.NET client resource consumption

[Anthony P. Mancini]

I have to code a .NET application against a SQL Server
backend; clients are Win95 - 98 workstations with 32-64
MB of RAM. No plans to upgrade them. What is the
least optimal client environment for running the CLR ?
Although I understand the workstations are substandard
I still have to get decent performance. Is there less resource
consumption running a VC++ .NET solution as opposed to a
VB or C# solution ?

Thanks

Anthony

[Cor]

Hi Anthony,

If you not plan to upgrade the answer is very simple

There is no Net version that works on Win95

In this see some minimums in the bottom part of it
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...otnetfxref.asp

ManagedCode here a article about C++ and managedcode
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...anagedcode.asp
I hope this helps a little bit?

Cor

I have to code a .NET application against a SQL Server
backend; clients are Win95 - 98 workstations with 32-64
MB of RAM. No plans to upgrade them. What is the
least optimal client environment for running the CLR ?
Although I understand the workstations are substandard
I still have to get decent performance. Is there less resource
consumption running a VC++ .NET solution as opposed to a
VB or C# solution ?

[Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]]

Anthony,
In addition to Cor's comments.

If you want to use .NET, you may want to consider using either Terminal
Server or ASP.NET.

With ASP.NET the client will of course be using HTML.

With Terminal Server you can have a "richer" Windows Forms client, however
the code itself runs on a server, with the Terminal Server client running on
the desktops. Which would allow you to "run" Windows Forms apps indirectly
on Win 95, as Cor stated Win 95 does not support .NET directly...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...s/default.mspx

(Note terminal server is available for Windows NT & Windows 2000 also).

Unmanaged VC++ will of course run on Windows 95 with no problem...

Hope this helps
Jay

"Anthony P. Mancini" <ap*@e-mancini.com> wrote in message
news:um****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

I have to code a .NET application against a SQL Server
backend; clients are Win95 - 98 workstations with 32-64
MB of RAM. No plans to upgrade them. What is the
least optimal client environment for running the CLR ?
Although I understand the workstations are substandard
I still have to get decent performance. Is there less resource
consumption running a VC++ .NET solution as opposed to a
VB or C# solution ?

Thanks

Anthony

[Armin Zingler]

"Anthony P. Mancini" <ap*@e-mancini.com> schrieb

I have to code a .NET application against a SQL Server
backend; clients are Win95 - 98 workstations with 32-64
MB of RAM. No plans to upgrade them. What is the
least optimal client environment for running the CLR ?
Although I understand the workstations are substandard
I still have to get decent performance. Is there less resource
consumption running a VC++ .NET solution as opposed to a
VB or C# solution ?

As already mentioned, Win95 is not a plattform for the .NET Framework. It's
unsupported for 2 years and completely dead for 1 year:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.mspx
--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[Anthony P. Mancini]

Terminal Services is an option I had not considered. Does every user
connecting to the server get a dedicated connection ? I.E. suppose a
..NET application requires 32 MB RAM (I'm just guessing); so a user
base of of fifty users would require around 1.6 GB of RAM. (?) Or
does the hardware designated as the Terminal Server share server
side processing resources ?

Anthony

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Anthony,
In addition to Cor's comments.

If you want to use .NET, you may want to consider using either Terminal
Server or ASP.NET.

With ASP.NET the client will of course be using HTML.

With Terminal Server you can have a "richer" Windows Forms client, however
the code itself runs on a server, with the Terminal Server client running on the desktops. Which would allow you to "run" Windows Forms apps indirectly
on Win 95, as Cor stated Win 95 does not support .NET directly...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...s/default.mspx
(Note terminal server is available for Windows NT & Windows 2000 also).

Unmanaged VC++ will of course run on Windows 95 with no problem...

Hope this helps
Jay

"Anthony P. Mancini" <ap*@e-mancini.com> wrote in message
news:um****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

I have to code a .NET application against a SQL Server
backend; clients are Win95 - 98 workstations with 32-64
MB of RAM. No plans to upgrade them. What is the
least optimal client environment for running the CLR ?
Although I understand the workstations are substandard
I still have to get decent performance. Is there less resource
consumption running a VC++ .NET solution as opposed to a
VB or C# solution ?

Thanks

Anthony

[Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]]

Anthony,
I have only used Terminal Services from the user side.

I understand that each user has their own "virtual pc" on the server, so yes
you would need either enough physical or virtual RAM to support 50 users.

Again I have not configured Terminal Services so I am just "guessing"...

Hope this helps
Jay

"Anthony P. Mancini" <ap*@e-mancini.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Terminal Services is an option I had not considered. Does every user
connecting to the server get a dedicated connection ? I.E. suppose a
.NET application requires 32 MB RAM (I'm just guessing); so a user
base of of fifty users would require around 1.6 GB of RAM. (?) Or
does the hardware designated as the Terminal Server share server
side processing resources ?

Anthony

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Anthony,
In addition to Cor's comments.

If you want to use .NET, you may want to consider using either Terminal
Server or ASP.NET.

With ASP.NET the client will of course be using HTML.

With Terminal Server you can have a "richer" Windows Forms client, however the code itself runs on a server, with the Terminal Server client running

on

the desktops. Which would allow you to "run" Windows Forms apps

indirectly on Win 95, as Cor stated Win 95 does not support .NET directly...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...s/default.mspx

(Note terminal server is available for Windows NT & Windows 2000 also).

Unmanaged VC++ will of course run on Windows 95 with no problem...

Hope this helps
Jay

"Anthony P. Mancini" <ap*@e-mancini.com> wrote in message
news:um****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

I have to code a .NET application against a SQL Server
backend; clients are Win95 - 98 workstations with 32-64
MB of RAM. No plans to upgrade them. What is the
least optimal client environment for running the CLR ?
Although I understand the workstations are substandard
I still have to get decent performance. Is there less resource
consumption running a VC++ .NET solution as opposed to a
VB or C# solution ?

Thanks

Anthony

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Anthony P. Mancini" <ap*@e-mancini.com> scripsit:

I have to code a .NET application against a SQL Server
backend; clients are Win95 - 98 workstations with 32-64
MB of RAM. No plans to upgrade them. What is the
least optimal client environment for running the CLR ?
"Forget that."

..NET applications won't run on Windows 95, they require at least 90 MB
RAM.

System Requirements for .NET Framework 1.1 and .NET Framework SDK 1.1:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/productinfo/sysreqs/default.aspx>
I still have to get decent performance. Is there less resource
consumption running a VC++ .NET solution as opposed to a
VB or C# solution ?

No. Every .NET solution will require the .NET Framework. Only an
"unmanaged"/classic C++ solution or, for example, a VB6 application,
will have lower requirements.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[Rob Teixeira [MVP]]

> Unmanaged VC++ will of course run on Windows 95 with no problem...

Yes, but VC++ .NET (which I'm taking Anthony means Managed VC++, after all,
you will lose all the .NET framework without it) will also not run under
Windows 95. Additionally, some of the .NET framework relies on core system
DLL functionality, and there are numerous .NET classes that do not work
under Windows 98. I just want to set Anthonies expectations before he tries
anything.

Anthony, I realize this isn't what you want to hear, but..
And please don't take this as a sales pitch, but from a purly technical
perspective, XP is more than worth the price of admission. MS even has an
Open Value plan now that allows you to pay for the upgraded version over a
period of three years (so you don't have to cough up all the money at once)
provided you have at least five copies.

-Rob Teixeira [MVP]