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
151  5412 
Brett <no@spam.com> wrote: 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
"Brett" <no@spam.com> schrieb: 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.
Use Delphi, VC++, or another programming language that doesn't rely on
separate libraries.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
I just found another program which looks like it will do the trick and it
costs a lot less. Check out http://www.molebox.com
It doesn't explicitly say it can handle dot net applications but it looks
like it is cpaable of placing the necesary DLL files within the EXE file so
it should be good. I'll be doing some more research into this and I'll let
you all know. A program which costs $99 is a lot more affordable than one
that costs $4000 :)
Brett <no@spam.com> wrote: 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au... I just found another program which looks like it will do the trick and it
costs a lot less. Check out http://www.molebox.com
It doesn't explicitly say it can handle dot net applications but it looks
like it is cpaable of placing the necesary DLL files within the EXE file
so it should be good. I'll be doing some more research into this and I'll
let you all know. A program which costs $99 is a lot more affordable than
one that costs $4000 :)
Good research David. Molebox doesn't support .NET yet and has no schedule
to. They say support should be available by the time Longhorn is released,
which will come with .NET. Seems as though they get to the ball game a
little to late. http://www.molestudio.com/forum/view...&highlight=net
Brett
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om... Brett <no@spam.com> wrote: > 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
Cool thing about this is that when Microsoft issues a Service Pack that
scerws up something, your Thinstall app is not affected.
If you create a Thinstall app that works, it will always work unless
Microsoft goes and changes the way windows works at a core level......which
is unlikely.
Jim Hubbard
"Brett" <no@spam.com> schrieb: 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.
Use Delphi, VC++, or another programming language that doesn't rely on
separate libraries.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
Damn, just in time to not be usefull :(
I just found another program which looks like it will do the trick and it
costs a lot less. Check out http://www.molebox.com
It doesn't explicitly say it can handle dot net applications but it looks
like it is cpaable of placing the necesary DLL files within the EXE file so
it should be good. I'll be doing some more research into this and I'll let
you all know. A program which costs $99 is a lot more affordable than one
that costs $4000 :)
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"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.
As for #1 - As we saw with SP6 for VB6, Microsoft is perfectly capable of
and willing to (not intentionally) send out service packs that break old
functionality. With Thinstall .Net applications, there is no danger of that
happening.
As for #2 - Even under .Net, users need admin rights to install a .Net
application if that application utilizes the registry. Not so with
Thinstall applications.
Jim Hubbard
"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?...
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but there
is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords the
developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This support
is not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developers
hanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (which
most customers won't go for).
Jonathan (like myself) would rather do it right and make every customer a
success story than to have legions of customers that may or may not be
satisfied.
I have to go with Jonathan on this one. Running my own business, I have
learned the hard way that going cheap only causes lots of lost sleep, upset
customers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as soon
as my customers weren't being taken care of like I would like to be taken
care of (like I am the most important customer the company has - even if I'm
not).
Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most important
customer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximize
your profits. If needed, they will also create small demo applications
specifically for what you need to do - because seeing it done is always
better than hearing how it should be done.
Jonathan takes calls himself and stays in touch with his customer base. He
is a real "hands on" company president. Not because he has to be, but
because he wants to keep an eye on the quality of their product and customer
service.
I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me personally
with my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understand
the possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those Thinstall
capabilities can help me acheive my goals.
Admitedly, I am a fan of Thinstall and the support I have recieved from
Jonathan Clark and the JIT team. I am so because of the product, service
and personal treatment by the JIT team.
If this unabashed endorsement of a product makes you queasy, I apologize.
But, if you try Thinstall, you'll understand why I am such a fan of it and
the JIT team.
Jim Hubbard
"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au... I just found another program which looks like it will do the trick and it
costs a lot less. Check out http://www.molebox.com
It doesn't explicitly say it can handle dot net applications but it looks
like it is cpaable of placing the necesary DLL files within the EXE file
so it should be good. I'll be doing some more research into this and I'll
let you all know. A program which costs $99 is a lot more affordable than
one that costs $4000 :)
Good research David. Molebox doesn't support .NET yet and has no schedule
to. They say support should be available by the time Longhorn is released,
which will come with .NET. Seems as though they get to the ball game a
little to late. http://www.molestudio.com/forum/view...&highlight=net
Brett
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:uL********************@giganews.com... As for #1 - As we saw with SP6 for VB6, Microsoft is perfectly capable of
and willing to (not intentionally) send out service packs that break old
functionality. With Thinstall .Net applications, there is no danger of
that happening.
Updates to .NET have distinct version numbers (already 1.0 vs. 1.1) and
software is tied to a specific one; you can have both installed on the same
machine. Ending "DLL Hell" was a specific goal of .NET.
As for #2 - Even under .Net, users need admin rights to install a .Net
application if that application utilizes the registry. Not so with
Thinstall applications.
Surely only if you write in a part of the Registry that requires
administrator privileges to access.
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om... Brett <no@spam.com> wrote: > 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
Cool thing about this is that when Microsoft issues a Service Pack that
scerws up something, your Thinstall app is not affected.
If you create a Thinstall app that works, it will always work unless
Microsoft goes and changes the way windows works at a core level......which
is unlikely.
Jim Hubbard
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so that
users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Damn, just in time to not be usefull :(
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
Thinstall is actually making history. It is the most stable method of
distributing desktop applications in the world.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so that
users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than a
Yugo.)
As a small business myself, I understand the financial constraints that
small businesses must face. However, you also must weigh the benefits of
the product (which are substantial in this case) against the price.
I think it's worth it. It will reduce your installation and maintenance
customer service calls to almost nil. if you write software for a living or
distribute software as a major product, it pays itself in short order.
Jim Hubbard
Hi Jim,
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the company and the product. I too
was impressed very much with the Thinstall concept when I first
encountered it over a month ago. In fact we had some threads on it at
that time.
And I have no doubs about Jonathan's integrity and desire to produce a
top-rate product. I only question his business model and pricing
structure. If he can make a go of it without the programming community
who are expressing thier interest here but can not afford his tariff,
then I say...good for him. But if it were me I would seriously look at
the market and reconsider. And if the product is so complicated that
the level of users here is not adequate, then for sure he needs to
review his product design, documentation or both. From what I read on
his site, it did not seem that complicated (at least for most of the
applications I would be creating).
And my last thought is that he has stirred some good interest which
may create strong competitive pressures in the future.
Just my 2cents worth,
John
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:06:23 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:
"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?...
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but there
is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords the
developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This support
is not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developers
hanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (which
most customers won't go for).
Jonathan (like myself) would rather do it right and make every customer a
success story than to have legions of customers that may or may not be
satisfied.
I have to go with Jonathan on this one. Running my own business, I have
learned the hard way that going cheap only causes lots of lost sleep, upset
customers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as soon
as my customers weren't being taken care of like I would like to be taken
care of (like I am the most important customer the company has - even if I'm
not).
Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most important
customer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximize
your profits. If needed, they will also create small demo applications
specifically for what you need to do - because seeing it done is always
better than hearing how it should be done.
Jonathan takes calls himself and stays in touch with his customer base. He
is a real "hands on" company president. Not because he has to be, but
because he wants to keep an eye on the quality of their product and customer
service.
I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me personally
with my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understand
the possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those Thinstall
capabilities can help me acheive my goals.
Admitedly, I am a fan of Thinstall and the support I have recieved from
Jonathan Clark and the JIT team. I am so because of the product, service
and personal treatment by the JIT team.
If this unabashed endorsement of a product makes you queasy, I apologize.
But, if you try Thinstall, you'll understand why I am such a fan of it and
the JIT team.
Jim Hubbard
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"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.
As for #1 - As we saw with SP6 for VB6, Microsoft is perfectly capable of
and willing to (not intentionally) send out service packs that break old
functionality. With Thinstall .Net applications, there is no danger of that
happening.
As for #2 - Even under .Net, users need admin rights to install a .Net
application if that application utilizes the registry. Not so with
Thinstall applications.
Jim Hubbard
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:uL********************@giganews.com...
As for #1 - As we saw with SP6 for VB6, Microsoft is perfectly capable of
and willing to (not intentionally) send out service packs that break old
functionality. With Thinstall .Net applications, there is no danger of
that happening.
Updates to .NET have distinct version numbers (already 1.0 vs. 1.1) and
software is tied to a specific one; you can have both installed on the
same machine. Ending "DLL Hell" was a specific goal of .NET.
Don't delude yourself for one minute that Microsoft will upgrade the version
for every patch. It won't happen.
And if it does......may God help us all. I don't want a dozen .Net
frameworks to run 2 dozen apps.
As for #2 - Even under .Net, users need admin rights to install a .Net
application if that application utilizes the registry. Not so with
Thinstall applications.
Surely only if you write in a part of the Registry that requires
administrator privileges to access.
You are correct. But, unfortunately, if you are distributing applications
to the general public, you cannot be sure that they have any .Net framework
installed - let alone the version that your application needs.
At a minimum, this requires a setup application to determine the user's
needs. For many, that means that the application cannot be installed
because they may not have Administrative rights to do any installation (no
matter how safe the application may be).
One way that Microsoft could get everyone up to speed would be a mass OS
giveaway. It'd be akin to giving everyone a fresh start - including
Microsoft. They could retire all older desktops immediately and we'd all
have a common starting point.
Like that's gonna happen......
At the very least, they could make all .Net frameworks an automatic install.
Since they can run side by side, this should be a no-brainer.
Jim Hubbard
"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?...
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but there
is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords the
developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This support
is not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developers
hanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (which
most customers won't go for).
Jonathan (like myself) would rather do it right and make every customer a
success story than to have legions of customers that may or may not be
satisfied.
I have to go with Jonathan on this one. Running my own business, I have
learned the hard way that going cheap only causes lots of lost sleep, upset
customers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as soon
as my customers weren't being taken care of like I would like to be taken
care of (like I am the most important customer the company has - even if I'm
not).
Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most important
customer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximize
your profits. If needed, they will also create small demo applications
specifically for what you need to do - because seeing it done is always
better than hearing how it should be done.
Jonathan takes calls himself and stays in touch with his customer base. He
is a real "hands on" company president. Not because he has to be, but
because he wants to keep an eye on the quality of their product and customer
service.
I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me personally
with my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understand
the possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those Thinstall
capabilities can help me acheive my goals.
Admitedly, I am a fan of Thinstall and the support I have recieved from
Jonathan Clark and the JIT team. I am so because of the product, service
and personal treatment by the JIT team.
If this unabashed endorsement of a product makes you queasy, I apologize.
But, if you try Thinstall, you'll understand why I am such a fan of it and
the JIT team.
Jim Hubbard
John,
Thanks for your views on Thinstall. I'll pass them along to Jonathan
and the JIT team.
Maybe he can do something different with the pricing scale like what
Microsoft does with its products.....give away 2 tech support calls, then
charge for the rest.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Jim Hubbard
"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:dq********************************@4ax.com... Hi Jim,
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the company and the product. I too
was impressed very much with the Thinstall concept when I first
encountered it over a month ago. In fact we had some threads on it at
that time.
And I have no doubs about Jonathan's integrity and desire to produce a
top-rate product. I only question his business model and pricing
structure. If he can make a go of it without the programming community
who are expressing thier interest here but can not afford his tariff,
then I say...good for him. But if it were me I would seriously look at
the market and reconsider. And if the product is so complicated that
the level of users here is not adequate, then for sure he needs to
review his product design, documentation or both. From what I read on
his site, it did not seem that complicated (at least for most of the
applications I would be creating).
And my last thought is that he has stirred some good interest which
may create strong competitive pressures in the future.
Just my 2cents worth,
John
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:06:23 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:
"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?...
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there
is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the
developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This
support
is not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developers
hanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (which
most customers won't go for).
Jonathan (like myself) would rather do it right and make every customer a
success story than to have legions of customers that may or may not be
satisfied.
I have to go with Jonathan on this one. Running my own business, I have
learned the hard way that going cheap only causes lots of lost sleep,
upset
customers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as
soon
as my customers weren't being taken care of like I would like to be taken
care of (like I am the most important customer the company has - even if
I'm
not).
Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most important
customer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximize
your profits. If needed, they will also create small demo applications
specifically for what you need to do - because seeing it done is always
better than hearing how it should be done.
Jonathan takes calls himself and stays in touch with his customer base.
He
is a real "hands on" company president. Not because he has to be, but
because he wants to keep an eye on the quality of their product and
customer
service.
I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me
personally
with my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understand
the possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those
Thinstall
capabilities can help me acheive my goals.
Admitedly, I am a fan of Thinstall and the support I have recieved from
Jonathan Clark and the JIT team. I am so because of the product, service
and personal treatment by the JIT team.
If this unabashed endorsement of a product makes you queasy, I apologize.
But, if you try Thinstall, you'll understand why I am such a fan of it and
the JIT team.
Jim Hubbard
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:uL********************@giganews.com... As for #1 - As we saw with SP6 for VB6, Microsoft is perfectly capable of
and willing to (not intentionally) send out service packs that break old
functionality. With Thinstall .Net applications, there is no danger of
that happening.
Updates to .NET have distinct version numbers (already 1.0 vs. 1.1) and
software is tied to a specific one; you can have both installed on the same
machine. Ending "DLL Hell" was a specific goal of .NET.
As for #2 - Even under .Net, users need admin rights to install a .Net
application if that application utilizes the registry. Not so with
Thinstall applications.
Surely only if you write in a part of the Registry that requires
administrator privileges to access.
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so that
users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote: That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
I meant that you'd have to really trust that Thinstall behaves
*exactly* the same as the normal .NET framework. Given the complexities
of reflection, CAS, dynamically generating code etc, that sounds like a
difficult thing to trust.
Or, of course, you could double your testing effort.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Doesn't mean they can't sell a version without the support, only the
packaged help files. Then forums could be started up for people to help
eachother and it would all work out. They would get much more sales albeit
at a lower price so they could still make a profit and many more people
would be happy. Once you get a few users who can use a program correctly,
then get them to set up a forum you tend to not need all that much tech
support.
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:94********************@giganews.com...
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
Thinstall is actually making history. It is the most stable method of
distributing desktop applications in the world.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so
that users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than
a Yugo.)
As a small business myself, I understand the financial constraints that
small businesses must face. However, you also must weigh the benefits of
the product (which are substantial in this case) against the price.
I think it's worth it. It will reduce your installation and maintenance
customer service calls to almost nil. if you write software for a living
or distribute software as a major product, it pays itself in short order.
Jim Hubbard
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
Thinstall is actually making history. It is the most stable method of
distributing desktop applications in the world.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so that
users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than a
Yugo.)
As a small business myself, I understand the financial constraints that
small businesses must face. However, you also must weigh the benefits of
the product (which are substantial in this case) against the price.
I think it's worth it. It will reduce your installation and maintenance
customer service calls to almost nil. if you write software for a living or
distribute software as a major product, it pays itself in short order.
Jim Hubbard
Hi Jim,
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the company and the product. I too
was impressed very much with the Thinstall concept when I first
encountered it over a month ago. In fact we had some threads on it at
that time.
And I have no doubs about Jonathan's integrity and desire to produce a
top-rate product. I only question his business model and pricing
structure. If he can make a go of it without the programming community
who are expressing thier interest here but can not afford his tariff,
then I say...good for him. But if it were me I would seriously look at
the market and reconsider. And if the product is so complicated that
the level of users here is not adequate, then for sure he needs to
review his product design, documentation or both. From what I read on
his site, it did not seem that complicated (at least for most of the
applications I would be creating).
And my last thought is that he has stirred some good interest which
may create strong competitive pressures in the future.
Just my 2cents worth,
John
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:06:23 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:
"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?...
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but there
is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords the
developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This support
is not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developers
hanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (which
most customers won't go for).
Jonathan (like myself) would rather do it right and make every customer a
success story than to have legions of customers that may or may not be
satisfied.
I have to go with Jonathan on this one. Running my own business, I have
learned the hard way that going cheap only causes lots of lost sleep, upset
customers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as soon
as my customers weren't being taken care of like I would like to be taken
care of (like I am the most important customer the company has - even if I'm
not).
Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most important
customer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximize
your profits. If needed, they will also create small demo applications
specifically for what you need to do - because seeing it done is always
better than hearing how it should be done.
Jonathan takes calls himself and stays in touch with his customer base. He
is a real "hands on" company president. Not because he has to be, but
because he wants to keep an eye on the quality of their product and customer
service.
I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me personally
with my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understand
the possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those Thinstall
capabilities can help me acheive my goals.
Admitedly, I am a fan of Thinstall and the support I have recieved from
Jonathan Clark and the JIT team. I am so because of the product, service
and personal treatment by the JIT team.
If this unabashed endorsement of a product makes you queasy, I apologize.
But, if you try Thinstall, you'll understand why I am such a fan of it and
the JIT team.
Jim Hubbard
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:uL********************@giganews.com...
As for #1 - As we saw with SP6 for VB6, Microsoft is perfectly capable of
and willing to (not intentionally) send out service packs that break old
functionality. With Thinstall .Net applications, there is no danger of
that happening.
Updates to .NET have distinct version numbers (already 1.0 vs. 1.1) and
software is tied to a specific one; you can have both installed on the
same machine. Ending "DLL Hell" was a specific goal of .NET.
Don't delude yourself for one minute that Microsoft will upgrade the version
for every patch. It won't happen.
And if it does......may God help us all. I don't want a dozen .Net
frameworks to run 2 dozen apps.
As for #2 - Even under .Net, users need admin rights to install a .Net
application if that application utilizes the registry. Not so with
Thinstall applications.
Surely only if you write in a part of the Registry that requires
administrator privileges to access.
You are correct. But, unfortunately, if you are distributing applications
to the general public, you cannot be sure that they have any .Net framework
installed - let alone the version that your application needs.
At a minimum, this requires a setup application to determine the user's
needs. For many, that means that the application cannot be installed
because they may not have Administrative rights to do any installation (no
matter how safe the application may be).
One way that Microsoft could get everyone up to speed would be a mass OS
giveaway. It'd be akin to giving everyone a fresh start - including
Microsoft. They could retire all older desktops immediately and we'd all
have a common starting point.
Like that's gonna happen......
At the very least, they could make all .Net frameworks an automatic install.
Since they can run side by side, this should be a no-brainer.
Jim Hubbard
John,
Thanks for your views on Thinstall. I'll pass them along to Jonathan
and the JIT team.
Maybe he can do something different with the pricing scale like what
Microsoft does with its products.....give away 2 tech support calls, then
charge for the rest.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Jim Hubbard
"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:dq********************************@4ax.com... Hi Jim,
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the company and the product. I too
was impressed very much with the Thinstall concept when I first
encountered it over a month ago. In fact we had some threads on it at
that time.
And I have no doubs about Jonathan's integrity and desire to produce a
top-rate product. I only question his business model and pricing
structure. If he can make a go of it without the programming community
who are expressing thier interest here but can not afford his tariff,
then I say...good for him. But if it were me I would seriously look at
the market and reconsider. And if the product is so complicated that
the level of users here is not adequate, then for sure he needs to
review his product design, documentation or both. From what I read on
his site, it did not seem that complicated (at least for most of the
applications I would be creating).
And my last thought is that he has stirred some good interest which
may create strong competitive pressures in the future.
Just my 2cents worth,
John
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:06:23 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:
"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?...
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there
is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the
developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This
support
is not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developers
hanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (which
most customers won't go for).
Jonathan (like myself) would rather do it right and make every customer a
success story than to have legions of customers that may or may not be
satisfied.
I have to go with Jonathan on this one. Running my own business, I have
learned the hard way that going cheap only causes lots of lost sleep,
upset
customers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as
soon
as my customers weren't being taken care of like I would like to be taken
care of (like I am the most important customer the company has - even if
I'm
not).
Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most important
customer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximize
your profits. If needed, they will also create small demo applications
specifically for what you need to do - because seeing it done is always
better than hearing how it should be done.
Jonathan takes calls himself and stays in touch with his customer base.
He
is a real "hands on" company president. Not because he has to be, but
because he wants to keep an eye on the quality of their product and
customer
service.
I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me
personally
with my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understand
the possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those
Thinstall
capabilities can help me acheive my goals.
Admitedly, I am a fan of Thinstall and the support I have recieved from
Jonathan Clark and the JIT team. I am so because of the product, service
and personal treatment by the JIT team.
If this unabashed endorsement of a product makes you queasy, I apologize.
But, if you try Thinstall, you'll understand why I am such a fan of it and
the JIT team.
Jim Hubbard
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote: That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
I meant that you'd have to really trust that Thinstall behaves
*exactly* the same as the normal .NET framework. Given the complexities
of reflection, CAS, dynamically generating code etc, that sounds like a
difficult thing to trust.
Or, of course, you could double your testing effort.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Doesn't mean they can't sell a version without the support, only the
packaged help files. Then forums could be started up for people to help
eachother and it would all work out. They would get much more sales albeit
at a lower price so they could still make a profit and many more people
would be happy. Once you get a few users who can use a program correctly,
then get them to set up a forum you tend to not need all that much tech
support.
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:94********************@giganews.com...
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
Thinstall is actually making history. It is the most stable method of
distributing desktop applications in the world.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so
that users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than
a Yugo.)
As a small business myself, I understand the financial constraints that
small businesses must face. However, you also must weigh the benefits of
the product (which are substantial in this case) against the price.
I think it's worth it. It will reduce your installation and maintenance
customer service calls to almost nil. if you write software for a living
or distribute software as a major product, it pays itself in short order.
Jim Hubbard
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:94********************@giganews.com...
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
Thinstall is actually making history. It is the most stable method of
distributing desktop applications in the world.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so
that users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than
a Yugo.)
Bad parallel. A Mercedes doesn't require you to stop at the dealership
everyday to find out how to work the radio and air conditioning. For that
fact, neither does a Yugo. Why? User interface.
Brett
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:94********************@giganews.com...
"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Mc********************@giganews.com...
1 Application License per unit with Basic support $4,000.00
The price is a little steep for freeware or small software shops, but
there is a reason for the price.
Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords
the developer usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance...
But if you price it out of most programmers' reach, it never becomes well
known to the programming community. It may make sales, but it won't make
history.
Thinstall is actually making history. It is the most stable method of
distributing desktop applications in the world.
If it were $99, I'd use it for the demo version of one of my apps, so
that users could download and try it without any awareness of .NET.
Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than
a Yugo.)
Bad parallel. A Mercedes doesn't require you to stop at the dealership
everyday to find out how to work the radio and air conditioning. For that
fact, neither does a Yugo. Why? User interface.
Brett
> 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.
Now this does sound useful!
Thinstall even creates a virtual registry on-the-fly that your application
uses so that there are no changes to the users registry.
Even better.
Thinstall is used by a huge host of companies (like Quickbooks),
government agencies and every branch of the armed forces.
I'm not surprised - sounds like a user's dream - don't have to ask IT to get
involved. Of course, IT may take a dim view to running untested code -
rightly in some cases.
Rob.
> 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.
Now this does sound useful!
Thinstall even creates a virtual registry on-the-fly that your application
uses so that there are no changes to the users registry.
Even better.
Thinstall is used by a huge host of companies (like Quickbooks),
government agencies and every branch of the armed forces.
I'm not surprised - sounds like a user's dream - don't have to ask IT to get
involved. Of course, IT may take a dim view to running untested code -
rightly in some cases.
Rob.
> I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from Jonathan:
Me too LOL!
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?...
Yes, about the same price as InstallShield maybe.
Rob.
> Yep - it's still pretty bad here in the way of dial-up. Same with cell phones but that's another newsgroup.
Ahh well if you will decide to slightly modify the existing GSM standard,
then what do you expect? :-)
Rob.
> I was very excited about Thinstall until I got this pricing from Jonathan:
Me too LOL!
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?...
Yes, about the same price as InstallShield maybe.
Rob.
> Yep - it's still pretty bad here in the way of dial-up. Same with cell phones but that's another newsgroup.
Ahh well if you will decide to slightly modify the existing GSM standard,
then what do you expect? :-)
Rob.
Just my two cents...If I had DialUp, I'd rather download a 20mb file once
than a 14mb file for each application. Neither of which do I really want to
download on dialup! Also, the .Net Framework seems to me to be backward
compatible as all of my applications seem to work whenever I replace the .Net
Framwork with the latest version.
"Jim Hubbard" wrote:
"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
Just my two cents...If I had DialUp, I'd rather download a 20mb file once
than a 14mb file for each application. Neither of which do I really want to
download on dialup! Also, the .Net Framework seems to me to be backward
compatible as all of my applications seem to work whenever I replace the .Net
Framwork with the latest version.
"Jim Hubbard" wrote:
"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
"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Yep - it's still pretty bad here in the way of dial-up. Same with cell
phones but that's another newsgroup.
Ahh well if you will decide to slightly modify the existing GSM standard,
then what do you expect? :-)
Rob.
Ok Rob. Sure thing. What do I need an adapter, a different antenna for my
cell phone? Can I pick those up at Radio Shack or Target?
"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Yep - it's still pretty bad here in the way of dial-up. Same with cell
phones but that's another newsgroup.
Ahh well if you will decide to slightly modify the existing GSM standard,
then what do you expect? :-)
Rob.
Ok Rob. Sure thing. What do I need an adapter, a different antenna for my
cell phone? Can I pick those up at Radio Shack or Target?
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:pM********************@giganews.com...
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om... Brett <no@spam.com> wrote: > 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
Cool thing about this is that when Microsoft issues a Service Pack that
scerws up something, your Thinstall app is not affected.
If you create a Thinstall app that works, it will always work unless
Microsoft goes and changes the way windows works at a core
level......which is unlikely.
Jim Hubbard
Jim, we get the idea. You really love Thinstall. It's the greatest thing
since spit. However, every one here doesn't have $4k to shell out on an
installer. We'd rather make $4k than spend it on something we feel isn't
worth $4k. Also, I doubt any one is going to enjoy staying on the phone
with Thinstall tech support for a lengthy phone sessions of how to do this
and that (As you more or less alluded to earlier).
Your energy would probably be better spend in a marketing campaign to
fortune 500 companies. As for Thinstall changing its behavior, I wouldn't
place all my eggs in one basket. If Thinstall goes under, quite a few
Thinstall customers are going to be left holding the bag. Chances are MS
won't go under before any of my apps retire. I'll place my bets on MS and
the bigger download because at least I know they will always be there. At
least under Longhorn.
No attack on you Jim. You just keep holding this carrot in front of every
one and don't seem to realize it really is out of our reach.
Brett
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:pM********************@giganews.com...
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om... Brett <no@spam.com> wrote: > 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
Cool thing about this is that when Microsoft issues a Service Pack that
scerws up something, your Thinstall app is not affected.
If you create a Thinstall app that works, it will always work unless
Microsoft goes and changes the way windows works at a core
level......which is unlikely.
Jim Hubbard
Jim, we get the idea. You really love Thinstall. It's the greatest thing
since spit. However, every one here doesn't have $4k to shell out on an
installer. We'd rather make $4k than spend it on something we feel isn't
worth $4k. Also, I doubt any one is going to enjoy staying on the phone
with Thinstall tech support for a lengthy phone sessions of how to do this
and that (As you more or less alluded to earlier).
Your energy would probably be better spend in a marketing campaign to
fortune 500 companies. As for Thinstall changing its behavior, I wouldn't
place all my eggs in one basket. If Thinstall goes under, quite a few
Thinstall customers are going to be left holding the bag. Chances are MS
won't go under before any of my apps retire. I'll place my bets on MS and
the bigger download because at least I know they will always be there. At
least under Longhorn.
No attack on you Jim. You just keep holding this carrot in front of every
one and don't seem to realize it really is out of our reach.
Brett Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than
a Yugo.)
Bad parallel. A Mercedes doesn't require you to stop at the dealership
everyday to find out how to work the radio and air conditioning. For that
fact, neither does a Yugo. Why? User interface.
WELL SAID! Not to minimize your observation, but if it were $99, it wouldn't be the
great product it is today. (It takes more money to build a Mercedes than
a Yugo.)
Bad parallel. A Mercedes doesn't require you to stop at the dealership
everyday to find out how to work the radio and air conditioning. For that
fact, neither does a Yugo. Why? User interface.
WELL SAID!
"Brett" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:OI****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:pM********************@giganews.com...
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om... Brett <no@spam.com> wrote:
> 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
Cool thing about this is that when Microsoft issues a Service Pack that
scerws up something, your Thinstall app is not affected.
If you create a Thinstall app that works, it will always work unless
Microsoft goes and changes the way windows works at a core
level......which is unlikely.
Jim Hubbard
Jim, we get the idea. You really love Thinstall. It's the greatest thing
since spit. However, every one here doesn't have $4k to shell out on an
installer. We'd rather make $4k than spend it on something we feel isn't
worth $4k. Also, I doubt any one is going to enjoy staying on the phone
with Thinstall tech support for a lengthy phone sessions of how to do this
and that (As you more or less alluded to earlier).
Your energy would probably be better spend in a marketing campaign to
fortune 500 companies. As for Thinstall changing its behavior, I wouldn't
place all my eggs in one basket. If Thinstall goes under, quite a few
Thinstall customers are going to be left holding the bag. Chances are MS
won't go under before any of my apps retire. I'll place my bets on MS and
the bigger download because at least I know they will always be there. At
least under Longhorn.
Taken from http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P454 ...
--------------------------------
"The study, released this week by technology consultant AssetMetrix, found
that more than 80% of companies still have some machines using Windows 95 or
Windows 98. Of those companies still using the older operating systems, an
average of 39% of desktops were running either Windows 95 or Windows 98. "We
found a significant occurrence of Windows 9x," said Steve O'Halloran,
managing director for the research arm of AssetMetrix. The study looked at
372,129 PCs from 670 companies ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 employees.
The size of the business did not seem to dictate how prevalent the older
operating systems were, with larger companies as likely as smaller ones to
have a high prevalence of older operating systems. In total, Windows 95 made
up 14.7% of operating systems, and Windows 98 made up 12.5%. Windows 2000
was the most common OS, running on slightly more than half of machines,
while its predecessor, Windows NT4, was still used on 13.3% of desktops.
Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, was found on just 6.6% of
the machines. Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google
reported that 29% of searches done in September came from machines running
Windows 98, as compared with 38% from Windows XP-based PCs and 20% from
Windows 2000 machines. "
--------------------------------
When Longhorn fianally appears, this will not change much. There will still
be a large portion of PCs that are not "up-to-date". This is a major reason
to use a product like Thinstall. You can't make everyone upgrade (because
of price and administrative constraints) so you have to work with what they
have.
Financial constraints are eliminated (from the software's end-user
standpoint) because they don't need to upgrade their OS to use your
Thinstall applications.
Administrative issues are more quickly dealt with because they can try a
Thinstall app without fear that it will overwrite another application's DLLs
and because eliminating a Thinstall application is as easy as deleting the
EXE from the user's hard drive.
No attack on you Jim. You just keep holding this carrot in front of every
one and don't seem to realize it really is out of our reach.
I really do understand. I never meant to get into a big discussion about
Thinstall, but when I find something that helps me I like to let other know
about it - whether it's Thinstal or Barts PE or whatever.
I've been helped a lot by people in these newsgroups and I try to give a
little back when I can.
Jim Hubbard
"Brett" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:OI****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:pM********************@giganews.com...
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om... Brett <no@spam.com> wrote:
> 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.
That's certainly an option. Of course, it means running all your tests
on both versions unless you're *really* trusting of Thinstall not to
change behaviour at all (which I certainly wouldn't be).
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Thinstall doesn't change behavior. Once the EXE is created, it does not
change unless you tell it to update itself or the files it contains.
Cool thing about this is that when Microsoft issues a Service Pack that
scerws up something, your Thinstall app is not affected.
If you create a Thinstall app that works, it will always work unless
Microsoft goes and changes the way windows works at a core
level......which is unlikely.
Jim Hubbard
Jim, we get the idea. You really love Thinstall. It's the greatest thing
since spit. However, every one here doesn't have $4k to shell out on an
installer. We'd rather make $4k than spend it on something we feel isn't
worth $4k. Also, I doubt any one is going to enjoy staying on the phone
with Thinstall tech support for a lengthy phone sessions of how to do this
and that (As you more or less alluded to earlier).
Your energy would probably be better spend in a marketing campaign to
fortune 500 companies. As for Thinstall changing its behavior, I wouldn't
place all my eggs in one basket. If Thinstall goes under, quite a few
Thinstall customers are going to be left holding the bag. Chances are MS
won't go under before any of my apps retire. I'll place my bets on MS and
the bigger download because at least I know they will always be there. At
least under Longhorn.
Taken from http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P454 ...
--------------------------------
"The study, released this week by technology consultant AssetMetrix, found
that more than 80% of companies still have some machines using Windows 95 or
Windows 98. Of those companies still using the older operating systems, an
average of 39% of desktops were running either Windows 95 or Windows 98. "We
found a significant occurrence of Windows 9x," said Steve O'Halloran,
managing director for the research arm of AssetMetrix. The study looked at
372,129 PCs from 670 companies ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 employees.
The size of the business did not seem to dictate how prevalent the older
operating systems were, with larger companies as likely as smaller ones to
have a high prevalence of older operating systems. In total, Windows 95 made
up 14.7% of operating systems, and Windows 98 made up 12.5%. Windows 2000
was the most common OS, running on slightly more than half of machines,
while its predecessor, Windows NT4, was still used on 13.3% of desktops.
Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, was found on just 6.6% of
the machines. Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google
reported that 29% of searches done in September came from machines running
Windows 98, as compared with 38% from Windows XP-based PCs and 20% from
Windows 2000 machines. "
--------------------------------
When Longhorn fianally appears, this will not change much. There will still
be a large portion of PCs that are not "up-to-date". This is a major reason
to use a product like Thinstall. You can't make everyone upgrade (because
of price and administrative constraints) so you have to work with what they
have.
Financial constraints are eliminated (from the software's end-user
standpoint) because they don't need to upgrade their OS to use your
Thinstall applications.
Administrative issues are more quickly dealt with because they can try a
Thinstall app without fear that it will overwrite another application's DLLs
and because eliminating a Thinstall application is as easy as deleting the
EXE from the user's hard drive.
No attack on you Jim. You just keep holding this carrot in front of every
one and don't seem to realize it really is out of our reach.
I really do understand. I never meant to get into a big discussion about
Thinstall, but when I find something that helps me I like to let other know
about it - whether it's Thinstal or Barts PE or whatever.
I've been helped a lot by people in these newsgroups and I try to give a
little back when I can.
Jim Hubbard This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: none |
last post by:
Howdy all,
I'm wondering if someone could give some direction on a problem I have
or share their experiences.
I'm wanting to create a little...
|
by: David Pendrey |
last post by:
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...
|
by: Todd D. Levy |
last post by:
What do I need to get (from Microsoft I assume) in order to distribute
stand alone Access applications to people who do not (and will not) have...
|
by: Ulrich Wisser |
last post by:
Hi,
I would like to stop the postmaster every night and run
vacuum
pg_dump
reindex
in the stand alone backend.
|
by: jim-on-linux |
last post by:
py help,
The file below will run as a stand alone file.
It works fine as it is.
But, when I call it from another module it locks
my computer,...
|
by: discobay |
last post by:
Is there a way to create a stand alone .exe from VB2005, that does not depend upon the .NET framework being installed on the target machine?
I...
|
by: pg |
last post by:
My old HD crashes, so I had to do a total re-install.
After installer XP, I went to the Micrsoft Update site to get all the
update.
After 5...
|
by: newsaboutgod |
last post by:
I need a stand alone database for a VB.Net application on a laptop.
It will have about 15,000 records in it.
Frst off, if there any way to load...
|
by: skneife |
last post by:
I need to create some zones in my asp page, that contains a header and
a body like a webpart.
How can I use a webpart for this designed without any...
|
by: jinalpatel |
last post by:
We have access database which is stand alone application. It is sitted at 21 different locations including one main office. Every month the...
|
by: tammygombez |
last post by:
Hey fellow JavaFX developers,
I'm currently working on a project that involves using a ComboBox in JavaFX, and I've run into a bit of an issue....
|
by: concettolabs |
last post by:
In today's business world, businesses are increasingly turning to PowerApps to develop custom business applications. PowerApps is a powerful tool...
|
by: better678 |
last post by:
Question:
Discuss your understanding of the Java platform. Is the statement "Java is interpreted" correct?
Answer:
Java is an object-oriented...
|
by: Kemmylinns12 |
last post by:
Blockchain technology has emerged as a transformative force in the business world, offering unprecedented opportunities for innovation and...
|
by: CD Tom |
last post by:
This happens in runtime 2013 and 2016. When a report is run and then closed a toolbar shows up and the only way to get it to go away is to right...
|
by: CD Tom |
last post by:
This only shows up in access runtime. When a user select a report from my report menu when they close the report they get a menu I've called Add-ins...
|
by: jalbright99669 |
last post by:
Am having a bit of a time with URL Rewrite. I need to incorporate http to https redirect with a reverse proxy. I have the URL Rewrite rules made...
|
by: Matthew3360 |
last post by:
Hi, I have a python app that i want to be able to get variables from a php page on my webserver. My python app is on my computer. How would I make it...
|
by: AndyPSV |
last post by:
HOW CAN I CREATE AN AI with an .executable file that would suck all files in the folder and on my computerHOW CAN I CREATE AN AI with an .executable...
| |
