469,326 Members | 1,359 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Stand Alone EXE

I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE program
in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another language would
be ok. Thanks for the assistance
Nov 21 '05 #1
151 4957

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE program
in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another language
would be ok. Thanks for the assistance


Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
..EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET Framework
installed, but it's a single .EXE file.
Nov 21 '05 #2

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:Ox**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE
program in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another
language would be ok. Thanks for the assistance


Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
.EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET Framework
installed, but it's a single .EXE file.


Or, you can use Thinstall to wrap the exe and only the portions of the .Net
framework that it uses into a single executable that can be run on any
computer - with or without the .Net framework installed.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #3
Thank you very much Jim! Would you be able to give me some direction on how
to use this application to wrap my applications into working? Preferably I
would like to just release a single .EXE program simply because its such a
small program it doesn't warrant a whole 20 meg package to get it working.
Thank you so much fo ryour assistance
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Ir********************@giganews.com...

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:Ox**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE
program in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another
language would be ok. Thanks for the assistance


Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
.EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET Framework
installed, but it's a single .EXE file.


Or, you can use Thinstall to wrap the exe and only the portions of the
.Net framework that it uses into a single executable that can be run on
any computer - with or without the .Net framework installed.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #4
J L
Hi Jim,
Have you used Thinstall? If so, how much did it cost? And what is your
opinion of it?

TIA,
John

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:11:54 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:Ox**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE
program in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another
language would be ok. Thanks for the assistance


Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
.EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET Framework
installed, but it's a single .EXE file.


Or, you can use Thinstall to wrap the exe and only the portions of the .Net
framework that it uses into a single executable that can be run on any
computer - with or without the .Net framework installed.

Jim Hubbard


Nov 21 '05 #5

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
Thank you very much Jim! Would you be able to give me some direction on
how to use this application to wrap my applications into working?
Preferably I would like to just release a single .EXE program simply
because its such a small program it doesn't warrant a whole 20 meg package
to get it working. Thank you so much fo ryour assistance
After you create your application, you run Thinstall and point it to your
exe. Thinstall then finds all related files and portions of the .Net
framework that your EXE needs and wraps the whole thing into a single EXE
that can be run without installation. This helps in a couple of ways....

First, you never have your application's files overwritten (i.e. DLL Hell).
Second, your users don't need administrative rights to run the application.
Third, your users don't need the .Net framework installed.

Thinstall even creates a virtual registry on-the-fly that your application
uses so that there are no changes to the users registry.

Of course Thinstall can be programmed to make permanent registry entries and
even to leave files on the users system (such as database files or image
files that your app may create). Thinstall also handles licensing for you.
It's really all up to you.

Thinstall is used by a huge host of companies (like Quickbooks), government
agencies and every branch of the armed forces.

I haven't talked to Jonathon Clark (President of Thinstall) in a few weeks.
The last time we talked, he had mentioned that they were working on a new
pricing scheme to be more flexible for small companies and large. So, I am
not sure what the pricing structure is right now.

Whatever it is, you can get an extra 5% off by mentioning jim__hubbard @
hotmail . com . Tell Jonathon I sent you. He's a great guy and his staff
are very helpful. www.thinstall.com

Hope this helps......


"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Ir********************@giganews.com...

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:Ox**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE
program in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another
language would be ok. Thanks for the assistance

Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
.EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET
Framework installed, but it's a single .EXE file.


Or, you can use Thinstall to wrap the exe and only the portions of the
.Net framework that it uses into a single executable that can be run on
any computer - with or without the .Net framework installed.

Jim Hubbard


Nov 21 '05 #6

"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:ja********************************@4ax.com...
Hi Jim,
Have you used Thinstall? If so, how much did it cost? And what is your
opinion of it?
The pricing structure has changed. You'd have to contact Thinstall
(www.thinstall.com) for current pricing. But, you can get an extra 5% off
if you mention code jim__hubbard @ hotmail . com (remove the sp@ces).

I definitely use it. It's great! No worries about distributing the .Net
framework.

Actually.....distributing the .Net framework is more of a bandwidth thing
than a real problem. The problem comes in when the user tries to install
the .Net framework. Unless you are on a completely clean PC, installing the
..Net framework can be problematic. Then your customers are calling you for
support with a Microsoft product and that just sucks.

With the Thinstall EXE, all they have to do is double click it and they are
off and running (unless you configure Thinstall to handle licensing - in
which case they need to enter the appropriate keys to register the
software).

It is the coolest, (somewhat unknown) application out there for developers.

I wouldn't distribute .Net apps without it.

One more thing.......Net applications in a Thinstall EXE are safe against
ildasm (disassembling) and don't need obfuscators to keep your code
fromprying eyes. This is what originally sold me on Thinstall.

I wrote some about it a while back on my blog at
http://poderthis.blogspot.com/.

Hope this helps!

Jim Hubbard

TIA,
John

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:11:54 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:Ox**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE
program in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another
language would be ok. Thanks for the assistance

Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
.EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET
Framework
installed, but it's a single .EXE file.


Or, you can use Thinstall to wrap the exe and only the portions of the
.Net
framework that it uses into a single executable that can be run on any
computer - with or without the .Net framework installed.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #7
Jim,
The problem comes in when the user tries to install the .Net framework.
Unless you are on a completely clean PC, installing the .Net framework can
be problematic. Then your customers are calling you for support with a
Microsoft product and that just sucks.

I can me not remember that I ever heard about what you wrote above in any
newsgroup I am active in..

Can you give some samples for situations where you have got those.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #8
David,

What you ask now is endless asked times before in these newsgroups.

Be aware that the Net framework is in fact nothing more than a
servicepack/extension over the OS, what could be made by any vendor of
operating systems to let the programs made with the ILS language run and
provide with that extra's as by instance better memorymanagement.

A lot of us have had in past more than once problems with different runtimes
for more versions of a language.

That is gone with NET

When you want a real small program, than there is in Visual Studio Net the
C++ unmanaged code part for things as drivers etc.

I hope this helps,

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #9
Cor,

It is a shame that they did not think it was an important part of
programming. For large, complicated programs then a package distribution
such as that is the way to go, but for small programs (i.e. notepad) there
should be the option to compile a stand alone .EXE file. However I have
recently learnt of a 3rd party application ('Thinstall') which will perform
this task for you. Thanks for your help
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eq*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
David,

What you ask now is endless asked times before in these newsgroups.

Be aware that the Net framework is in fact nothing more than a
servicepack/extension over the OS, what could be made by any vendor of
operating systems to let the programs made with the ILS language run and
provide with that extra's as by instance better memorymanagement.

A lot of us have had in past more than once problems with different
runtimes for more versions of a language.

That is gone with NET

When you want a real small program, than there is in Visual Studio Net the
C++ unmanaged code part for things as drivers etc.

I hope this helps,

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #10
David,

I think that you did not read my message. When that is not enough, read the
concept of the Net. It is not something of one minute thinking. There is as
well done things as I wrote to overcome all things from runtimes with
different versions.

When you add something as ThinInstall, than that is not a single running
Exe. Which in fact don't exist since the time of windows for screen
operations. It only still exist for things as commandline and driver
operations on Win32 systems.

A program that uses a window (form) can never be a small exe when there is
not something used as now a OS extension as Net or a runtime.

The ones who insert in those programs direct handling of the window, do
remind me on those people who in the beginning of MS-Dos were using direct
screen handling by the OS (pseudo mem) addresses for that. That has given
the most problems when Windows started to keep those programs running and
where the first programs from which was told that they would not go anymore.

The reason for the developers of that was that than they could keep the
programs small and that those were faster. They found themselves very clever
guys. But professionals (than and now most) called those guys fools.

It is a shame that some developers do only one minute thinking.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #11
If it is not possible to have a small EXE program which includes a form then
how is notepad only 68kb? It includes several forms and depends only on the
windows system behind it. There is a difference between 'minute thingking'
and weighing the possabilities.

For small, simple programs it is often worth while to add a little bit extra
size onto the file and have it take a little bit longer to load to keep it a
stand alone. After all, its still a small program, and still loads in what
is a very usable time frame.

You can't just optimise all the time at the expense of usability and
distribution. If people had to download the 22 meg .NET framework to
download a program to read RTF files they would not get it. But if the
program takes a few extra seconds to load ands takes up an extra meg on
their hard drive it is much more user friendly.

From what I can understand the THInstall program simply moves the API
functions calls from the .NET framework into your EXE program. The program
maintains its functionality on Windows 98 and above irrespective of if the
..NET framework is installed and if so which version.
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OF**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
David,

I think that you did not read my message. When that is not enough, read
the concept of the Net. It is not something of one minute thinking. There
is as well done things as I wrote to overcome all things from runtimes
with different versions.

When you add something as ThinInstall, than that is not a single running
Exe. Which in fact don't exist since the time of windows for screen
operations. It only still exist for things as commandline and driver
operations on Win32 systems.

A program that uses a window (form) can never be a small exe when there is
not something used as now a OS extension as Net or a runtime.

The ones who insert in those programs direct handling of the window, do
remind me on those people who in the beginning of MS-Dos were using direct
screen handling by the OS (pseudo mem) addresses for that. That has given
the most problems when Windows started to keep those programs running and
where the first programs from which was told that they would not go
anymore.

The reason for the developers of that was that than they could keep the
programs small and that those were faster. They found themselves very
clever guys. But professionals (than and now most) called those guys
fools.

It is a shame that some developers do only one minute thinking.

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #12
Cor..

You used...?

mov ah,09
int 21h

or...

mov ah,..
int 10h

or
mov es,video_segment
mov di,
....

The speed differences where abismal!

Of course it caused problems for windows (At least with 8086 and 80286), but
the OS should have provided a decent video output routine! Anyway, text
based output was so fast that a complete screen redraw would only take
4kbytes, so even for windows that wasnt a big deal.

Regards,
Alejandro Lapeyre
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> escribió en el mensaje
news:OF**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
David,

I think that you did not read my message. When that is not enough, read
the concept of the Net. It is not something of one minute thinking. There
is as well done things as I wrote to overcome all things from runtimes
with different versions.

When you add something as ThinInstall, than that is not a single running
Exe. Which in fact don't exist since the time of windows for screen
operations. It only still exist for things as commandline and driver
operations on Win32 systems.

A program that uses a window (form) can never be a small exe when there is
not something used as now a OS extension as Net or a runtime.

The ones who insert in those programs direct handling of the window, do
remind me on those people who in the beginning of MS-Dos were using direct
screen handling by the OS (pseudo mem) addresses for that. That has given
the most problems when Windows started to keep those programs running and
where the first programs from which was told that they would not go
anymore.

The reason for the developers of that was that than they could keep the
programs small and that those were faster. They found themselves very
clever guys. But professionals (than and now most) called those guys
fools.

It is a shame that some developers do only one minute thinking.

Cor

Nov 21 '05 #13
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> schrieb:
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE
program in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another
language would be ok. Thanks for the assistance


Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
.EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET Framework
installed, but it's a single .EXE file.


Note that all components used by the application must be available on the
target machine too.

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

Nov 21 '05 #14

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
If it is not possible to have a small EXE program which includes a form
then how is notepad only 68kb? It includes several forms and depends only
on the windows system behind it. There is a difference between 'minute
thingking' and weighing the possabilities.

For small, simple programs it is often worth while to add a little bit
extra size onto the file and have it take a little bit longer to load to
keep it a stand alone. After all, its still a small program, and still
loads in what is a very usable time frame.

You can't just optimise all the time at the expense of usability and
distribution. If people had to download the 22 meg .NET framework to
download a program to read RTF files they would not get it.
And, presently they may have to download the .Net Framework up to 3 times
(1.0, 1.1 and 2.0) to run all .Net applications because none of the
frameworks are backwards compatible with it's siblings! We have simply
swapped DLL Hell for .Net Framework Hell.

Since you cannot know what version of .Net your user may have (if any) you
must ship the .Net runtime with all of your applications (or use Thinstall
to wrap them).

It simply amazes me that Microsoft did not make .Net exes automatically
download only the portions of the .Net runtime they need (from Microsoft) to
run. A program written in .Net and stored on an internet server will do
this. It only downloads the DLLs it requires for the functionality that the
user is attempting to use. So why not have it do the same for the whole
damned framework?

A second thing that just boggles my mind is why the .Net framework is not a
"Critical" update for XP+. If Microsoft is moving to this platform, then it
is needed on every Windows desktop. Why don't they make it a critical
update and force it onto the desktops?

Then we could ship very tiny applications because we would not need to ship
the runtimes. And, that whole XCOPY thing they were so high on might
actually work. As it stands you cannot rely on Xcopy to distribute an
application because you cannot rely on the correct (if any) .Net framework
to be on the end user's PC.
But if the program takes a few extra seconds to load ands takes up an extra
meg on their hard drive it is much more user friendly.


Thinstall apps are still a lot larger than a simple exe output from .Net. I
did an experiment with Washington University's .Net rewrite of the classic
Paint program. If you downloaded the .Net framework and the code needed to
run Paint 2.0 it added up to over 27 MB. The same application compiled with
Thinstall was just over 14 MB and needed no installation, needed no
administrator privikeges, and will never have its files overwritten or
corrupted because they are all inside the Thinstall EXE.

Why didn't Microsoft think of this? They have seen and used Thinstall, and
even spoke well of it.

Nov 21 '05 #15

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> schrieb:
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE
program in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another
language would be ok. Thanks for the assistance


Yes. Visual Studio programs (VB, C#, etc.) normally compile to a single
.EXE file. This file will only run on computers that have .NET Framework
installed, but it's a single .EXE file.


Note that all components used by the application must be available on the
target machine too.


Thinstall takes care of this too.

With Thinstall this is not an issue.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #16
Notepad requires a runtime of sorts, and probably a load of libraries. Hook
a debugger up to it and see how many libraries load. The overhead is hidden
because they're generally already present, as will be the case with the .NET
framework at some point in the future. Things like Thinstall do definitely
have advantages, but if a bug crops up in a .NET component, how do you patch
it? You need to tell your users (it becomes a problem in YOUR code, rather
than the framework) rather than letting them just get updates via Windows
Update etc.

Steve

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
If it is not possible to have a small EXE program which includes a form
then how is notepad only 68kb? It includes several forms and depends only
on the windows system behind it. There is a difference between 'minute
thingking' and weighing the possabilities.

For small, simple programs it is often worth while to add a little bit
extra size onto the file and have it take a little bit longer to load to
keep it a stand alone. After all, its still a small program, and still
loads in what is a very usable time frame.

You can't just optimise all the time at the expense of usability and
distribution. If people had to download the 22 meg .NET framework to
download a program to read RTF files they would not get it. But if the
program takes a few extra seconds to load ands takes up an extra meg on
their hard drive it is much more user friendly.

From what I can understand the THInstall program simply moves the API
functions calls from the .NET framework into your EXE program. The program
maintains its functionality on Windows 98 and above irrespective of if the
.NET framework is installed and if so which version.
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OF**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
David,

I think that you did not read my message. When that is not enough, read
the concept of the Net. It is not something of one minute thinking. There
is as well done things as I wrote to overcome all things from runtimes
with different versions.

When you add something as ThinInstall, than that is not a single running
Exe. Which in fact don't exist since the time of windows for screen
operations. It only still exist for things as commandline and driver
operations on Win32 systems.

A program that uses a window (form) can never be a small exe when there
is not something used as now a OS extension as Net or a runtime.

The ones who insert in those programs direct handling of the window, do
remind me on those people who in the beginning of MS-Dos were using
direct screen handling by the OS (pseudo mem) addresses for that. That
has given the most problems when Windows started to keep those programs
running and where the first programs from which was told that they would
not go anymore.

The reason for the developers of that was that than they could keep the
programs small and that those were faster. They found themselves very
clever guys. But professionals (than and now most) called those guys
fools.

It is a shame that some developers do only one minute thinking.

Cor


Nov 21 '05 #17
Notepad uses windows components, which if they don't exist almost no
programs will work, so they can be taken as written as a part of windows. So
if notepad only uses windows components, it doesnt count as a required
library as its a part of the OS.
"Steve McLellan" <sjm AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:uz**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Notepad requires a runtime of sorts, and probably a load of libraries.
Hook a debugger up to it and see how many libraries load. The overhead is
hidden because they're generally already present, as will be the case with
the .NET framework at some point in the future. Things like Thinstall do
definitely have advantages, but if a bug crops up in a .NET component, how
do you patch it? You need to tell your users (it becomes a problem in YOUR
code, rather than the framework) rather than letting them just get updates
via Windows Update etc.

Steve

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
If it is not possible to have a small EXE program which includes a form
then how is notepad only 68kb? It includes several forms and depends only
on the windows system behind it. There is a difference between 'minute
thingking' and weighing the possabilities.

For small, simple programs it is often worth while to add a little bit
extra size onto the file and have it take a little bit longer to load to
keep it a stand alone. After all, its still a small program, and still
loads in what is a very usable time frame.

You can't just optimise all the time at the expense of usability and
distribution. If people had to download the 22 meg .NET framework to
download a program to read RTF files they would not get it. But if the
program takes a few extra seconds to load ands takes up an extra meg on
their hard drive it is much more user friendly.

From what I can understand the THInstall program simply moves the API
functions calls from the .NET framework into your EXE program. The
program maintains its functionality on Windows 98 and above irrespective
of if the .NET framework is installed and if so which version.
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OF**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
David,

I think that you did not read my message. When that is not enough, read
the concept of the Net. It is not something of one minute thinking.
There is as well done things as I wrote to overcome all things from
runtimes with different versions.

When you add something as ThinInstall, than that is not a single running
Exe. Which in fact don't exist since the time of windows for screen
operations. It only still exist for things as commandline and driver
operations on Win32 systems.

A program that uses a window (form) can never be a small exe when there
is not something used as now a OS extension as Net or a runtime.

The ones who insert in those programs direct handling of the window, do
remind me on those people who in the beginning of MS-Dos were using
direct screen handling by the OS (pseudo mem) addresses for that. That
has given the most problems when Windows started to keep those programs
running and where the first programs from which was told that they would
not go anymore.

The reason for the developers of that was that than they could keep the
programs small and that those were faster. They found themselves very
clever guys. But professionals (than and now most) called those guys
fools.

It is a shame that some developers do only one minute thinking.

Cor



Nov 21 '05 #18
David,
Notepad uses windows components, which if they don't exist almost no
programs will work, so they can be taken as written as a part of windows.
So if notepad only uses windows components, it doesn't count as a required
library as its a part of the OS.


Exactly as I wrote already is the Microsoft Net framework an extension to
the Windows OS, in the same way as that can be with another vendors OS. It
is as I wrote a kind of servicepack not a stand alone solution (reread my
first answer for that).

You have given with this message a good sample why using the Net is better
than all kind of separated runtimes or other of this kind of solutions.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #19

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:lq********************@giganews.com...
First, you never have your application's files overwritten (i.e. DLL
Hell). Second, your users don't need administrative rights to run the
application. Third, your users don't need the .Net framework installed.


Only the third of these is different from normal life with .NET Framework,
as far as I can tell...

But it sounds useful.
Nov 21 '05 #20
I went to the Thinstall site and they sure make it complicated just to
get a trial or even pricing! Normally when a company wants to sell
something, they make it as simple as possible.

For example, they as for company information with web address. What if
I am an independent user and dont have a company web address?

Why do they want my phone number? I don't want a sales person to call
me. But you cant download the trial or even get the price without
providing all this information.

It looks like a cool product but I don't like jumping through hoops to
get it.

Chris

Nov 21 '05 #21
Scratch that! I can't even get a trial because my email address (at
sbcglobal.net) is rejected! Even though this is a national ISP!

Nov 21 '05 #22
J L
Hi Jim,
I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from
Jonathan:
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00

That is outrageous. For those who dont believe it, here is the link he
sent me to get that pricing

https://thinstall.com/store/index.php

He definetly needs to rethink his pricing structure! I do agree with
all you are saying. Thinstall's philosophy is the right way to go for
XCOPY to really work and they could make a killing if they set thier
price points correctly. I am a single developer creating custom
applications for some fairly large food processors. No way can I
afford that price. A few hundred dollars and it is tempting. I believe
Jonathan should rethink the possible/probable price/volume curve if he
did price this aggressively...let's see, how many millions of .Net
programmers?...

John


I haven't talked to Jonathon Clark (President of Thinstall) in a few weeks.
The last time we talked, he had mentioned that they were working on a new
pricing scheme to be more flexible for small companies and large. So, I am
not sure what the pricing structure is right now.

Whatever it is, you can get an extra 5% off by mentioning jim__hubbard @
hotmail . com . Tell Jonathon I sent you. He's a great guy and his staff
are very helpful. www.thinstall.com


Nov 21 '05 #23
J L wrote:
Hi Jim,
I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from
Jonathan:
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00

That is outrageous. For those who dont believe it, here is the link he
sent me to get that pricing

https://thinstall.com/store/index.php


Holy crap! That is some price increase! I bought it about 18 months ago
for $795 if I remember right. Just renewed it for another year of
upgrades for $300ish in December, too.

He needs to license per developer, that way the little guy can use it
and he can still hit up the big guys for a lot of money.

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #24
Either that or some of us smart guys can develop our own single package
installer and undercut the competition.

Brett

"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:3v********************************@4ax.com...
Hi Jim,
I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from
Jonathan:
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00

That is outrageous. For those who dont believe it, here is the link he
sent me to get that pricing

https://thinstall.com/store/index.php

He definetly needs to rethink his pricing structure! I do agree with
all you are saying. Thinstall's philosophy is the right way to go for
XCOPY to really work and they could make a killing if they set thier
price points correctly. I am a single developer creating custom
applications for some fairly large food processors. No way can I
afford that price. A few hundred dollars and it is tempting. I believe
Jonathan should rethink the possible/probable price/volume curve if he
did price this aggressively...let's see, how many millions of .Net
programmers?...

John


I haven't talked to Jonathon Clark (President of Thinstall) in a few
weeks.
The last time we talked, he had mentioned that they were working on a new
pricing scheme to be more flexible for small companies and large. So, I
am
not sure what the pricing structure is right now.

Whatever it is, you can get an extra 5% off by mentioning jim__hubbard @
hotmail . com . Tell Jonathon I sent you. He's a great guy and his staff
are very helpful. www.thinstall.com

Nov 21 '05 #25
Yeah - the site is very convoluted. This product isn't for single
developers either. Read previous thread on pricing.

Brett

"Chris Dunaway" <du******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Scratch that! I can't even get a trial because my email address (at
sbcglobal.net) is rejected! Even though this is a national ISP!

Nov 21 '05 #26
Brett wrote:
Either that or some of us smart guys can develop our own single package
installer and undercut the competition.

Brett


The lack of competition is probably exactly what has driving the cost of
Thinstall up..

Your idea sure isn't a bad one! I could see something just to bundle the
..NET libraries around an executable as a MAJOR seller to .NET
developers. Obviously no trivial task, but certainly possible.
--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #27

"Steve McLellan" <sjm AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:uz**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Notepad requires a runtime of sorts, and probably a load of libraries.
Hook a debugger up to it and see how many libraries load. The overhead is
hidden because they're generally already present, as will be the case with
the .NET framework at some point in the future. Things like Thinstall do
definitely have advantages, but if a bug crops up in a .NET component, how
do you patch it? You need to tell your users (it becomes a problem in YOUR
code, rather than the framework) rather than letting them just get updates
via Windows Update etc.


If you product doesn't work, they are going to blame you anyway.

That's how customers are (and should be, if you think about it logically).
Most aren't programmers, or even all that technically literate. If they
click on your program's icon, they expect it to work. If it doesn't, your
product sucks (in their eyes).

They don't care why it doesn't work. And they have been given the
run-around so much (the PC maker blames Windows, Microsoft blames a driver
manufacturer, the diver manufacturer can't be found......the PC user is
still screwed and now just more angry) that they don't want to hear that
it's someone else's fault. They just want it to work.

Cool thing about a Thinstall app is that you can also program it to update
itself. So, if you put a new version on an available server.....you're set.

I've read the pricing concerns above, and I'll talk to Jonathan about it
today.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #28

J L wrote:
He definetly needs to rethink his pricing structure!


I have to agree. The main selling point of the product was to
eliminate the need for downloading and installing the .Net framework.
There are other benefis to be sure, but that is the main one. Once
your app get appreciable in size, that becomes less of an issue.

To me, the main users of that product would be small, shareware
developers who want their programs to download quick. But the pricing
is for a large development house.

Perhapse they could come up with different levels of the product such
as Personal, Professional, and Enterprise levels with more features
available in the advanced products. They could, for example, limits
the Personal edition to only Windows forms and libraries. If you want
to use more complex features of the .Net runtime, you would need more
advanced versions of Thinstall.

My 2c

Chris

Nov 21 '05 #29
J L
Hi Brett,
My thoughts exactly. Being the Laisez Faire Capitalists that I am...I
am betting on competition to put this market right eventually. I am
not capable of it, but with all the talent on this NG there must be
some who could do this...maybe not with all the bells and whistles but
doing the most important features (even there, I dont know what I am
talking about LOL)

John

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:33:09 -0500, "Brett" <no@spam.com> wrote:
Either that or some of us smart guys can develop our own single package
installer and undercut the competition.

Brett

"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:3v********************************@4ax.com.. .
Hi Jim,
I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from
Jonathan:
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00

That is outrageous. For those who dont believe it, here is the link he
sent me to get that pricing

https://thinstall.com/store/index.php

He definetly needs to rethink his pricing structure! I do agree with
all you are saying. Thinstall's philosophy is the right way to go for
XCOPY to really work and they could make a killing if they set thier
price points correctly. I am a single developer creating custom
applications for some fairly large food processors. No way can I
afford that price. A few hundred dollars and it is tempting. I believe
Jonathan should rethink the possible/probable price/volume curve if he
did price this aggressively...let's see, how many millions of .Net
programmers?...

John


I haven't talked to Jonathon Clark (President of Thinstall) in a few
weeks.
The last time we talked, he had mentioned that they were working on a new
pricing scheme to be more flexible for small companies and large. So, I
am
not sure what the pricing structure is right now.

Whatever it is, you can get an extra 5% off by mentioning jim__hubbard @
hotmail . com . Tell Jonathon I sent you. He's a great guy and his staff
are very helpful. www.thinstall.com


Nov 21 '05 #30
I'm surprised an open source product hasn't surfaced... Maybe a good
time to start one?

J L wrote:
Hi Brett,
My thoughts exactly. Being the Laisez Faire Capitalists that I am...I
am betting on competition to put this market right eventually. I am
not capable of it, but with all the talent on this NG there must be
some who could do this...maybe not with all the bells and whistles but
doing the most important features (even there, I dont know what I am
talking about LOL)

John

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:33:09 -0500, "Brett" <no@spam.com> wrote:

Either that or some of us smart guys can develop our own single package
installer and undercut the competition.

Brett

"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:3v********************************@4ax.com. ..
Hi Jim,
I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from
Jonathan:
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00

That is outrageous. For those who dont believe it, here is the link he
sent me to get that pricing

https://thinstall.com/store/index.php

He definetly needs to rethink his pricing structure! I do agree with
all you are saying. Thinstall's philosophy is the right way to go for
XCOPY to really work and they could make a killing if they set thier
price points correctly. I am a single developer creating custom
applications for some fairly large food processors. No way can I
afford that price. A few hundred dollars and it is tempting. I believe
Jonathan should rethink the possible/probable price/volume curve if he
did price this aggressively...let's see, how many millions of .Net
programmers?...

John

I haven't talked to Jonathon Clark (President of Thinstall) in a few
weeks.
The last time we talked, he had mentioned that they were working on a new
pricing scheme to be more flexible for small companies and large. So, I
am
not sure what the pricing structure is right now.

Whatever it is, you can get an extra 5% off by mentioning jim__hubbard @
hotmail . com . Tell Jonathon I sent you. He's a great guy and his staff
are very helpful. www.thinstall.com

--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
Nov 21 '05 #31
Any one have statistics on the number of users that have .NET installed?

Brett

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...
I was wondering if it is at all posible to write a stand alone .EXE program
in Visual Studio .NET. Hopefully in VB.NET but if not another language
would be ok. Thanks for the assistance

Nov 21 '05 #32
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> schrieb:
With Thinstall this is not an issue.


I still doubt that there are no legal issues with distributing only parts of
the .NET Framework...

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

Nov 21 '05 #33
J L
Well perhaps we are either enticing a guru to consider a great
opportunity or getting Thinstall's attention to review pricing. Isn't
this the market place and isnt the market speaking to them. Of course
they are free to do as they please but it has definetly priced me out
of the market.

John

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:21:32 GMT, Aaron Smith
<th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote:
I'm surprised an open source product hasn't surfaced... Maybe a good
time to start one?

J L wrote:
Hi Brett,
My thoughts exactly. Being the Laisez Faire Capitalists that I am...I
am betting on competition to put this market right eventually. I am
not capable of it, but with all the talent on this NG there must be
some who could do this...maybe not with all the bells and whistles but
doing the most important features (even there, I dont know what I am
talking about LOL)

John

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:33:09 -0500, "Brett" <no@spam.com> wrote:

Either that or some of us smart guys can develop our own single package
installer and undercut the competition.

Brett

"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:3v********************************@4ax.com ...

Hi Jim,
I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from
Jonathan:
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00

That is outrageous. For those who dont believe it, here is the link he
sent me to get that pricing

https://thinstall.com/store/index.php

He definetly needs to rethink his pricing structure! I do agree with
all you are saying. Thinstall's philosophy is the right way to go for
XCOPY to really work and they could make a killing if they set thier
price points correctly. I am a single developer creating custom
applications for some fairly large food processors. No way can I
afford that price. A few hundred dollars and it is tempting. I believe
Jonathan should rethink the possible/probable price/volume curve if he
did price this aggressively...let's see, how many millions of .Net
programmers?...

John

>I haven't talked to Jonathon Clark (President of Thinstall) in a few
>weeks.
>The last time we talked, he had mentioned that they were working on a new
>pricing scheme to be more flexible for small companies and large. So, I
>am
>not sure what the pricing structure is right now.
>
>Whatever it is, you can get an extra 5% off by mentioning jim__hubbard @
>hotmail . com . Tell Jonathon I sent you. He's a great guy and his staff
>are very helpful. www.thinstall.com
>


Nov 21 '05 #34
J L
I think there is more to it than just minimizing the file size and
downloading ther required dependencies. It has been a while since I
studied their site but I do remember that they are creating a virtual
space to run the app. But in any case, there is a need to be filled
here byeond the way MS is handling deployment.

John

On 18 Mar 2005 10:07:12 -0800, "Chris Dunaway" <du******@gmail.com>
wrote:

J L wrote:
He definetly needs to rethink his pricing structure!


I have to agree. The main selling point of the product was to
eliminate the need for downloading and installing the .Net framework.
There are other benefis to be sure, but that is the main one. Once
your app get appreciable in size, that becomes less of an issue.

To me, the main users of that product would be small, shareware
developers who want their programs to download quick. But the pricing
is for a large development house.

Perhapse they could come up with different levels of the product such
as Personal, Professional, and Enterprise levels with more features
available in the advanced products. They could, for example, limits
the Personal edition to only Windows forms and libraries. If you want
to use more complex features of the .Net runtime, you would need more
advanced versions of Thinstall.

My 2c

Chris


Nov 21 '05 #35
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:

<snip>
But if the program takes a few extra seconds to load ands takes up an extra
meg on their hard drive it is much more user friendly.


Thinstall apps are still a lot larger than a simple exe output from .Net. I
did an experiment with Washington University's .Net rewrite of the classic
Paint program. If you downloaded the .Net framework and the code needed to
run Paint 2.0 it added up to over 27 MB. The same application compiled with
Thinstall was just over 14 MB and needed no installation, needed no
administrator privikeges, and will never have its files overwritten or
corrupted because they are all inside the Thinstall EXE.

Why didn't Microsoft think of this? They have seen and used Thinstall, and
even spoke well of it.


The problem is, as soon as you've got a few programs using Thinstall,
you end up having downloaded more than you would have done if you'd got
the real framework and individual small programs...

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #36

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:ep****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> schrieb:
With Thinstall this is not an issue.


I still doubt that there are no legal issues with distributing only parts
of the .NET Framework...

If you want to write a shareware app and know most people that are going to
use it are on dial-up, what are your options? 20+ megs is out of the
question in this case.

Brett
Nov 21 '05 #37
Brett,

What country are you from. In my country there is almost no dialup anymore.

Certainly not by people who are downloading shareware.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #38
Cor Ligthert wrote:
Brett,

What country are you from. In my country there is almost no dialup anymore.

Certainly not by people who are downloading shareware.

Cor


A little country called the USA, and there are a LOT of dialup users
here. Judging from the transfer rates from my webserver, a whole lot of
my customers are using dialup (more than %50 if the stats aren't telling
lies)..

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #39

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:

<snip>
>But if the program takes a few extra seconds to load ands takes up an
>extra
>meg on their hard drive it is much more user friendly.


Thinstall apps are still a lot larger than a simple exe output from .Net.
I
did an experiment with Washington University's .Net rewrite of the
classic
Paint program. If you downloaded the .Net framework and the code needed
to
run Paint 2.0 it added up to over 27 MB. The same application compiled
with
Thinstall was just over 14 MB and needed no installation, needed no
administrator privikeges, and will never have its files overwritten or
corrupted because they are all inside the Thinstall EXE.

Why didn't Microsoft think of this? They have seen and used Thinstall,
and
even spoke well of it.


The problem is, as soon as you've got a few programs using Thinstall,
you end up having downloaded more than you would have done if you'd got
the real framework and individual small programs...


You give people the option to download the Framework or stand alone EXE.
Explain the benefit of download the Framework as it applies to future .NET
apps they may use. If they are on dial-up and still don't have .NET
Framework, chances are they probably won't for a while. In that case,
they'll more than likely choose the stand alone EXE.

Brett
Nov 21 '05 #40

"Mitchell Vincent" <mv******@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Cor Ligthert wrote:
Brett,

What country are you from. In my country there is almost no dialup
anymore.

Certainly not by people who are downloading shareware.

Cor


A little country called the USA, and there are a LOT of dialup users here.
Judging from the transfer rates from my webserver, a whole lot of my
customers are using dialup (more than %50 if the stats aren't telling
lies)..

Yep - it's still pretty bad here in the way of dial-up. Same with cell
phones but that's another newsgroup.

Brett
Nov 21 '05 #41
Mitchell,
A little country called the USA, and there are a LOT of dialup users here.
Judging from the transfer rates from my webserver, a whole lot of my
customers are using dialup (more than %50 if the stats aren't telling
lies)..


I hope that I did not make you angry, you are right, we cannot compare
countries as Andora, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands with the USA.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #42

"Chris Dunaway" <du******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
I went to the Thinstall site and they sure make it complicated just to
get a trial or even pricing! Normally when a company wants to sell
something, they make it as simple as possible.


Touche'. They should ADVERTISE A PRICE.
Nov 21 '05 #43
How will they continue to sell Thinstall when the next version of Windows
comes out and everybody already has .NET ?

Simply as an obfuscator/encrypter? For $4K?
Nov 21 '05 #44
> Your idea sure isn't a bad one! I could see something just to bundle the
.NET libraries around an executable as a MAJOR seller to .NET developers.
Obviously no trivial task, but certainly possible.


Can this be done by stringing together some Microsoft utilities in a
sufficiently sophisticated way?
Nov 21 '05 #45

"Mitchell Vincent" <mv******@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Cor Ligthert wrote:
Brett,
What country are you from. In my country there is almost no dialup
anymore.


A little country called the USA, and there are a LOT of dialup users here.
Judging from the transfer rates from my webserver, a whole lot of my
customers are using dialup (more than %50 if the stats aren't telling
lies)..


Crucially, we are a SPARSELY POPULATED country. An awful lot of us live
more than 50 miles from a large city and more than 5 miles from even the
center of a small town. That's very different from Cor's country (which I
presume is the Netherlands).
Nov 21 '05 #46
Michael A. Covington wrote:
Your idea sure isn't a bad one! I could see something just to bundle the
.NET libraries around an executable as a MAJOR seller to .NET developers.
Obviously no trivial task, but certainly possible.

Can this be done by stringing together some Microsoft utilities in a
sufficiently sophisticated way?


I don't know but I've never seen anything about it.. If you find
anything please let us all know!

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #47

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
How will they continue to sell Thinstall when the next version of Windows
comes out and everybody already has .NET ?

Simply as an obfuscator/encrypter? For $4K?

If that is their cash cow and they aren't creative, then they go out of
business. Every one that purchased their $4k Thinstall is left without
support and upgrades and evetually abandons it for .NET deployment.
Nov 21 '05 #48
Cor Ligthert wrote:
Mitchell,

A little country called the USA, and there are a LOT of dialup users here.
Judging from the transfer rates from my webserver, a whole lot of my
customers are using dialup (more than %50 if the stats aren't telling
lies)..

I hope that I did not make you angry, you are right, we cannot compare
countries as Andora, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands with the USA.

Cor


Haha! I try not to get angry, Cor, so no worries there my friend!

I *wish* we had broadband in every area around here!

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #49
Michael A. Covington wrote:
"Mitchell Vincent" <mv******@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Cor Ligthert wrote:
Brett,
What country are you from. In my country there is almost no dialup
anymore.


A little country called the USA, and there are a LOT of dialup users here.
Judging from the transfer rates from my webserver, a whole lot of my
customers are using dialup (more than %50 if the stats aren't telling
lies)..

Crucially, we are a SPARSELY POPULATED country. An awful lot of us live
more than 50 miles from a large city and more than 5 miles from even the
center of a small town. That's very different from Cor's country (which I
presume is the Netherlands).


My town (po-dunk as it may be) just got *affordable* cable modem access
and DSL about 18 months ago. Hard to believe!

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

9 posts views Thread by none | last post: by
121 posts views Thread by David Pendrey | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Todd D. Levy | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Ulrich Wisser | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by skneife | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
reply views Thread by listenups61195 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.