.NET runtime penetration (1.0 vs. 1.1)

[Rick Byers]

We're trying to determine whether we should deploy our app built against
..NET 1.0 or 1.1. We've already decided that until the number of users with
the 1.0 runtime but NOT the 1.1 drops close to zero, we have to support
execution under either environment. In that case, there doesn't seem to be
much advantage to building against .NET 1.1 (since we can't use any new
features). However, I'd really like to start using VS.NET 2003, mainly in
the hopes that it will solve many of the bugs / annoyances we've experienced
with 2002.

Does anyone know where I could find some numbers indicating the penetration
of the .NET runtime? I'm looking for just a rough idea, so the specific
sample isn't important. For samples like "all visitors to the microsoft.com
website", this should be trivial to generate because IE includes the .NET
version number in its User-Agent string.

Also, if anyone has any other advice on why building against .NET 1.0 or 1.1
would be better, I'd love to hear them (none of the major new features in
the 1.1 framework seem relevant to us).

Thanks,
Rick

[Robert Jacobson]

I don't know any numbers, but I think any client with Windows XP will have
1.0 installed. 1.1 is a suggested upgrade through Windows Update.

To play devil's advocate, though, why not just build against 1.1, and
include the 1.1 redistributable in the install package with your
application? That way there's no question about whether the user will have
the framework installed, and you'll save users from the annoyance of having
to do a separate download.

If you're distributing on CD, it will just take about 20 MB of space on the
disk. If you're distributing through a download, the extra size will only
be a problem for dial-up users. You could have two versions -- one with the
redistributable included, and one without. Maybe you could develop an
ASP.Net program to see whether they have the 1.1 framework installed
(assuming this is possible), and then suggest the appropriate version to
download.

--Robert Jacobson
"Rick Byers" <ri**@kinitos.com> wrote in message
news:u9****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

We're trying to determine whether we should deploy our app built against
.NET 1.0 or 1.1. We've already decided that until the number of users with the 1.0 runtime but NOT the 1.1 drops close to zero, we have to support
execution under either environment. In that case, there doesn't seem to be much advantage to building against .NET 1.1 (since we can't use any new
features). However, I'd really like to start using VS.NET 2003, mainly in
the hopes that it will solve many of the bugs / annoyances we've experienced with 2002.

Does anyone know where I could find some numbers indicating the penetration of the .NET runtime? I'm looking for just a rough idea, so the specific
sample isn't important. For samples like "all visitors to the microsoft.com website", this should be trivial to generate because IE includes the .NET
version number in its User-Agent string.

Also, if anyone has any other advice on why building against .NET 1.0 or 1.1 would be better, I'd love to hear them (none of the major new features in
the 1.1 framework seem relevant to us).

Thanks,
Rick

[Rick Byers]

Dialup users is the fundamental problem. We have decided that the
disadvantage of requiring dialup users to download an extra 20 MB outweighs
the (minimal for us) advantages of upgrading .NET 1.1. I'd love to just
upgrade to 1.1, but at the moment there is no sufficiently compelling reason
to do so given that it would mean some (albeit small) group of users would
chose not to use our software.

Rick

"Robert Jacobson" <rj**********************@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ec**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

I don't know any numbers, but I think any client with Windows XP will have
1.0 installed. 1.1 is a suggested upgrade through Windows Update.

To play devil's advocate, though, why not just build against 1.1, and
include the 1.1 redistributable in the install package with your
application? That way there's no question about whether the user will have the framework installed, and you'll save users from the annoyance of having to do a separate download.

If you're distributing on CD, it will just take about 20 MB of space on the disk. If you're distributing through a download, the extra size will only
be a problem for dial-up users. You could have two versions -- one with the redistributable included, and one without. Maybe you could develop an
ASP.Net program to see whether they have the 1.1 framework installed
(assuming this is possible), and then suggest the appropriate version to
download.

--Robert Jacobson
"Rick Byers" <ri**@kinitos.com> wrote in message
news:u9****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

We're trying to determine whether we should deploy our app built against
.NET 1.0 or 1.1. We've already decided that until the number of users

with

the 1.0 runtime but NOT the 1.1 drops close to zero, we have to support
execution under either environment. In that case, there doesn't seem to

be

much advantage to building against .NET 1.1 (since we can't use any new
features). However, I'd really like to start using VS.NET 2003, mainly in the hopes that it will solve many of the bugs / annoyances we've

experienced

with 2002.

Does anyone know where I could find some numbers indicating the

penetration

of the .NET runtime? I'm looking for just a rough idea, so the specific
sample isn't important. For samples like "all visitors to the

microsoft.com

website", this should be trivial to generate because IE includes the ..NET version number in its User-Agent string.

Also, if anyone has any other advice on why building against .NET 1.0 or

1.1

would be better, I'd love to hear them (none of the major new features in the 1.1 framework seem relevant to us).

Thanks,
Rick