the programmers playing with it.
And most of them are unwilling to install it, except for a killer
application. And I know of none such a thing.
Its just like you have your software that only runs on windows pc's,
so if your users have a MAC they can't use your app.
Windows is a requirement to install your program.
Think of the .NET Framework requirement as being the exact same way. Correct.
Now implication: is your application sooooo great that I would buy a
PC for it? Sure, .NET is free (as in no money), but not a thing
I would install without a good reason.
I do not know the answer for Europe or US, however in Western Europe more
and more people have ADSL while most companies have fast lines so do not
bother about downloading a megabyte more or less.

Same thing: is the application cool enough to make me go through this
trouble?

I don't say is not possible. Peoples bought the first computers for one
killer application only. Just think if this is the case.

--
Mihai
-------------------------
Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mihai N. <nm**************@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't say is not possible. Peoples bought the first computers for one
killer application only. Just think if this is the case.

I don't see why that's necessary for .NET to take off though. Most
people don't regard any single game that they purchased as a killer app
which would make it worth installing DirectX - but the fact that so
*many* games require it has made it entirely acceptable as a
requirement. (It took a while for people to become less nervous about
that, too.)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Caesare Gentile]

Mihai N. wrote:

How many people can be expected to have the framework installed? I
going to write some software for the home market and I don't want to
do that in .NET if I'm only going to target 10-15% of all Windows
users. Shipping the framework with the program is not an option. Also,
does SP2 ship with the thing?

Nobody I know has it, except for the programmers playing with it.
And most of them are unwilling to install it, except for a killer
application. And I know of none such a thing.

Its just like you have your software that only runs on windows pc's,
so if your users have a MAC they can't use your app.
Windows is a requirement to install your program.
Think of the .NET Framework requirement as being the exact same way.

Correct.
Now implication: is your application sooooo great that I would buy a
PC for it? Sure, .NET is free (as in no money), but not a thing
I would install without a good reason.

I do not know the answer for Europe or US, however in Western Europe more
and more people have ADSL while most companies have fast lines so do not
bother about downloading a megabyte more or less.

Same thing: is the application cool enough to make me go through this
trouble?

I don't say is not possible. Peoples bought the first computers for one
killer application only. Just think if this is the case.

If you run the Microsoft Update, .NET 1.1 is listed there, along with
DirectX -- so a lot of people are probably installing it just as a matter
of keeping their machines up to date...

Most people in the U.S. now have broadband, so download speed is not a big
deal.

Once web services that are consumed by a .Net client take off -- .Net will
take off...

--
What do you mean, analyze? That guy's a fish. Let's go bowling. - Bobby
Fischer

[Mihai N.]

> DirectX - but the fact that so *many* games require it has

made it entirely acceptable as a requirement. This is the point: "so *many* games"
(It took a while for people to become less nervous about that, too.)

100% agree. My impression is that .NET is not there yet.

Sure, there this is the standard problem:
- not enough peples have .NET because there are not so many applications
- there are not enough applications because developers are afraid to
"force" .NET on the users (Johan's initial question).

Yes, I am convinced it will get there.
This is why I did install .NET and VS.NET and spend my time learning C#
and visiting this newsgroup :-)

--
Mihai
-------------------------
Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mihai N. <nm**************@yahoo.com> wrote:

DirectX - but the fact that so *many* games require it has
made it entirely acceptable as a requirement. This is the point: "so *many* games"

Indeed. And at the moment, there aren't so many .NET applications - but
I'm sure there will be.

(It took a while for people to become less nervous about that, too.)

100% agree. My impression is that .NET is not there yet.

Absolutely.
Sure, there this is the standard problem:
- not enough peples have .NET because there are not so many applications
- there are not enough applications because developers are afraid to
"force" .NET on the users (Johan's initial question).

Yes, I am convinced it will get there.
This is why I did install .NET and VS.NET and spend my time learning C#
and visiting this newsgroup :-)

Exactly. My point is that there doesn't have to be any one particular
killer app to make people install .NET.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Cor Ligthert]

>

Indeed. And at the moment, there aren't so many .NET applications - but
I'm sure there will be.

Hi Jon,

Look at the Internet and watch the ASPX applications, for a year it was true
what you said, however now you see in my opinion more and more.

And ASPX is definitly dotNet

Cor

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Cor Ligthert <no**********@planet.nl> wrote:

Indeed. And at the moment, there aren't so many .NET applications - but
I'm sure there will be.

Look at the Internet and watch the ASPX applications, for a year it
was true what you said, however now you see in my opinion more and
more.

And ASPX is definitly dotNet

It's certainly .NET, but it's not the client-side .NET which was the
original topic of discussion. Acceptance of new technology on the
server side tends to be quicker than on the client side - just look at
Java's history for evidence of that.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too