473,322 Members | 1,755 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,322 software developers and data experts.

.Net packaging/wrapper application?

jim
I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exes)
and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd like
something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as a
single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite. It
would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end user
to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids DLL
and .Net Version Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should be
it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require per
copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim
Dec 27 '07
60 3731
jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cm******@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:Ol**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote:
>What is it with Microsoft MVPs that they do not read about a subject
before posting on it?

Hrm. Let's see:

You post questions on free, public, forum to get answers from people.

... are these people giving answers being paid? Nope.
>MVPs.......God save us from Microsoft MVPs.

That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. Sure you want to stand
by a statement like that?
My apologies to the Microsoft MVP community as a whole. But, the majority
of MVPs that "contribute" to threads seem to be adverse to actually reading
about or trying to understand the topic that they are responding to.

This majority of responders makes the MVP community as a whole look quite
foolish.

jim
Dec 28 '07 #51
jim
Peter,

That's a very interesting example. Thanks!

jim

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pb*******@yahoo.NoSpamMaam.comwrote in message
news:79**********************************@microsof t.com...
>I recently wrote a short article on this subject with a simple example,
just
out of curiosity:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...packaging.aspx

Hope it helps.
-- Peter
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
MetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com
"jim" wrote:
>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and
any
needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
exes)
and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd like
something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as
a
single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite.
It
would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end
user
to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids DLL
and .Net Version Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should
be
it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require
per
copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim

Dec 28 '07 #52
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:bG*******************@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
>

Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did, they
basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app scheme.
Thinstall\Postbuild do not.
I've not read the websites, apologies, but just out of curiosity how do these
both deal with

a) persistance of data/settings
b) loading of dynamic classes at runtime?

Can you force either to not wrap certain bits of the application up? If so, how?

Shak
Dec 28 '07 #53
Jim,

Mostly we read a lot, some of the contributions from ji*@home.net on
Internet this month.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...096eda5f01c33a

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...2d76d753ba8287

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...229c7925ec802a

A happy trolling new year,

Cor

Dec 28 '07 #54
jim

"Chris Shepherd" <ch**@nospam.chsh.cawrote in message
news:eH*************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
jim wrote:
>>2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a
user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they
already have a framework installed.

Really? When did that start? I am not aware of the framework being
installed as a security update or as a part of SP2? That's been one of
my pet peeves - why wasn't it?

I must be mistaken about XP, but I know Vista has the framework installed.
But it has an old version of the .Net framework and Vista still does not
automatically install newer versions of the .NEt framework as they are
released. Same problem, different version.
>>At most you need 2.0/3.0/3.5.

Unless you or your company wrote 1.0 or 1.1 apps.
Most users ( I am talking about users in general, not users in a rigid
corporate environment) will want to use applications regardless of the .Net
framework version. That means that users that want the capability to run
any app written for their version of Windows will need to have every version
of the .Net framework installed.

To my knowledge, there is 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5. That's just over 1.04
GB of uncompressed installations for the .Net framework (assuming a regular
uncompressed size of 208,625,088 bytes as was the case for installing .Net
2.0 on my VM).
Yes, then you only need 1.0/1.1.
>>It's only problematic in not up to date OSes, and if you are targeting
old PCs you probably shouldn't be writing stuff in .NET anyway.

Sound logic.....people with older PCs should just get the hell off the
internet. I like that! (But I wonder what they would think about it.
Hmmmm.... )

What I said and your response are vastly different. I simply suggested you
should use a different language for development if your target environment
has little to no support for recent updates/the .NET framework. My onus
was on the developer, not on the user.
I was being sarcastic - sorry. You are right. The onus is on the
developer.
>>4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges
in any way. Installing an application which needs to access certain
parts of the filesystem or registry may require installation privileges,
which are available to Power Users.

Most useful applications write some data to the registry and do
manipulate files (although not necc system files). I have rarely found
programs useful that are so simple as to not use the system registry or
manipulate files on my systems.

Note the *certain parts* in the point you replied to. Anyone can write
files to the system, there's a specific spot for it for each user in fact.
It's more *where* you can write files to that are controlled by security.
I suppose I am looking at things from the viewpoint that a user simply want
to use the program that s/he wants to use. They don't care (or even know)
about security issues. If they are challenged with a security dialog, they
will just keep hitting "yes" until they get what they want (which, btw, is
why Vista's UAC is a miserble failure).

As a hobbyist coder, I wnt to code apps that are on par with the system and
environment of my users (the general PC-using public) and to make using my
apps as smooth and seemless as possible. That does not include talking them
through how to get around security restrictions when a simple product like
Thinstall makes security a moot point (for 99.9% of users).
>>Using this and #5 as a point *for* Thinstall and its ilk seems odd,
since most commercial software nowadays installs.

I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal
tension.

Yes, but trying to get around restrictive administrative policies such as
not installing software is probably a breach of the AUP of the
organization you work for. Most AUPs I've read/written include copying
files which do not alter the windows registry or install to a permanent
location as "installation".
I'm not talking about using software at work that is restricted. Clearly
you should work when at work.

I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.
That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that
will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).
>>5, Yes, it may make running the software easy, but how trivial is
updating the software, keeping track of (and securing) temporary data
caches, etc., etc..?

You don't work with the general public, do you?

Which is exactly my point. This is why the majority of software comes in
installable form and maintains itself by checking for updates.
Those installable apps are restrigcting themselves when dealing with the
general public by their very nature.
>>>Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try
and test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself.
Smaller than what?

Than Paint .Net + the .Net framework.

Which wasn't even the discussion at hand. I'm not saying Paint.NET should
be used as the basis for comparison, in fact, I have no idea how you came
to that conclusion. What I'm saying is that I would like to see Paint.NET
using Thinstall vs Paint.NET and the .NET framework.
What I was saying is that an executable of Paint .Net using Thinstall is
MUCH smaller than an installation of Paint .Net that requires the install of
the .Net framework.
>>>As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it
to 6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone.
And what was the size of your hello world EXE plus the framework
compressed into one file?

Just over 24MB. (The .Net install is already compressed.)

Then how does Thinstall manage to provide full framework functionality in
6MB?
It scans the .Net framework and only includes the functions that are called
for the particular application. Or, it did the last time I used it.
Not only that, you're missing the obvious point that the 24MB framework
download is just once, then there's just application updates. 24MB
one-time vs 6MB every time there's any kind of update/new version? On some
software that could be weekly. Plus, it's not a 1:1 like
Xenocode/Thinstall are, since the framework can/will get used by other
applications as well.
That is true. But, since the onus is on the developer as you have said, my
consideration is for my applicatio to be as seemless and worry free as
humanly possible. As the developer, I am not concerned with what other
applications use or must install on the users PC. My goal is an orgasmic
experience with my software...period.

And, I so not wish to limit my users from using my software from USB drives
either. Thinstall can wrap the 208+ MB .Net framework plus an app like
Paint .Net into a 47 MB executable that can be executed from almost anywhere
on any PC. (See http://thinstall.com/demos/dnet20/ for this example.)
>Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did,
they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable
app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not.

Well, mostly not.
The current version of Thinstall that I have tried actually works this
way....

You design and
>
>>>It isn't for everybody.....but I think it improves the distribution and
maintenance of .Net apps for most people.
Distribution and ease of access, maybe, but I don't see how it improves
maintenance at all.

Streaming and replacing or updating single EXEs on a streaming server or
on each desktop is infinitely easier than running updates (or, God
forbid, uninstalls & re-installs) on each desktop.

I don't see how [replacing one file] is "infinitely easier" than
[replacing multiple files].
From the viewpoint of a hobbyist developer that develops for the internet
community as a whole, the fewer files that upi have to distribute the fewer
things there are to go wrong (i.e. be stomped on by an antivirus app or
anti-Xware app or accidentally deleted by a user or PC cleaning app, etc.).
>I currently care for 18 small businesses and 300+ PC users, and I'll take
the short road every time, if the users get the same end result.

If you care for all these users' PCs, can't you ensure their PCs have
appropriate .NET framework versions?
Yes, I can. But I don;t write software for distribution to these PCs only.
I write for the general public. And, while my 300 users may be fat and
happy, I want 3,000,000+ users fat and happy - without having to administer
their PCs.
If it's of use to you, power to you for being able to use something like
this. I was not disputing that in any way, shape, or form. I'm simply
suggesting not everyone believes the same, especially since there aren't
many threads clamoring to have an all-in-one package like you're
suggesting.
I agree. Its not for everybody. There are many developers that write for a
closed system (like a corporate environment) where they can control the
client machines to the nth degree.

But, for my needs in writing and distributing software to the masses, being
able to distribute a single executable and not worry about having a
framework installed or having some other app overwrite my DLL or ActiveX
component with a newer version is a God-send.
Again, I think it has its place, but for me it wouldn't be anything more
than a nifty feature I might use once or twice. Especially since the
framework is on everyone I know's PC anyway.
Thanks so much for your thoughts on the subject.

jim
Dec 28 '07 #55
jim wrote:
>>I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal
tension.
Yes, but trying to get around restrictive administrative policies such as
not installing software is probably a breach of the AUP of the
organization you work for. Most AUPs I've read/written include copying
files which do not alter the windows registry or install to a permanent
location as "installation".

I'm not talking about using software at work that is restricted. Clearly
you should work when at work.

I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.
That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that
will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).
Ripping on MS MVPs for not reading what they're replying to and then
turning around and failing to even read what you yourself wrote amazes
me. Enjoy your stay at the troll motel.

Chris.
Dec 28 '07 #56
jim

"Chris Shepherd" <ch**@nospam.chsh.cawrote in message
news:Oy**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
jim wrote:
>>>I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's
anal tension.
Yes, but trying to get around restrictive administrative policies such
as not installing software is probably a breach of the AUP of the
organization you work for. Most AUPs I've read/written include copying
files which do not alter the windows registry or install to a permanent
location as "installation".

I'm not talking about using software at work that is restricted. Clearly
you should work when at work.

I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.
That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries
that will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).

Ripping on MS MVPs for not reading what they're replying to and then
turning around and failing to even read what you yourself wrote amazes me.
Enjoy your stay at the troll motel.
If you wanted out of the thread, you could just go. No need to manufacture
an excuse.

jim
Dec 28 '07 #57
I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.
That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that
will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).
That's why I haven't started a new "Windows Application" in 5+ years. Web
apps, my man.
Those installable apps are restrigcting themselves when dealing with the
general public by their very nature.
So are your Win32 apps. They don't run on Macs, they don't run on linux,
they don't run on anything other than Windows machines.
What I was saying is that an executable of Paint .Net using Thinstall is
MUCH smaller than an installation of Paint .Net that requires the install
of the .Net framework.
And web apps require *NO* installation of any software whatsoever.
But, for my needs in writing and distributing software to the masses,
being able to distribute a single executable and not worry about having a
framework installed or having some other app overwrite my DLL or ActiveX
component with a newer version is a God-send.
For my needs, writing and not even having to distribute software is the real
God-send.

Dec 28 '07 #58
On Dec 27, 2:28*am, "jim" <j...@home.netwrote:
I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exes)
and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). *But, I'd like
something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as a
single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite. *It
would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end user
to have .Net installed or to install the application. *It also avoids DLL
and .Net Version Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should be
it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require per
copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim

There's ILMerge, but I don't know if that's precisely what you're
after.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
Dec 28 '07 #59
I suppose there are simply gonna be trade-offs depending on what you value
most.
That is 100% true. Use the right tool for the job.
I am looking into Adobe Air also. It seems to me that Microsoft missed
the boat with Click and Run apps when they locked down the functionality
based on where the .Net app was launched from.
MS is trying to balance security and functionality. In the past they favored
ease of use over security and enterprise users (and journalists, and linux
enthusiasts) have pointed fingers all along the way. Now they are focusing
on security and hobbyists and freelancers are upset. You can't please all of
the people all of the time.
>I predict that this internet thing is gonna be big.......

Probably. People will fall for most anything.
True again. :)

Dec 28 '07 #60
This means that your potential customer that is still on dial-up, the
25+MB .Net framework may never get downloaded so your apps are worthless
to them.
I don't know the details of Thinstall and/or Xenocode, I've only been
reading through this thread, but for this particular point to actually
support your position, you'd have to have your one-EXE program include:
- your app's own code
- the Thinstall/Xenocode code
- the .NET framework

....and all of these components together somehow would have to result in a
single file that's smaller than the 25MB .NET framework on its own...is that
correct?

And then as soon as you have another application that also uses
Thinstall/Xenocode, it would also have to include the same components
internally. IOW, a copy of .NET is wrapped up in every single application.

Please tell me this is not how it works.
Dec 29 '07 #61

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

55
by: jim | last post by:
I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any needed .Net parts) into a single exe. I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exes) and...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.