Install with no Framework??

[BobAchgill]

I noticed a Free ware CDBurnerXP Pro 3 that boasts
having changed over to VB .Net on his latest release. I
downloaded the 15MB install file. Before I loaded it I
uninstalled my .Net Framework. Then I installed his
VB .Net CD burner. It worked fine with out .Net
Framework!

Does this mean that there is a way to distribute VB .Net
applications such that the user does not need to
have .Net Framework installed? Is there a third party
installer that helps to do this?

Bob

[Cor Ligthert]

Bob,

There is a third party Framework splitter, what makes from the Net a kind of
runtimers.

I have not yet seen something written about how that acts when more dotNet
programs are used with more of those split Net parts. I am interested in
that, this for when somebody starts answering you on this about that.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Bob,

There is a third party Framework splitter, what makes from the Net a kind of
runtimers.

I have not yet seen something written about how that acts when more dotNet
programs are used with more of those split Net parts. I am interested in
that, this for when somebody starts answering you on this about that.

Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"BobAchgill" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb:

I noticed a Free ware CDBurnerXP Pro 3 that boasts
having changed over to VB .Net on his latest release. I
downloaded the 15MB install file. Before I loaded it I
uninstalled my .Net Framework. Then I installed his
VB .Net CD burner. It worked fine with out .Net
Framework!

Does this mean that there is a way to distribute VB .Net
applications such that the user does not need to
have .Net Framework installed? Is there a third party
installer that helps to do this?

Maybe a tool like Thinstall was used:

<URL:http://thinstall.com/help/index.html?linking_netframework.htm>

I think Thinstall might be useful in some very special situations, but I
would not use it in general.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"BobAchgill" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb:

I noticed a Free ware CDBurnerXP Pro 3 that boasts
having changed over to VB .Net on his latest release. I
downloaded the 15MB install file. Before I loaded it I
uninstalled my .Net Framework. Then I installed his
VB .Net CD burner. It worked fine with out .Net
Framework!

Does this mean that there is a way to distribute VB .Net
applications such that the user does not need to
have .Net Framework installed? Is there a third party
installer that helps to do this?

Maybe a tool like Thinstall was used:

<URL:http://thinstall.com/help/index.html?linking_netframework.htm>

I think Thinstall might be useful in some very special situations, but I
would not use it in general.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[J L]

Also very very expensive. I was quoted $4000 PER APPLICATION!!

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:34:09 +0100, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:

"BobAchgill" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb:

I noticed a Free ware CDBurnerXP Pro 3 that boasts
having changed over to VB .Net on his latest release. I
downloaded the 15MB install file. Before I loaded it I
uninstalled my .Net Framework. Then I installed his
VB .Net CD burner. It worked fine with out .Net
Framework!

Does this mean that there is a way to distribute VB .Net
applications such that the user does not need to
have .Net Framework installed? Is there a third party
installer that helps to do this?

Maybe a tool like Thinstall was used:

<URL:http://thinstall.com/help/index.html?linking_netframework.htm>

I think Thinstall might be useful in some very special situations, but I
would not use it in general.

[- HAL9000]

They have the ".NET native compiler" that sounds like it does what
your asking about. I've never used it, just saw the web page.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:45:21 -0800, "BobAchgill"
<an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

I noticed a Free ware CDBurnerXP Pro 3 that boasts
having changed over to VB .Net on his latest release. I
downloaded the 15MB install file. Before I loaded it I
uninstalled my .Net Framework. Then I installed his
VB .Net CD burner. It worked fine with out .Net
Framework!

Does this mean that there is a way to distribute VB .Net
applications such that the user does not need to
have .Net Framework installed? Is there a third party
installer that helps to do this?

Bob

[BobAchgill]

Have you seen this? It's cheaper. I wonder if Thinstall licensed
their tech and just added the new features of virtual data and provided
encryption. Then put a bigger price tag on it.
Salamander .NET Linker and Mini-Deployment Tool
Deploy .NET w/o Framework
http://www.remotesoft.com/linker/intro.html

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"BobAchgill" <Bo********@hotmail.com> schrieb:

Have you seen this? It's cheaper. I wonder if Thinstall licensed
their tech and just added the new features of virtual data and provided
encryption. Then put a bigger price tag on it.

I still would not use this tool because it undermines the whole concept
behind .NET. I didn't dig deeper into license agreements and legal
situation, but I doubt that Microsoft allows static linking of .NET
framework components/classes.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Clay Nichols]

I had this concern too and spoke to Jamie Cool (VStudio
program manager for Microsof) and asked what he thought
of the static linkers (REmote Soft and Thinstall).

He said that there are PHDs at MS that want to make sure
that we update the .net framework, so they don't like
the linkers.

HOWEVER, Jamie said he thought they were a fine solution
to the .net problem.

Here's the irony: if I can't static link, then I'm goign
to build on .net 1.1 and never upgrade. I'll wait for
the world to catch up to 1.1.

But if I can static link, I'll use the latest .net
technology in my app (which is safer, at least for my
app).

In article <O5**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
hi***************@gmx.at says...

"BobAchgill" <Bo********@hotmail.com> schrieb:
I still would not use this tool because it undermines the whole concept
behind .NET. I didn't dig deeper into license agreements and legal
situation, but I doubt that Microsoft allows static linking of .NET
framework components/classes.

[Brian Patterson]

I've used one of these and it worked just fine. The thing I noticed though
is that you may as well install the framework because it was distributing
just ad many files as the framework was. The product I used was by
RemoteSoft - you can see a link to it at the top of my site.

Brian Patterson

http://dotnet.redeyepos.com

"BobAchgill" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1d****************************@phx.gbl...

I noticed a Free ware CDBurnerXP Pro 3 that boasts
having changed over to VB .Net on his latest release. I
downloaded the 15MB install file. Before I loaded it I
uninstalled my .Net Framework. Then I installed his
VB .Net CD burner. It worked fine with out .Net
Framework!

Does this mean that there is a way to distribute VB .Net
applications such that the user does not need to
have .Net Framework installed? Is there a third party
installer that helps to do this?

Bob

[BobAchgill]

Brian,

That is the same tool that I was wanting to see if anyone had tried. I
mean the one from remotesoft. (Salamander is what they call it.)

Salamander .NET Linker and Mini-Deployment Tool
Deploy .NET w/o Framework
http://www.remotesoft.com/linker/intro.html

Do mind me asking "How big was your executable after it packed up all
the necessary Framework with it?

I have allot of COM stuff that I am using in my VB .Net program so I am
wondering if that will make the EXE grow even more and more. Was your
program very involved with using allot of COM addins?? My assumption
is that Salamander by RemoteSoft will just pack in all those
dependencies into the EXE???

These are all the things I am using in my app. Do you think Remote
soft will pack all these in into one EXE nicely??
- integrated IE browser Active X components
- Flash COM
- MDAC - Jet (to support access to reading MDB files)
- Media player 9.x Com for playing MP3 files and showing visualizations
- .Net 1.1

I am not for or against loading Framework. I will have users who will
love my program updates that only take 20 seconds to update over dial
up because new releases are only 150K (for those getting the version
without Framework packed into the EXE). And i will have users who are
glad that they can run straight from a CD or a download in a Internet
Cafe where they don't have priviledges to install Framework (for those
getting the version with Framwork packed into the EXE). To get the
win-win I guess I will deliver my code from my web site in both flavors
- with and without Framework packed in.

Do you think Salamander will do the trick for me with all the addin
technology I am using in my program??

[Brian Patterson]

Yes - works like a charm - but like I said - you still have to distribute a
lot of files...

"BobAchgill" <Bo********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Brian,

That is the same tool that I was wanting to see if anyone had tried. I
mean the one from remotesoft. (Salamander is what they call it.)

Salamander .NET Linker and Mini-Deployment Tool
Deploy .NET w/o Framework
http://www.remotesoft.com/linker/intro.html

Do mind me asking "How big was your executable after it packed up all
the necessary Framework with it?

I have allot of COM stuff that I am using in my VB .Net program so I am
wondering if that will make the EXE grow even more and more. Was your
program very involved with using allot of COM addins?? My assumption
is that Salamander by RemoteSoft will just pack in all those
dependencies into the EXE???

These are all the things I am using in my app. Do you think Remote
soft will pack all these in into one EXE nicely??
- integrated IE browser Active X components
- Flash COM
- MDAC - Jet (to support access to reading MDB files)
- Media player 9.x Com for playing MP3 files and showing visualizations
- .Net 1.1

I am not for or against loading Framework. I will have users who will
love my program updates that only take 20 seconds to update over dial
up because new releases are only 150K (for those getting the version
without Framework packed into the EXE). And i will have users who are
glad that they can run straight from a CD or a download in a Internet
Cafe where they don't have priviledges to install Framework (for those
getting the version with Framwork packed into the EXE). To get the
win-win I guess I will deliver my code from my web site in both flavors
- with and without Framework packed in.

Do you think Salamander will do the trick for me with all the addin
technology I am using in my program??

[Clay Nichols]

"you may as well install the framework because it was distributing
just ad many files as the framework was."

It would be interesting to know what made your app so much bigger. The
remotesoft demo (squiggle or something .... a drawing program) is about
6 MB, and my understanding was that the GUI stuff was what adds a lot to
the app (i.e., command line apps generate a smaller linked file).
Again... all of this is my *understanding* . Haven't tried it yet.

ANYWAY...
You also have the benefit of NOT needing an ADMIN account to install the
software. So, our potential customers don't need an admin account to
install a trial. This is a big issue in Australia, where the hospitals
(my distributor tells me) all have non admin accounts and can't install
trial software if it needs admin privledges.

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

[Clay Nichols]

"The thing I noticed though
is that you may as well install the framework because it was
distributing
just ad many files as the framework was"

Brian,

How big were the files that Salamander added to your app?
Was that uncompressed size or compressed size?
(.net is always quoted at 25MB or so but that is COMPRESSED size.
Uncompressed is a lot bigger... I think about 40 MB).

ANOTHER OPTION
In addition to remotesoft and thinstall, there is a THIRD company
offering this sort of thing. Linking seems to be a secondary feature for
them, but it's there. Always nice to have options, also indicates that
this is a viable alternative (i.e., MS hasn't sued them yet for allowing
..net deployment linked.)
http://www.xenocode.com/en/Product-Features.aspx
Cost is close to remotesoft pricing than the pricey thinstall.

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!