469,326 Members | 1,320 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
151 4957

"Dennis" <De****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21**********************************@microsof t.com...
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.


When you add a new version of the .Net framework, you are not really
replacing the existing .Net framework. Microsoft created the .Net
frameworks to run side-by-side. That way you can still run 1.0 and 1.1
application on a pc that needs 2.0 for newer applications.

What you may find is that if you re-compile your 1.0 applications with 1.1
or 2.0 you may need to do some code tweaking to adjust for changes in the
framework.

Also keep an eye on the bugs found in the .Net frameworks. It seems 1 or 2
A DAY are coming out, with 1,596 so far in the .Net 1.1 framework
(http://www.kbalertz.com/technology_3.aspx). You can get on a free news
letter at KBAlertz website at http://www.kbalertz.com/default.aspx.

I don't know how anybody develops in .Net successfully without a site like
this.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #101

"Dennis" <De****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21**********************************@microsof t.com...
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.


When you add a new version of the .Net framework, you are not really
replacing the existing .Net framework. Microsoft created the .Net
frameworks to run side-by-side. That way you can still run 1.0 and 1.1
application on a pc that needs 2.0 for newer applications.

What you may find is that if you re-compile your 1.0 applications with 1.1
or 2.0 you may need to do some code tweaking to adjust for changes in the
framework.

Also keep an eye on the bugs found in the .Net frameworks. It seems 1 or 2
A DAY are coming out, with 1,596 so far in the .Net 1.1 framework
(http://www.kbalertz.com/technology_3.aspx). You can get on a free news
letter at KBAlertz website at http://www.kbalertz.com/default.aspx.

I don't know how anybody develops in .Net successfully without a site like
this.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #102

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:u1**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

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!


Only if you aren't familiar with the interfaces of a Yugo and a
Mercedes......

The major components like the steering wheel, brake pedal and gas pedal are
similar enough to allow anyone to get the basic functionality out of both
vehicles. However, the Mercedes has many tweaks and added options that the
Yugo does not. In this case, to get the most out of the Mercedes you need
more instruction on it's use.

Thinstall has a very familiar user interface and running the application in
a very basic mode can be done without so much as reading the manual. But,
when your application has it's own special needs you need more specialized
instructions.

While the JIT team has provided several examples and an extensive help
manual, JIT customers are probably not that different than most other
customers and will call tech support before reading the manual. Fortunately
for JIT's customers, they don't just say "Read the &*()^%$ manual" - they
stay with you until you understand how to use the product to accomplish the
special needs unique to your situation - like a good Mercedes dealer will.

If you want to go simple with Thinstall, you can. If you need help, they
are there.

To provide this amount of customer support costs more money than to provide
unsupported applications. And, businesses demand support for their
applications. So, I agree with Jonathan. Charge what it takes to take care
of people in the way that they expect to be cared for as customers -
especially as business customers who have customers of their own.

Businesses CANNOT afford to not have the answers they need right at their
fingertips. With JIT, they have those answers when they need them - not via
some email that makes you wait 72 hours for a reply (which may or may not be
the answer you needed).

If you write software for a living, Thinstall is great. If you write an app
once in a while or just for fun, it probably isn't for you.

Thinstall is a serious application for serious application development. It
is not for everyone.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #103

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:u1**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

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!


Only if you aren't familiar with the interfaces of a Yugo and a
Mercedes......

The major components like the steering wheel, brake pedal and gas pedal are
similar enough to allow anyone to get the basic functionality out of both
vehicles. However, the Mercedes has many tweaks and added options that the
Yugo does not. In this case, to get the most out of the Mercedes you need
more instruction on it's use.

Thinstall has a very familiar user interface and running the application in
a very basic mode can be done without so much as reading the manual. But,
when your application has it's own special needs you need more specialized
instructions.

While the JIT team has provided several examples and an extensive help
manual, JIT customers are probably not that different than most other
customers and will call tech support before reading the manual. Fortunately
for JIT's customers, they don't just say "Read the &*()^%$ manual" - they
stay with you until you understand how to use the product to accomplish the
special needs unique to your situation - like a good Mercedes dealer will.

If you want to go simple with Thinstall, you can. If you need help, they
are there.

To provide this amount of customer support costs more money than to provide
unsupported applications. And, businesses demand support for their
applications. So, I agree with Jonathan. Charge what it takes to take care
of people in the way that they expect to be cared for as customers -
especially as business customers who have customers of their own.

Businesses CANNOT afford to not have the answers they need right at their
fingertips. With JIT, they have those answers when they need them - not via
some email that makes you wait 72 hours for a reply (which may or may not be
the answer you needed).

If you write software for a living, Thinstall is great. If you write an app
once in a while or just for fun, it probably isn't for you.

Thinstall is a serious application for serious application development. It
is not for everyone.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #104
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:

<snip>
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.


How does Thinstall help here? While Thinstall is available for Windows
95, I doubt that it magically lets you run .NET 1.1 applications on
Windows 95, for example. (If it *does* effectively change your
operating system capability, I'm even more worried about the
compatibility with the real framework.)

That cuts out your financial argument too, as far as I can see - and
I'd suggest that the cost of using Thinstall (e.g. the double testing
that I mentioned before) is going to have to be passed on to the users
at some point...

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #105
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:

<snip>
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.


How does Thinstall help here? While Thinstall is available for Windows
95, I doubt that it magically lets you run .NET 1.1 applications on
Windows 95, for example. (If it *does* effectively change your
operating system capability, I'm even more worried about the
compatibility with the real framework.)

That cuts out your financial argument too, as far as I can see - and
I'd suggest that the cost of using Thinstall (e.g. the double testing
that I mentioned before) is going to have to be passed on to the users
at some point...

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #106
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:

<snip>
Businesses CANNOT afford to not have the answers they need right at their
fingertips. With JIT, they have those answers when they need them - not via
some email that makes you wait 72 hours for a reply (which may or may not be
the answer you needed).


Actually, I'd argue that if you're running your development in a way
that always *requires* immediate support answers, you aren't leaving
nearly enough contingency time. There will always be potential for
problems which require significant investigation, so assuming that such
problems won't happen to you is a recipe for disaster. Do you think JIT
always, always, always have the answer for every single customer
question immediately? I'd be amazed if that were the case.

Like others, I don't see why there can't be different pricing
structures - the "support at your beck and call" price for those who
need it, and the "I'm capable of reading a manual, and I'm patient when
I have a problem" price for those on a tighter budget. The cost would
still be pretty high on the testing side IMO (unless you're willing to
hit all your customers who *do* have .NET already installed with a
larger download), but I'm sure it would encourage others.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #107
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:

<snip>
Businesses CANNOT afford to not have the answers they need right at their
fingertips. With JIT, they have those answers when they need them - not via
some email that makes you wait 72 hours for a reply (which may or may not be
the answer you needed).


Actually, I'd argue that if you're running your development in a way
that always *requires* immediate support answers, you aren't leaving
nearly enough contingency time. There will always be potential for
problems which require significant investigation, so assuming that such
problems won't happen to you is a recipe for disaster. Do you think JIT
always, always, always have the answer for every single customer
question immediately? I'd be amazed if that were the case.

Like others, I don't see why there can't be different pricing
structures - the "support at your beck and call" price for those who
need it, and the "I'm capable of reading a manual, and I'm patient when
I have a problem" price for those on a tighter budget. The cost would
still be pretty high on the testing side IMO (unless you're willing to
hit all your customers who *do* have .NET already installed with a
larger download), but I'm sure it would encourage others.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #108
Hi all,

To start with, thank you all this wonderful information. I am actually new
to the concept of newsgroups and other public information services. As
strange as that may seem to the readers of this groups, I have been on the
Microsoft development platform for 5 years and rely at most on Google or
MSDN.

In any case, I have worked with the software ranging from the simplest to
excruciatingly complex, the most common mass-oriented to tailored solutions
on an enterprise level.

I agree with Jim Hubbard in supporting Jonathan's prices as well as the
readers of this newsgroup who think his prices are TOO steep. Allow me to
explain. Being in the development business, I can understand that customer
services can inflate costs. Once a customer starts receiving good support
for a product that increases his profits, there is not much more he can ask
for. As for the ridiculously large number of individual developers and small
startups out there, I'd like to address Jonathan the following. Your concept
is indeed a professional and effective one, I have to give you that.
However, the idea of decreasing costs and increasing sales volumes is not a
new one. If used right, it can benefit people such as yourself as well as
the masses. I don't believe there are any boundaries in business creativity
and the average Joe armed with a modest IQ can step up there if a few things
are in place. I say all this out of personal experience since I have been
working on three cash cows myself. This newsgroup was more than a revelation
making me next in line to offer a "no dependency" deployment solution at a
rate masses can afford. What I will be missing is your dedication to
individual customer satisfaction since I have nor the business mindset, the
academic background, or the patience to support it. But I personally believe
that a vision which inspires from both schools of thought could go as far as
monopolizing an industry. Offer high cost services to customers of
reasonable size but don't shut out the masses. Instead, provide them with a
package that is affordable without the corporate support. I completely agree
with what someone said somewhere in this thread: "Individuals and startups
are desperate enough not to care about major support". I think there is too
much talent out there. Even if a fraction of that turns into success stories
because of our products, we could achieve unmatched sales volumes while
benefiting the masses at the same time.

In conclusion, a geek minus the disability to look beyond the screen can
raise some serious hell. I personally believe that if you can write
versatile code and improvise while maintaining sensible standards, you are
already equipped to take on the software consumer market in a big way.

Like I mentioned before, I am completely oblivious to electronic public
information services given my lack of patience on the internet so the only
place to contact me is via email or phone.

Thank you all again for the helpful information and wish you all the best of
luck!!!

Regards,

Raheel A. Khan
ra************@gmail.com
+92 (300) 532-6980

"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 thereis a reason for the price.

Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords thedeveloper usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This supportis not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developershanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (whichmost 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, upsetcustomers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as soonas 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'mnot).

Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most importantcustomer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximizeyour 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. Heis 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 customerservice.

I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me personallywith my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understandthe possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those Thinstallcapabilities 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 andthe JIT team.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #109
Hi all,

To start with, thank you all this wonderful information. I am actually new
to the concept of newsgroups and other public information services. As
strange as that may seem to the readers of this groups, I have been on the
Microsoft development platform for 5 years and rely at most on Google or
MSDN.

In any case, I have worked with the software ranging from the simplest to
excruciatingly complex, the most common mass-oriented to tailored solutions
on an enterprise level.

I agree with Jim Hubbard in supporting Jonathan's prices as well as the
readers of this newsgroup who think his prices are TOO steep. Allow me to
explain. Being in the development business, I can understand that customer
services can inflate costs. Once a customer starts receiving good support
for a product that increases his profits, there is not much more he can ask
for. As for the ridiculously large number of individual developers and small
startups out there, I'd like to address Jonathan the following. Your concept
is indeed a professional and effective one, I have to give you that.
However, the idea of decreasing costs and increasing sales volumes is not a
new one. If used right, it can benefit people such as yourself as well as
the masses. I don't believe there are any boundaries in business creativity
and the average Joe armed with a modest IQ can step up there if a few things
are in place. I say all this out of personal experience since I have been
working on three cash cows myself. This newsgroup was more than a revelation
making me next in line to offer a "no dependency" deployment solution at a
rate masses can afford. What I will be missing is your dedication to
individual customer satisfaction since I have nor the business mindset, the
academic background, or the patience to support it. But I personally believe
that a vision which inspires from both schools of thought could go as far as
monopolizing an industry. Offer high cost services to customers of
reasonable size but don't shut out the masses. Instead, provide them with a
package that is affordable without the corporate support. I completely agree
with what someone said somewhere in this thread: "Individuals and startups
are desperate enough not to care about major support". I think there is too
much talent out there. Even if a fraction of that turns into success stories
because of our products, we could achieve unmatched sales volumes while
benefiting the masses at the same time.

In conclusion, a geek minus the disability to look beyond the screen can
raise some serious hell. I personally believe that if you can write
versatile code and improvise while maintaining sensible standards, you are
already equipped to take on the software consumer market in a big way.

Like I mentioned before, I am completely oblivious to electronic public
information services given my lack of patience on the internet so the only
place to contact me is via email or phone.

Thank you all again for the helpful information and wish you all the best of
luck!!!

Regards,

Raheel A. Khan
ra************@gmail.com
+92 (300) 532-6980

"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 thereis a reason for the price.

Although Thinstall is very useful, the vast number of options it affords thedeveloper usually means a great deal of hand-holding and one-on-one
development assistance while the developer "learns the ropes". This supportis not cheap for Jonathan and the only other option is to leave developershanging with only written instructions or charge for hourly support (whichmost 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, upsetcustomers and a so-so reputation. I abandoned this WalMart approach as soonas 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'mnot).

Jonathan's company (JIT) takes care of you like you are the most importantcustomer they have. They go far beyond just answering a question or
two....they learn your product and goals and offer suggestions to maximizeyour 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. Heis 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 customerservice.

I speak from experience on all of these points. He has helped me personallywith my projects. He has developed demos personally to help me understandthe possibilities that Thinstall affords developers and how those Thinstallcapabilities 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 andthe JIT team.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #110

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

<snip>
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.
How does Thinstall help here? While Thinstall is available for Windows
95, I doubt that it magically lets you run .NET 1.1 applications on
Windows 95, for example. (If it *does* effectively change your
operating system capability, I'm even more worried about the
compatibility with the real framework.)


It does run on Win95A+. It does so by basically creating a virtual machine
that your original exe and dependencies run in. Since your application is
running in a virtual machine (with a virtual registry) you actually don't
alter the core OS at all.

Being worried about a new technlogy is the sign of a good developer. Only
sloppy developers aren;t concerned that a new technology will break their
code. Overcoming this concern can only be done by trying Thinstall
yourself.
That cuts out your financial argument too, as far as I can see - and
I'd suggest that the cost of using Thinstall (e.g. the double testing
that I mentioned before) is going to have to be passed on to the users
at some point...


As a professional developer, you need to test your Thinstall apps on all
supported OSs. But, you'd have to do that anyway - even without Thinstall.

Thinstall is (in essence) a distribution application, much like an
installer - except that Thinstall minimizes the changes to a user' system,
allows a much wider distribution of your application and protects your
application in ways that common distribution avenues cannot.

Thinstall is not for everyone. It makes more sense for the professional
developer of a widely distributed (sold) application and for desktop
development and distribution inside large companies that wish to make sure
that newer applications do not have a negative impact on their current
applications.

In the later instance, Thinstall actually saves time. You know it won;t
break what's already on the user's PC, so testing compliancy with other
applications is eliminated.

Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional developers
will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #111

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

<snip>
Businesses CANNOT afford to not have the answers they need right at their
fingertips. With JIT, they have those answers when they need them - not
via
some email that makes you wait 72 hours for a reply (which may or may not
be
the answer you needed).
Actually, I'd argue that if you're running your development in a way
that always *requires* immediate support answers, you aren't leaving
nearly enough contingency time.


I'd agree. But, who (in the real world of business programming) is given
enough time to do the job right most of the time? In my experience with
large companies - most of the time you are pushed to speed development time
at the expense of quality. This is why most software has bugs that may
never be fixed.
There will always be potential for
problems which require significant investigation, so assuming that such
problems won't happen to you is a recipe for disaster. Do you think JIT
always, always, always have the answer for every single customer
question immediately? I'd be amazed if that were the case.
In fact, they don't. I have seen a time or two where they have taken a day
or even 2 to answer with an update to Thinstall to provide new functionality
or to change the way Thinstall works to be more in line with the way
developers think.

But, I have never called them and not had my question answered immediately.
Like others, I don't see why there can't be different pricing
structures - the "support at your beck and call" price for those who
need it, and the "I'm capable of reading a manual, and I'm patient when
I have a problem" price for those on a tighter budget. The cost would
still be pretty high on the testing side IMO (unless you're willing to
hit all your customers who *do* have .NET already installed with a
larger download), but I'm sure it would encourage others.


I agree. A tiered approach to pricing would be nice if it were made plain
what the customers were getting for their level of support. And, they
already have a forum for user to share with each other on the site.

Tiered is good for customers, but it can create headaches for supplying
support. Customer calls tend to fluctuate. They are not an even flow of
calls. So, you either have to have enough support reps to take all calls in
a timely manner (which means a great number of them may be sitting around
doing nothing for most of some days) or you have customers upset at being on
hold for a more tan 10 minutes or so.

Balancing customer needs with the needs of the business can be difficult.
But, so far, I am well pleased with the level of support that I recieve
under the current pricing structure.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #112

"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.


I'd like to speak directly to the issue of "DLL Hell".

"DLL Hell" was only an issue for the developers that followed incorrect,
outdated programming practices advocated by Microsoft. Microsoft had long
promoted the use of "shared DLLs". This practice started when hard disk
space was a big expense as a way to maximize the investment in hardware and
to get more use out of limited hard disk space.

Had Microsoft told developers that the simple way to eliminate this "DLL
Hell" was simply to place the DLLs needed by their applications in the same
directory as their executables, the whole "DLL Hell" myth would have died a
quick and painless death.

Instead, we get handed the "DLL Hell" mis-information as one reason an
ENTIRELY NEW LANGUAGE is needed.

This was outright deception on the part of Microsoft and the ignorance of
supposed expert programmers that wrote many deceiving articles about the
supposed tragedy of something that only existed in software shops that did
not understand how a win32 executables actually worked.

Now, we have a real problem that reallocation of the program resources (i.e.
..Net framework) cannot as easily fix. It's "Fix Hell" and it's real.

With "Fix Hell", Microsoft issues a "fix" for a problem with .Net (only if
you spend 20 to 30 minutes per fix to call them and request the "fix").
"Fixes" are small patches that change the behavior of the .Net framework or
IDE on which the Microsoft "fix" is installed.

If you install the "fix" your .Net framework is no longer the same as your
potential market. In other words, it won't work for others that have not
downloaded the "fix".

If a user installs a "fix" (via a call to Microsoft, another developer's
setup or on his/her own) that "fix" may break your programs that rely on the
same .Net framework version but were designed without the "fix".

If you install the "fix" on another's PC, you may break the functionality of
other vendor's applications that use the same version of .Net that your app
uses and for which the "fix" was applied.

With Thinstall, the "Fix Hell" goes away. Your Thinstall executable
contains all of the .Net framework (with or without fixes) that your
application needs, and no "fixes" installed on the users' PCs will alter the
performance of your Thinstall application.

To put it bluntly......Thinstall is the only way to mass-market software in
the .Net platform and be 100% sure that a "fix" will not screw up your
application and increase your customer service calls.

Please read the blog at
http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archiv.../13/89021.aspx for another view
on this "fix" situation.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #113
Just Google the web and newsgroups for "problems installing .net framework"
and you'll see quite a few examples.

My examples are from experience and other software support teams.

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eh**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
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 #114
Is Delphi planning on continuing as is or is it going to be sucked into the
..Net vacuum as well?
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"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/>

Nov 21 '05 #115

"Brett" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ug**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Either that or some of us smart guys can develop our own single package
installer and undercut the competition.


If anyone is thinking about competing, may I suggest doing so on Linux.

If we had a truly RAD development tool (like VB - dumbed down, quick
development- lots of drag and drop functionality using 3rd part components)
on Linux and a tool like Thinstall, we wouldn't have to put up with the
Microsoft forced marches anymore.

I'm not at all against new developments in programming. Without them, we
never would have had classic VB.

But, any new languages should make sense, they should solve more problems
than they create, they should simplify development instead of making it more
complex and they should expand the base of programmers not contract it.
..Net fails on every one of these aspects.

If there was a VB-like tool that worked on Linux, I'd love to try it out.
The only problem with Linux is the GPL. I completely agree with an open API
structure, but the open source thing has simply resulted in hundreds of
Linux distros that are just different enough to make programming more
complex.

Even Microsoft doesn't need to open the source code. But, they should
document ALL APIs for the Windows OS and programming frameworks. This alone
would put everyone on equal footing and keeping the source code private
would prevent the OS fragmentation that Linux has created for itself.

JAVA is dangerously close to making this open source mistake. If it does,
it will fragment too. And, the very thing that Sun sued Microsoft for doing
(adding it's own Windows hooks to the JAVA environment) will become the
norm.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #116

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:t9********************@giganews.com...
Is Delphi planning on continuing as is or is it going to be sucked into
the .Net vacuum as well?


Nevermind........they're circling the drain.net as well.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #117
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
How does Thinstall help here? While Thinstall is available for Windows
95, I doubt that it magically lets you run .NET 1.1 applications on
Windows 95, for example. (If it *does* effectively change your
operating system capability, I'm even more worried about the
compatibility with the real framework.)
It does run on Win95A+. It does so by basically creating a virtual machine
that your original exe and dependencies run in. Since your application is
running in a virtual machine (with a virtual registry) you actually don't
alter the core OS at all.


But .NET 1.1 requires things that W95A doesn't provide - otherwise MS
would have made it run there. If Thinstall is shipping the libraries
from other OSes in order to run, I think there's a serious potential
legal issue which would worry me considerably. (I think there already
is in shipping *bits* of the .NET framework, to be honest.)
Being worried about a new technlogy is the sign of a good developer. Only
sloppy developers aren;t concerned that a new technology will break their
code. Overcoming this concern can only be done by trying Thinstall
yourself.
I don't think it can actually be done. I'd never trust Thinstall to run
exactly the same as the real .NET any more than I'd trust two OSes to
run exactly the same way.
That cuts out your financial argument too, as far as I can see - and
I'd suggest that the cost of using Thinstall (e.g. the double testing
that I mentioned before) is going to have to be passed on to the users
at some point...


As a professional developer, you need to test your Thinstall apps on all
supported OSs. But, you'd have to do that anyway - even without Thinstall.


Yes, but if I'm going to have two different deployment models, one with
Thinstall and one without, that doubles the testing effort. I need to
test on XP with Thinstall, XP without Thinstall, 2000 with Thinstall,
2000 without Thinstall etc.
Thinstall is (in essence) a distribution application, much like an
installer - except that Thinstall minimizes the changes to a user' system,
allows a much wider distribution of your application and protects your
application in ways that common distribution avenues cannot.

Thinstall is not for everyone. It makes more sense for the professional
developer of a widely distributed (sold) application and for desktop
development and distribution inside large companies that wish to make sure
that newer applications do not have a negative impact on their current
applications.

In the later instance, Thinstall actually saves time. You know it won;t
break what's already on the user's PC, so testing compliancy with other
applications is eliminated.

Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional developers
will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.


I think many will see some of the problems I've outlined too though.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #118
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
Actually, I'd argue that if you're running your development in a way
that always *requires* immediate support answers, you aren't leaving
nearly enough contingency time.
I'd agree. But, who (in the real world of business programming) is given
enough time to do the job right most of the time? In my experience with
large companies - most of the time you are pushed to speed development time
at the expense of quality. This is why most software has bugs that may
never be fixed.


So why is Thinstall different? Why is it absolutely *vital* for every
single customer of Thinstall to get immediate answers when other
development products aren't in the same situation?

More importantly, why should the Thinstall vendors themselves be the
ones who get to decide what kind of support my business *must* have?
There will always be potential for
problems which require significant investigation, so assuming that such
problems won't happen to you is a recipe for disaster. Do you think JIT
always, always, always have the answer for every single customer
question immediately? I'd be amazed if that were the case.


In fact, they don't. I have seen a time or two where they have taken a day
or even 2 to answer with an update to Thinstall to provide new functionality
or to change the way Thinstall works to be more in line with the way
developers think.

But, I have never called them and not had my question answered immediately.


Frankly, I'd be slightly worried at getting a new version of Thinstall
with only a couple of days testing. It seems to me it's the kind of
product which requires *really* extensive testing.
Like others, I don't see why there can't be different pricing
structures - the "support at your beck and call" price for those who
need it, and the "I'm capable of reading a manual, and I'm patient when
I have a problem" price for those on a tighter budget. The cost would
still be pretty high on the testing side IMO (unless you're willing to
hit all your customers who *do* have .NET already installed with a
larger download), but I'm sure it would encourage others.


I agree. A tiered approach to pricing would be nice if it were made plain
what the customers were getting for their level of support. And, they
already have a forum for user to share with each other on the site.


Right.
Tiered is good for customers, but it can create headaches for supplying
support. Customer calls tend to fluctuate. They are not an even flow of
calls. So, you either have to have enough support reps to take all calls in
a timely manner (which means a great number of them may be sitting around
doing nothing for most of some days) or you have customers upset at being on
hold for a more tan 10 minutes or so.
So they need to work out how many support reps to have to deal with the
customers who've paid for premium support. I don't see how that's
really different to the situation now, to be honest. In fact, it's
somewhat better, because they'd get *some* money from those who have
paid for "second rate" support, which could occupy the support reps
when there are no premium customers requiring support. Rather than
those reps sitting around doing (and thus earning) nothing, they're
effectively earning their money at a lower rate.
Balancing customer needs with the needs of the business can be difficult.
But, so far, I am well pleased with the level of support that I recieve
under the current pricing structure.


But that's because you happen to be in a situation where the price
isn't too much of a problem. It's clear from other replies in this
thread that others aren't in the same situation.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #119
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
It does run on Win95A+. It does so by basically creating a virtual machine
that your original exe and dependencies run in. Since your application is
running in a virtual machine (with a virtual registry) you actually don't
alter the core OS at all.


<snip>

I've just been reading their page about linking with the .NET
framework, and they don't support your claim. Specifically:

<quote>
Supports all Intel platforms supported by .NET (Windows 98, ME, NT, 2k,
XP, 2003, PE, XP Embedded)
</quote>

That's on
http://www.thinstall.com/help/index....tframework.htm

Note the lack of a mention of Windows 95. As I said, Thinstall itself
may work on 95, but that doesn't mean that programs which themselves
don't run on Windows 95 are going to run on 95 under Thinstall.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #120

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
> Actually, I'd argue that if you're running your development in a way
> that always *requires* immediate support answers, you aren't leaving
> nearly enough contingency time.
I'd agree. But, who (in the real world of business programming) is given
enough time to do the job right most of the time? In my experience with
large companies - most of the time you are pushed to speed development
time
at the expense of quality. This is why most software has bugs that may
never be fixed.


So why is Thinstall different? Why is it absolutely *vital* for every
single customer of Thinstall to get immediate answers when other
development products aren't in the same situation?


I think the JIT team is going more for professional developers more than
occassional developers. These developers typically demand a higher level of
support.

More importantly, why should the Thinstall vendors themselves be the
ones who get to decide what kind of support my business *must* have?
They aren't deciding what type of support you must have. They have built
their business around the model of customer that they are targeting -
professional developers that want top rate products and support.
>There will always be potential for
> problems which require significant investigation, so assuming that such
> problems won't happen to you is a recipe for disaster. Do you think JIT
> always, always, always have the answer for every single customer
> question immediately? I'd be amazed if that were the case.


In fact, they don't. I have seen a time or two where they have taken a
day
or even 2 to answer with an update to Thinstall to provide new
functionality
or to change the way Thinstall works to be more in line with the way
developers think.

But, I have never called them and not had my question answered
immediately.


Frankly, I'd be slightly worried at getting a new version of Thinstall
with only a couple of days testing. It seems to me it's the kind of
product which requires *really* extensive testing.


These are admitedly minor changes, and the version that is available that
quickly is a beta version. They test extensively and churn out tested
versions quite regularly (both in GUI and command line).

In fact, I can't wait for version 3 due out later this year. If all goes as
planned, it will directly integrate with the .Net framework.

<snip>
Tiered is good for customers, but it can create headaches for supplying
support. Customer calls tend to fluctuate. They are not an even flow of
calls. So, you either have to have enough support reps to take all calls
in
a timely manner (which means a great number of them may be sitting around
doing nothing for most of some days) or you have customers upset at being
on
hold for a more tan 10 minutes or so.


So they need to work out how many support reps to have to deal with the
customers who've paid for premium support. I don't see how that's
really different to the situation now, to be honest. In fact, it's
somewhat better, because they'd get *some* money from those who have
paid for "second rate" support, which could occupy the support reps
when there are no premium customers requiring support. Rather than
those reps sitting around doing (and thus earning) nothing, they're
effectively earning their money at a lower rate.


Have you ever done support like this? I have (and still do), and my
experience is just the opposite of what you seem to think will happen.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #121
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
So why is Thinstall different? Why is it absolutely *vital* for every
single customer of Thinstall to get immediate answers when other
development products aren't in the same situation?
I think the JIT team is going more for professional developers more than
occassional developers. These developers typically demand a higher level of
support.


You haven't answered my question. I'm talking about professional
developers, who are *used* to sometimes having to wait for support.
True professional developers build in contingency for just such a
reason - I don't see why I should have to pay more just because *some*
developers don't build in that kind of contingency.
More importantly, why should the Thinstall vendors themselves be the
ones who get to decide what kind of support my business *must* have?


They aren't deciding what type of support you must have. They have built
their business around the model of customer that they are targeting -
professional developers that want top rate products and support.


In other words, they've decided that professional developers aren't
capable of reading manuals or waiting for support. Guess what? I'm a
professional developer who's capable of doing both. By choosing the
route they have - and by preventing downloads for "those who are just
curious" - they've ruled me out of their target audience. There's no
reason for that at all.
Frankly, I'd be slightly worried at getting a new version of Thinstall
with only a couple of days testing. It seems to me it's the kind of
product which requires *really* extensive testing.


These are admitedly minor changes, and the version that is available that
quickly is a beta version. They test extensively and churn out tested
versions quite regularly (both in GUI and command line).


So would you ship with a beta version? Sounds pretty dodgy to me.
In fact, I can't wait for version 3 due out later this year. If all goes as
planned, it will directly integrate with the .Net framework.


I wonder if by then they'll actually have permission to distribute bits
of the framework in the way they do. To quote from the Thinstall
website:

<quote>
This form of .NET Framework redistribution is not yet officially
blessed by microsoft.
</quote>

(http://www.thinstall.com/help/?micro...eworklinki.htm)
So they need to work out how many support reps to have to deal with the
customers who've paid for premium support. I don't see how that's
really different to the situation now, to be honest. In fact, it's
somewhat better, because they'd get *some* money from those who have
paid for "second rate" support, which could occupy the support reps
when there are no premium customers requiring support. Rather than
those reps sitting around doing (and thus earning) nothing, they're
effectively earning their money at a lower rate.


Have you ever done support like this? I have (and still do), and my
experience is just the opposite of what you seem to think will happen.


That just suggests that it hasn't been implemented properly. If you
think it's impossible to get tiered support like that to work
(effectively making your support reps more efficient), please explain
why rather than just stating that it doesn't work.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #122

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
> How does Thinstall help here? While Thinstall is available for Windows
> 95, I doubt that it magically lets you run .NET 1.1 applications on
> Windows 95, for example. (If it *does* effectively change your
> operating system capability, I'm even more worried about the
> compatibility with the real framework.)
It does run on Win95A+. It does so by basically creating a virtual
machine
that your original exe and dependencies run in. Since your application
is
running in a virtual machine (with a virtual registry) you actually don't
alter the core OS at all.


But .NET 1.1 requires things that W95A doesn't provide - otherwise MS
would have made it run there. If Thinstall is shipping the libraries
from other OSes in order to run, I think there's a serious potential
legal issue which would worry me considerably. (I think there already
is in shipping *bits* of the .NET framework, to be honest.)


I had asked Jonathan about the legal issues long ago and he assures me that
there aren't any that they are aware of. Microsoft has looked into
Thinstall. You can read their review at
http://thinstall.com/help/index.html?msdnfeb2005.htm .

If there were legal issues, I'm sure that Microsoft would not have issued
this review, and would have surely contacted JIT with any concerns by now.
Being worried about a new technlogy is the sign of a good developer.
Only
sloppy developers aren;t concerned that a new technology will break their
code. Overcoming this concern can only be done by trying Thinstall
yourself.
I don't think it can actually be done. I'd never trust Thinstall to run
exactly the same as the real .NET any more than I'd trust two OSes to
run exactly the same way.


It does not seem that you would be interested in Thinstall. And, that's
perfectly fine. Not everyone will be interested in Thinstall. Some people
like to stick with the old methods of software distribution. I don't sell
Thinstall. But, if I can point you to something that may help you, I am
happy to do so.

So why all the questions about a product you are not interested in? IMHO,
you really should try Thinstall (or any application) before you pass
judgement.
> That cuts out your financial argument too, as far as I can see - and
> I'd suggest that the cost of using Thinstall (e.g. the double testing
> that I mentioned before) is going to have to be passed on to the users
> at some point...
As a professional developer, you need to test your Thinstall apps on all
supported OSs. But, you'd have to do that anyway - even without
Thinstall.


Yes, but if I'm going to have two different deployment models, one with
Thinstall and one without, that doubles the testing effort. I need to
test on XP with Thinstall, XP without Thinstall, 2000 with Thinstall,
2000 without Thinstall etc.


You won't have 2 deployment models. The idea is to use Thinstall as your
sole deployment model. This way you would still have the same testing that
you have today.

If you could deploy your applications as a single EXE that requires no
external dependencies, has built-in licensing, has auto-update
functionality, does not require administrative privileges to "install" and
run, encrypts your internal exes and data and will not be adversly affected
by changes to the .Net framework - why would you also do a deployment
without Thinstall?
Thinstall is (in essence) a distribution application, much like an
installer - except that Thinstall minimizes the changes to a user'
system,
allows a much wider distribution of your application and protects your
application in ways that common distribution avenues cannot.

Thinstall is not for everyone. It makes more sense for the professional
developer of a widely distributed (sold) application and for desktop
development and distribution inside large companies that wish to make
sure
that newer applications do not have a negative impact on their current
applications.

In the later instance, Thinstall actually saves time. You know it won;t
break what's already on the user's PC, so testing compliancy with other
applications is eliminated.

Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional developers
will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.


I think many will see some of the problems I've outlined too though.


Maybe I've missed something. I don't see any problems. Could you please
post the problems you see for the benefit of folks like me that may have
missed them?

Jim Hubbard
"Every man, woman and child has something they can teach you. Be sure to
listen."
Nov 21 '05 #123

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
It does run on Win95A+. It does so by basically creating a virtual
machine
that your original exe and dependencies run in. Since your application
is
running in a virtual machine (with a virtual registry) you actually don't
alter the core OS at all.


<snip>

I've just been reading their page about linking with the .NET
framework, and they don't support your claim. Specifically:

<quote>
Supports all Intel platforms supported by .NET (Windows 98, ME, NT, 2k,
XP, 2003, PE, XP Embedded)
</quote>

That's on
http://www.thinstall.com/help/index....tframework.htm

Note the lack of a mention of Windows 95. As I said, Thinstall itself
may work on 95, but that doesn't mean that programs which themselves
don't run on Windows 95 are going to run on 95 under Thinstall.


You are right. I didn't fully answer your question before - my bad.

Any application that you wrap with Thinstall must be able to run without
Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.

The same goes for the DLLs that you wrap with your application. If your
application calls API functions that are only available on XP, the
application will fail to run on Win98 and Win2000 - with or without
Thinstall.

Sorry for the confusion about the Win95 + .Net issue.

Do you still have many Win95 customers?

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #124
Jim,
Just Google the web and newsgroups for "problems installing .net
framework" and you'll see quite a few examples.


I did as you said and got 3 pages, not much for such a question. Some of
them asking if installing would give problems, some of them telling that
they had only a removable disk, some if them about what the message that the
Net was required did mean. I did not directly problems with installing over
internet of from CD/DVD.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #125
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
But .NET 1.1 requires things that W95A doesn't provide - otherwise MS
would have made it run there. If Thinstall is shipping the libraries
from other OSes in order to run, I think there's a serious potential
legal issue which would worry me considerably. (I think there already
is in shipping *bits* of the .NET framework, to be honest.)
I had asked Jonathan about the legal issues long ago and he assures me that
there aren't any that they are aware of. Microsoft has looked into
Thinstall. You can read their review at
http://thinstall.com/help/index.html?msdnfeb2005.htm .

If there were legal issues, I'm sure that Microsoft would not have issued
this review, and would have surely contacted JIT with any concerns by now.


So why haven't they given their official blessing to it?
I don't think it can actually be done. I'd never trust Thinstall to run
exactly the same as the real .NET any more than I'd trust two OSes to
run exactly the same way.


It does not seem that you would be interested in Thinstall. And, that's
perfectly fine. Not everyone will be interested in Thinstall. Some people
like to stick with the old methods of software distribution. I don't sell
Thinstall. But, if I can point you to something that may help you, I am
happy to do so.


I *am* interested in Thinstall, mostly in my capacity as an MVP.
Unfortunately, that capacity doesn't seem to make me good enough to
deserve an evaluation...
So why all the questions about a product you are not interested in? IMHO,
you really should try Thinstall (or any application) before you pass
judgement.
I *would* try it - if their wretched web site allowed me to, as an
enthusiast. However, in order to get an evaluation version, I'd have to
use my work email address. As I would be evaluating it as an MVP rather
than for work (at the moment) they've cut me out of evaluation. Not
exactly an encouraging start, frankly.
Yes, but if I'm going to have two different deployment models, one with
Thinstall and one without, that doubles the testing effort. I need to
test on XP with Thinstall, XP without Thinstall, 2000 with Thinstall,
2000 without Thinstall etc.


You won't have 2 deployment models. The idea is to use Thinstall as your
sole deployment model. This way you would still have the same testing that
you have today.


That means it effectively penalises those who already *have* the
framework, and want to download just your application, rather than half
of the framework again. If you've already got the framework, 2.7MB for
a "hello world" program is utterly ridiculous.
If you could deploy your applications as a single EXE that requires no
external dependencies, has built-in licensing, has auto-update
functionality, does not require administrative privileges to "install" and
run, encrypts your internal exes and data and will not be adversly affected
by changes to the .Net framework - why would you also do a deployment
without Thinstall?


Because those external dependencies may already be there, I may well
already have a separate licensing model to integrate into other parts
of my app, I may not want or even desire auto-update, my app may well
require admin privileges to install anyway, I may have no particular
desire to encrypt my internal executables, and I may wish to get the
benefit of improvements to the framework that service packs etc make
available without having to redistribute my app.
Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional developers
will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.


I think many will see some of the problems I've outlined too though.


Maybe I've missed something. I don't see any problems. Could you please
post the problems you see for the benefit of folks like me that may have
missed them?


1) Potential legal issues. You may have dismissed them as not a
problem, but that doesn't mean everyone else will. Heck, even the
vendors recognise is as a problem. (It's in the "Cons" section on one
of their pages.)

2) Cost.

3) Discouraging interested parties from evaluating it.

4) If a customer downloads several Thinstall products (or even several
versions of my Thinstall product) they'll have downloaded more than if
they'd downloaded the framework once and then the products
individually.

5) For system administrators, having control over the installed
application using the framework security control panel is better than
the app having full control. Of course, this may not be an issue - I
wouldn't know, as JITIT have decided that my sk***@pobox.com email
address isn't good enough to deserve an evaluation.

6) Unless debugging protection is enabled, I *suspect* that there are
still (reasonably easy) ways to decompile the .NET code, using cordbg
to get access to the decrypted resources. If I ever get to evaluate
Thinstall properly, I'll give it a try.

7) Slower startup time (as acknowledged on the Thinstall site).

8) Harder to debug (I gather).

9) Another potential point of failure - it's an extra technology rather
than a replacement one; if JITIT decides to up its prices, or goes
belly-up, you're back to square one.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #126
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
Note the lack of a mention of Windows 95. As I said, Thinstall itself
may work on 95, but that doesn't mean that programs which themselves
don't run on Windows 95 are going to run on 95 under Thinstall.
You are right. I didn't fully answer your question before - my bad.

Any application that you wrap with Thinstall must be able to run without
Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.


Absolutely. So where exactly does the following paragraph written by
you come into the equation?

<quote>
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.
</quote>

Either the application would already run on the end user's OS, in which
case there's no financial constraint, or it won't run under Thinstall
without upgrading their OS anyway, in which case the financial
constraint isn't eliminated after all.
The same goes for the DLLs that you wrap with your application. If your
application calls API functions that are only available on XP, the
application will fail to run on Win98 and Win2000 - with or without
Thinstall.

Sorry for the confusion about the Win95 + .Net issue.

Do you still have many Win95 customers?


No - but then I wasn't the one posting an article about how loads of
companies still use Windows 95. Was there a point to posting that
article?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #127
Jon,

Perhaps I am mis-reading your posts, but you only seem to want to argue
about a product you are not interested in purchasing or even trying.

I don't work for Thinstall. I use it. I like it. I recommend it.

However, I don't have the time or inclination to try and convince
someone so determined NOT to test or use a product to do so. I am happy to
help those that I can, but I am loathe to devote time to convincing someone
of the usefulness of a product against their will.

I wish you all the best in the development and support of your
applications.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #128
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
Perhaps I am mis-reading your posts, but you only seem to want to argue
about a product you are not interested in purchasing or even trying.
You've most definitely mis-read my posts if you think I'm not
interested in trying it. Unfortunately, without using my work email
address, I *can't* try it.
I don't work for Thinstall. I use it. I like it. I recommend it.
You recommend it for invalid reasons, such as meaning that people won't
need to upgrade their OS to use an application. You later admitted that
if an application is going to work under Thinstall on a particular OS,
it would have to be able to work on that OS without Thinstall too.

You not only recommend Thinstall though - you spread FUD about .NET,
with posts like the one about the KB list. It's not like .NET is the
only product to have a list of problems/fixes. Do you think the
knowledge bases for the various versions of Windows themselves are
empty? Do you know every single issue raised about every version of
Windows your apps support?
However, I don't have the time or inclination to try and convince
someone so determined NOT to test or use a product to do so. I am happy to
help those that I can, but I am loathe to devote time to convincing someone
of the usefulness of a product against their will.
As I've said before, I'd like to test the product. I'm interested in it
as a technology, even though I don't currently have a commercial reason
to use it. Jitit don't want me to test it though. Shame, really. It
doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling about them.
I wish you all the best in the development and support of your
applications.


Likewise.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #129

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
> But .NET 1.1 requires things that W95A doesn't provide - otherwise MS
> would have made it run there. If Thinstall is shipping the libraries
> from other OSes in order to run, I think there's a serious potential
> legal issue which would worry me considerably. (I think there already
> is in shipping *bits* of the .NET framework, to be honest.)
I had asked Jonathan about the legal issues long ago and he assures me
that
there aren't any that they are aware of. Microsoft has looked into
Thinstall. You can read their review at
http://thinstall.com/help/index.html?msdnfeb2005.htm .

If there were legal issues, I'm sure that Microsoft would not have issued
this review, and would have surely contacted JIT with any concerns by
now.


So why haven't they given their official blessing to it?


You, an MVP, are honestly asking me to explain Microsoft's actions?

To me, this is further proof that you are not really interested in
Thinstall. It seem to me that you are interested only in asking rhetorical
or argumentative questions.

Please stick to asking questions that a USER of Thinstall (that's me) would
be able to answer.
> I don't think it can actually be done. I'd never trust Thinstall to run
> exactly the same as the real .NET any more than I'd trust two OSes to
> run exactly the same way.
It does not seem that you would be interested in Thinstall. And, that's
perfectly fine. Not everyone will be interested in Thinstall. Some
people
like to stick with the old methods of software distribution. I don't
sell
Thinstall. But, if I can point you to something that may help you, I am
happy to do so.


I *am* interested in Thinstall, mostly in my capacity as an MVP.
Unfortunately, that capacity doesn't seem to make me good enough to
deserve an evaluation...
So why all the questions about a product you are not interested in?
IMHO,
you really should try Thinstall (or any application) before you pass
judgement.


I *would* try it - if their wretched web site allowed me to, as an
enthusiast. However, in order to get an evaluation version, I'd have to
use my work email address. As I would be evaluating it as an MVP rather
than for work (at the moment) they've cut me out of evaluation. Not
exactly an encouraging start, frankly.


Have you called them? Try that. Then get back to me.
> Yes, but if I'm going to have two different deployment models, one with
> Thinstall and one without, that doubles the testing effort. I need to
> test on XP with Thinstall, XP without Thinstall, 2000 with Thinstall,
> 2000 without Thinstall etc.
You won't have 2 deployment models. The idea is to use Thinstall as your
sole deployment model. This way you would still have the same testing
that
you have today.


That means it effectively penalises those who already *have* the
framework, and want to download just your application, rather than half
of the framework again. If you've already got the framework, 2.7MB for
a "hello world" program is utterly ridiculous.


Then don't use it. Gamble on their not having "fixes" in that will break
your code or that tthey will not install them in the future or that they
have admin rights to install and run your app or that another app won't
overwrite the DLLs you may want to register and use in your .Net
application.

You seem happy with what you have. I say stick with it.
If you could deploy your applications as a single EXE that requires no
external dependencies, has built-in licensing, has auto-update
functionality, does not require administrative privileges to "install"
and
run, encrypts your internal exes and data and will not be adversly
affected
by changes to the .Net framework - why would you also do a deployment
without Thinstall?
Because those external dependencies may already be there, I may well
already have a separate licensing model to integrate into other parts
of my app, I may not want or even desire auto-update, my app may well
require admin privileges to install anyway, I may have no particular
desire to encrypt my internal executables, and I may wish to get the
benefit of improvements to the framework that service packs etc make
available without having to redistribute my app.


Maybe you should not use Thinstall.
>> Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional
>> developers
>> will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.
>
> I think many will see some of the problems I've outlined too though.
Maybe I've missed something. I don't see any problems. Could you please
post the problems you see for the benefit of folks like me that may have
missed them?


1) Potential legal issues. You may have dismissed them as not a
problem, but that doesn't mean everyone else will. Heck, even the
vendors recognise is as a problem. (It's in the "Cons" section on one
of their pages.)


I'd like to see that. Please post the link.

2) Cost.
Nothing I can do. Talk to JIT.

3) Discouraging interested parties from evaluating it.
Have you called them?

4) If a customer downloads several Thinstall products (or even several
versions of my Thinstall product) they'll have downloaded more than if
they'd downloaded the framework once and then the products
individually.
Not neccesrily. Thinstall includes the ability to check for and use the
local .Net framework (if you trust it), to assist the user in downloading
the framework if it isn't there or to include it all in your Thinstall EXE.

5) For system administrators, having control over the installed
application using the framework security control panel is better than
the app having full control. Of course, this may not be an issue - I
wouldn't know, as JITIT have decided that my sk***@pobox.com email
address isn't good enough to deserve an evaluation.
Call them.

6) Unless debugging protection is enabled, I *suspect* that there are
still (reasonably easy) ways to decompile the .NET code, using cordbg
to get access to the decrypted resources. If I ever get to evaluate
Thinstall properly, I'll give it a try.
Let us know.

7) Slower startup time (as acknowledged on the Thinstall site).
Yes. It does seem that if you start a virtual machine before running an app
there may be added time to the process.

8) Harder to debug (I gather).
Not really. Call them and get a demo.

9) Another potential point of failure - it's an extra technology rather
than a replacement one; if JITIT decides to up its prices, or goes
belly-up, you're back to square one.


And if Microsoft decides to trash .Net for .Whatever you're toast. With
Avalon, it will ONLY run on Longhorn. have fun with that.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #130

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
> Note the lack of a mention of Windows 95. As I said, Thinstall itself
> may work on 95, but that doesn't mean that programs which themselves
> don't run on Windows 95 are going to run on 95 under Thinstall.


You are right. I didn't fully answer your question before - my bad.

Any application that you wrap with Thinstall must be able to run without
Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.


Absolutely. So where exactly does the following paragraph written by
you come into the equation?

<quote>
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.
</quote>


I didn;t mean upgrade to another OS. I meant the costs associated with
upgrading the OS with the .Net framework. For most business users, they
have to get sys admins involved and there can be a legitimate expense in
upgrading and testing all systems to use a new application framework or
"fix".

<argumentative stuff snipped>
The same goes for the DLLs that you wrap with your application. If your
application calls API functions that are only available on XP, the
application will fail to run on Win98 and Win2000 - with or without
Thinstall.

Sorry for the confusion about the Win95 + .Net issue.

Do you still have many Win95 customers?


No - but then I wasn't the one posting an article about how loads of
companies still use Windows 95. Was there a point to posting that
article?


To show that you can't depend on users to be on the latest OS with .Net
built in. It just won't happen.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #131

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
Perhaps I am mis-reading your posts, but you only seem to want to
argue
about a product you are not interested in purchasing or even trying.
You've most definitely mis-read my posts if you think I'm not
interested in trying it. Unfortunately, without using my work email
address, I *can't* try it.


Your phone works, right? Call them. They are nice people, they'll work
with you.

BTW, why can't you use your work email?
I don't work for Thinstall. I use it. I like it. I recommend it.
You recommend it for invalid reasons, such as meaning that people won't
need to upgrade their OS to use an application.


Please wait for clarification of something I said when you don't understand
it. "Upgrading" your operating system doesn't changing to the next higher
OS. Upgrading an operating system can simply be the addition of code to
allow new functionality like adding the.Net framework (1 or all 3 of them).
You later admitted that
if an application is going to work under Thinstall on a particular OS,
it would have to be able to work on that OS without Thinstall too.
This was always the case. I never said otherwise. I was not clear in one
of my posts to you concerning win95 and the .Net framework - however, I have
replied to that post in the correct portion of this thread.

You not only recommend Thinstall though - you spread FUD about .NET,
with posts like the one about the KB list. It's not like .NET is the
only product to have a list of problems/fixes.
Pointing out obvious flaws is not spreading FUD. It's called pointing out
obvious flaws to make a point.

FUD (and terms like it) are typically used by language evangelicals to
attack anyone that points out flaws in their chosen langiage or platform.
Let's try and not get into a jihad over it, OK?

Since I am recommending Thinstall, people want to know why. The 1,596 (and
growing) errors in the .Net frameworks are a big reason why I use and
recomend Thinstall.

..Net is certainly not the only product to have a list of problems and fixes.
And, Thinstall is not a .Net only application. It works just as well with
C++, Delphi and a list of other languages - all of which have their own good
and bad points.

As this is the microsoft.public.dotnet.general newsgroup, I felt it
necessary to restrict my comments to the languages and potential helpful
applications (like Thinstall) pertinent to this newsgroup. Hope that 's OK
with you.
Do you think the
knowledge bases for the various versions of Windows themselves are
empty?
Really?
Do you know every single issue raised about every version of
Windows your apps support?
Most of them. We support a limited set of OSs just for that reason. For
instance, my company does not write applications for specific use on NT,
2000 or Win98. We do test Thinstall wrapped apps on those OSs if we haven't
used OS-specific calls that would invalidate our software on them. If those
tests work out - we mark our app as tested for use with those OSs.
However, I don't have the time or inclination to try and convince
someone so determined NOT to test or use a product to do so. I am happy
to
help those that I can, but I am loathe to devote time to convincing
someone
of the usefulness of a product against their will.


As I've said before, I'd like to test the product. I'm interested in it
as a technology, even though I don't currently have a commercial reason
to use it. Jitit don't want me to test it though. Shame, really. It
doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling about them.


JIT doesn't normally get involved with people that aren't serious about
purchasing the application. I can't say that I blame them.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #132
OK....it has happened.

Typically a thread runs for a while with people actually interested in the
topic and a lot of good questions and answer posts are made....then the
discussion will degrade into a jihad of ideologies that in no way represent
the original intent of the thread.

IMHO this is now happening in this thread - so I am out.

In leaving, let me suggest that you get in touch with JIT at
www.thinstall.com if you are really interested in trying out Thinstall.
Although it ain't much, Jonathan will give you at least a 5% discount if you
tell them I sent you.

I tried Thinstall. I loved it. I bought it and will continue to use it in
my distribution of .Net, Visual Basic 6 and C++ applications. I recommend
that you look into it if you distribute software to the masses in your job.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.

Thanks for the honest questions and opinions of Thinstall. I'll pass them
along to Jonathan and the JIT team.

I wish you all smooth installs and stable systems - no matter what
distribution method you choose.

Jim Hubbard - Hubbard Software
Nov 21 '05 #133
Jim,

Why are your messages forever completely fulfilled with this kind of
sentences in it.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.


What do you mean with that. What persons are excluded in your message and
what can we do with Thininstall when we are in the category "and those that
make a living selling software or supporting large company infrastructures".

In addition please not a kind of message in return, "When you don't see that
you are an amateur", however arguments.

I see in your message a kind of denying that it is good for shareware and
those professionals are in my opinion the only ones who are on your side.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #134

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Jim,

Why are your messages forever completely fulfilled with this kind of
sentences in it.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.


What do you mean with that. What persons are excluded in your message and
what can we do with Thininstall when we are in the category "and those
that make a living selling software or supporting large company
infrastructures".


I mean that Thinstall, because of the price, is probably not worth it if you
develop freeware or if your software is of limited distribution. Only you
can tell if your current software sales will justify the purchase.

Almost any Windows application distribution can benefit from Thinstall.
Whether it is financiall beneficial is a call for each developer.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #135
Jim,

I mean that Thinstall, because of the price, is probably not worth it if
you develop freeware or if your software is of limited distribution. Only
you can tell if your current software sales will justify the purchase.

Almost any Windows application distribution can benefit from Thinstall.
Whether it is financiall beneficial is a call for each developer.


We disagree with the last sentence (with what nothing is wrong, future will
learn), however now it is clear for me what you mean.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #136
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> schrieb:
Is Delphi planning on continuing as is or is it going to be sucked into
the .Net vacuum as well?


Delphi still supports creating Win32 applications. .NET is "optional"...

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

Nov 21 '05 #137
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
If there were legal issues, I'm sure that Microsoft would not have issued
this review, and would have surely contacted JIT with any concerns by
now.
So why haven't they given their official blessing to it?


You, an MVP, are honestly asking me to explain Microsoft's actions?


I'm suggesting that if MS haven't given their blessing to it, it's not
such a legally clear-cut case as you seem to think it is.
To me, this is further proof that you are not really interested in
Thinstall. It seem to me that you are interested only in asking rhetorical
or argumentative questions.

Please stick to asking questions that a USER of Thinstall (that's me) would
be able to answer.
It was indeed a rhetorical question, but one to make what I still think
is a valid point.
I *am* interested in Thinstall, mostly in my capacity as an MVP.
Unfortunately, that capacity doesn't seem to make me good enough to
deserve an evaluation...
So why all the questions about a product you are not interested in?
IMHO,
you really should try Thinstall (or any application) before you pass
judgement.


I *would* try it - if their wretched web site allowed me to, as an
enthusiast. However, in order to get an evaluation version, I'd have to
use my work email address. As I would be evaluating it as an MVP rather
than for work (at the moment) they've cut me out of evaluation. Not
exactly an encouraging start, frankly.


Have you called them? Try that. Then get back to me.


I'm not going to make a call to a US company from the UK - and I
shouldn't have to. Pretty much every product I want to evaluate for
free, I can do so. Why is Thinstall stopping me?
That means it effectively penalises those who already *have* the
framework, and want to download just your application, rather than half
of the framework again. If you've already got the framework, 2.7MB for
a "hello world" program is utterly ridiculous.


Then don't use it. Gamble on their not having "fixes" in that will break
your code or that tthey will not install them in the future or that they
have admin rights to install and run your app or that another app won't
overwrite the DLLs you may want to register and use in your .Net
application.


While you gamble with Thinstall not having any bugs which may bite you
later, and that Jitit will continue to exist. Thinstall isn't magically
removing all problems - just changing them.
You seem happy with what you have. I say stick with it.
And I will - but I'd still like to investigate Thinstall, as I've said
before.
Because those external dependencies may already be there, I may well
already have a separate licensing model to integrate into other parts
of my app, I may not want or even desire auto-update, my app may well
require admin privileges to install anyway, I may have no particular
desire to encrypt my internal executables, and I may wish to get the
benefit of improvements to the framework that service packs etc make
available without having to redistribute my app.


Maybe you should not use Thinstall.


Indeed. Shame I can't even evaluate it though...
1) Potential legal issues. You may have dismissed them as not a
problem, but that doesn't mean everyone else will. Heck, even the
vendors recognise is as a problem. (It's in the "Cons" section on one
of their pages.)


I'd like to see that. Please post the link.


Sure:
http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?
microsoft_netframeworklinki.htm

See the "Disadvantages" section.
2) Cost.


Nothing I can do. Talk to JIT.


I'm not suggesting there's anything you can do other than accepting
that it *is* a problem for
3) Discouraging interested parties from evaluating it.


Have you called them?


I don't need to - they've already been discouraging on their web site.
I'm sure if I pester them I could evaluate it, but the attitude they're
displaying on my website doesn't help them at all.
4) If a customer downloads several Thinstall products (or even several
versions of my Thinstall product) they'll have downloaded more than if
they'd downloaded the framework once and then the products
individually.


Not neccesrily. Thinstall includes the ability to check for and use the
local .Net framework (if you trust it), to assist the user in downloading
the framework if it isn't there or to include it all in your Thinstall EXE.


So either you have to support both the normally installed framework
version *and* the "link in" version (doubling testing) or you get rid
of a lot of the point of using Thinstall in the first place (for many
people).
5) For system administrators, having control over the installed
application using the framework security control panel is better than
the app having full control. Of course, this may not be an issue - I
wouldn't know, as JITIT have decided that my sk***@pobox.com email
address isn't good enough to deserve an evaluation.


Call them.


I'm not going to waste money on international phone calls just because
their website deems me to be a timewaster. I *might* register with my
work email address, but it's all a hassle that puts them in a bad
light, frankly.
6) Unless debugging protection is enabled, I *suspect* that there are
still (reasonably easy) ways to decompile the .NET code, using cordbg
to get access to the decrypted resources. If I ever get to evaluate
Thinstall properly, I'll give it a try.


Let us know.


Will do. (I'll let Jitit know as well - they may be able to make it
harder.)
7) Slower startup time (as acknowledged on the Thinstall site).


Yes. It does seem that if you start a virtual machine before running an app
there may be added time to the process.


Yup - and it's good to see that's acknowledged.
8) Harder to debug (I gather).


Not really. Call them and get a demo.


Well, I was going by posts on the forums, partly. The page about
debugging under Visual Studio also sounded a bit of a pain. Nothing to
write home about, but harder than if you're not using Thinstall to
start with.
9) Another potential point of failure - it's an extra technology rather
than a replacement one; if JITIT decides to up its prices, or goes
belly-up, you're back to square one.


And if Microsoft decides to trash .Net for .Whatever you're toast.


Yes, but that failure point *still* exists if you're using Thinstall to
run a .NET program.
With Avalon, it will ONLY run on Longhorn. have fun with that.


Maybe you missed Microsoft's recent announcement about backporting
Avalon to XP.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #138
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
I didn;t mean upgrade to another OS. I meant the costs associated with
upgrading the OS with the .Net framework.
Ah. In that case there's no straight financial implication, because the
framework is free.
For most business users, they
have to get sys admins involved and there can be a legitimate expense in
upgrading and testing all systems to use a new application framework or
"fix".


That's the administrative side of things, yes - but you also referred
to a separate financial side.

I suspect I wasn't the only one to think that you meant upgrading to a
new OS...
No - but then I wasn't the one posting an article about how loads of
companies still use Windows 95. Was there a point to posting that
article?


To show that you can't depend on users to be on the latest OS with .Net
built in. It just won't happen.


And that's why you can easily get the .NET framework installed for
free.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #139
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
You've most definitely mis-read my posts if you think I'm not
interested in trying it. Unfortunately, without using my work email
address, I *can't* try it.
Your phone works, right? Call them. They are nice people, they'll work
with you.


I've never had to pay costs, even a phone call, to evaluate other
products - why should Thinstall be any different? Why do they have to
turn away people who just want to try it?

(I've just seen on their website that they have a UK office, so I take
back the previous comment about the phone call being international.
Whether the UK office would be able or willing to sort me out with an
eval copy, I don't know.)
BTW, why can't you use your work email?
a) It's the weekend. I have some free time today, I'd like to download
it today. I don't have access to my work email from home.

b) It's not strictly to do with work, which is what my work email is
meant to be for.

c) I really don't see why I should have to. There's a point of
principle here. If Jitit don't think that as a developer who is not
only a professional, but is interested in technology outside his work,
I'm worth even giving an evaluation copy to, I'm less than impressed. I
could quite understand them giving the evaluation with no support to
those who are just evaluating it from an interested perspective, but
flatly discouraging people like myself leaves a nasty taste in the
mouth.
I don't work for Thinstall. I use it. I like it. I recommend it.


You recommend it for invalid reasons, such as meaning that people won't
need to upgrade their OS to use an application.


Please wait for clarification of something I said when you don't understand
it. "Upgrading" your operating system doesn't changing to the next higher
OS. Upgrading an operating system can simply be the addition of code to
allow new functionality like adding the.Net framework (1 or all 3 of them).


Given that you talked about financial costs (separate to administrative
costs), and that it was a post in relation to Longhorn, I'm sure I'm
not the only one to interpret your post as talking about upgrading to a
new operating system.
You later admitted that
if an application is going to work under Thinstall on a particular OS,
it would have to be able to work on that OS without Thinstall too.


This was always the case. I never said otherwise. I was not clear in one
of my posts to you concerning win95 and the .Net framework - however, I have
replied to that post in the correct portion of this thread.


Indeed.
You not only recommend Thinstall though - you spread FUD about .NET,
with posts like the one about the KB list. It's not like .NET is the
only product to have a list of problems/fixes.


Pointing out obvious flaws is not spreading FUD. It's called pointing out
obvious flaws to make a point.


And when you start a new thread on a .NET newsgroup *just* to point out
that there are problems in the framework (like that's not going to
happen with every framework available - I notice you omitted the fact
that kbalertz shows about as many problems for VB6, by the way), it
counts as FUD to me. Statements like:

<quote>
Looking at all of the errors and quirks sometimes makes me wonder if
this thing is really ready for prime time.
</quote>

without reference to the fact that there are the same kind of problems
in other environments doesn't make you look like you're trying to give
a balanced viewpoint. Instead, you're coming over as someone who is
griping about .NET really because of the way that the VB->VB.NET
migration has been handled, rather than because of problems inherent to
..NET. Now, that may well not be an accurate appraisal of how you
actually feel, but it's the way you're coming across to me.

People who start threads in newsgroups just to try to put people off
the topic of those newsgroups are rarely seen to come from an unbiased
viewpoint.

Imagine someone had made a post like yours in the VB newsgroup - how do
you think people would have reacted?
FUD (and terms like it) are typically used by language evangelicals to
attack anyone that points out flaws in their chosen langiage or platform.
Let's try and not get into a jihad over it, OK?
I'm not the one who's been evangelising on this thread - and I'm quite
happy to accept flaws in the framework and languages. Indeed, I've been
very ready to point them out.
Since I am recommending Thinstall, people want to know why. The 1,596 (and
growing) errors in the .Net frameworks are a big reason why I use and
recomend Thinstall.
Out of interest, how many of those errors do you think affect more than
a handful of people? (Not that they're all errors, of course - some are
just announcing the availability of other hotfixes which are already
listed.)

I accept it's a reasonable reason to use Thinstall in certain
situations. I don't accept it as a reasonable reason not to use .NET in
the first place.
.Net is certainly not the only product to have a list of problems and fixes.
And, Thinstall is not a .Net only application. It works just as well with
C++, Delphi and a list of other languages - all of which have their own good
and bad points.
Sure.
As this is the microsoft.public.dotnet.general newsgroup, I felt it
necessary to restrict my comments to the languages and potential helpful
applications (like Thinstall) pertinent to this newsgroup. Hope that 's OK
with you.


When you say that developing in .NET is basically a bad idea, you
should provide the comparitive context, however.
Do you think the
knowledge bases for the various versions of Windows themselves are
empty?


Really?


Not sure what your question means here.
Do you know every single issue raised about every version of
Windows your apps support?


Most of them. We support a limited set of OSs just for that reason. For
instance, my company does not write applications for specific use on NT,
2000 or Win98. We do test Thinstall wrapped apps on those OSs if we haven't
used OS-specific calls that would invalidate our software on them. If those
tests work out - we mark our app as tested for use with those OSs.


You've really read most of the KB articles available about Windows? I'm
impressed - I've always got the impression that there are far too many
to keep up with. Most of
As I've said before, I'd like to test the product. I'm interested in it
as a technology, even though I don't currently have a commercial reason
to use it. Jitit don't want me to test it though. Shame, really. It
doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling about them.


JIT doesn't normally get involved with people that aren't serious about
purchasing the application. I can't say that I blame them.


There are plenty of people who can influence purchasing decisions
without being direct purchasers, however. If I were able to evaluate
Thinstall, I would have a better idea of its technical abilities and
could potentially recommend it to other people. If the need ever *did*
arise where Thinstall could be useful, I'd have a much better
impression of the company than I do now, so would be more likely to
look closely at it.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #140
J L
Hi Jim,
I found the thread to be very informative and thought provoking.
Thanks all who did participate.

One last thought...wouldn't it be valuable for Jonathan to come on
this NG and discuss his product and answer questions? I, for one,
would not consider that unwanted promotion but rather providing an
insider view of this type of new tool...how they really intended it to
be used/what market they were addressing/answers to many of the
unanswered questions of "why" and "how". If it were my company and I
saw so much interest, I would definetly jump into the fray with my
2cents.

Just a thought....

John

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 05:48:42 -0500, "Jim Hubbard"
<re***@groups.please> wrote:
OK....it has happened.

Typically a thread runs for a while with people actually interested in the
topic and a lot of good questions and answer posts are made....then the
discussion will degrade into a jihad of ideologies that in no way represent
the original intent of the thread.

IMHO this is now happening in this thread - so I am out.

In leaving, let me suggest that you get in touch with JIT at
www.thinstall.com if you are really interested in trying out Thinstall.
Although it ain't much, Jonathan will give you at least a 5% discount if you
tell them I sent you.

I tried Thinstall. I loved it. I bought it and will continue to use it in
my distribution of .Net, Visual Basic 6 and C++ applications. I recommend
that you look into it if you distribute software to the masses in your job.

Thinstall is not for everybody. It is more appropriate for professional
developers and those that make a living selling software or supporting a
large company infrastructure.

Thanks for the honest questions and opinions of Thinstall. I'll pass them
along to Jonathan and the JIT team.

I wish you all smooth installs and stable systems - no matter what
distribution method you choose.

Jim Hubbard - Hubbard Software


Nov 21 '05 #141
Jim,

Your always talking about how great their support is. I emailed them
through their website asking about pricing info. That was on Friday
morning. Haven't heard anything. Problems?

Brett
Nov 21 '05 #142

"J L" <jo**@marymonte.com> wrote in message
news:nh********************************@4ax.com...
Hi Jim,
I found the thread to be very informative and thought provoking.
Thanks all who did participate.

One last thought...wouldn't it be valuable for Jonathan to come on
this NG and discuss his product and answer questions? I, for one,
would not consider that unwanted promotion but rather providing an
insider view of this type of new tool...how they really intended it to
be used/what market they were addressing/answers to many of the
unanswered questions of "why" and "how". If it were my company and I
saw so much interest, I would definetly jump into the fray with my
2cents.

Just a thought....

John


I'll definitely pass it along. Although, as a business, he may not want to
risk incurring the wrath of those self-appointed newsgroup police that may
consider it a breach of Usenet protocol to discuss your product in a
non-commercial newsgroup.

I think it'd be a great idea myself. He could definitely give you more
definitive answers about some of the questions raised here than I can.

I am still learning about all that is possible with Thinstall. Hopefully, I
can answer some of those questions better myself in the near future.

Thanks for your post and thanks for participating in the thread.

Jim Hubbard - Hubbard Software
Nov 21 '05 #143
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
I'll definitely pass it along. Although, as a business, he may not want to
risk incurring the wrath of those self-appointed newsgroup police that may
consider it a breach of Usenet protocol to discuss your product in a
non-commercial newsgroup.
I think it would be reasonable given that there's already been
discussion here. It's not like he'd be coming to advertise out of the
blue, is it? I see the risk though.
I think it'd be a great idea myself. He could definitely give you
more definitive answers about some of the questions raised here than
I can.
Right.
I am still learning about all that is possible with Thinstall.
Hopefully, I can answer some of those questions better myself in the
near future.


I still haven't been able to get an eval copy, and it looks like I
really won't be able to without specifying my real company information,
which I'm loathe to do.

In the interests of following up the security angle, is there any
chance you could mail me (or make available on a website) a "hello
world" Thinstall-ed .NET application, preferably including a class
which isn't referenced (to see if I can "find" it)?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #144
> Your always talking about how great their support is. I emailed them
through their website asking about pricing info. That was on Friday
morning. Haven't heard anything. Problems?


I signed up for an eval version and did get a reply back over the weekend.
But to be honest, I'd be laughed at if I suggested we spend $4k on a single
software package that doesn't actually do anything that we can't already do
albeit not as easily.

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #145
> 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?


Dunno but mobile phones is at least one area where ROTW got it right, well
maybe not right, but better :-) It was a jibe!

Cheers, Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #146
> It does run on Win95A+. It does so by basically creating a virtual
machine that your original exe and dependencies run in. Since your
application is running in a virtual machine (with a virtual registry) you
actually don't alter the core OS at all.
Ahh, I'm beginning to understand what thinstall is now if it's all about
virtual machines. How does it handle the hardware?
Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional developers
will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.


I doubt it I'm afraid. Good developers should never believe in the silver
bullet.

But if they can sell for that price, then go for it. It's a free market.

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #147
> Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.


I thought it was a virtual machine?

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #148

Jim Hubbard wrote:

(snip)
you really should try Thinstall (or any
application) before you pass judgement.

I (and I'm sure many others) would very much like to try it.

But not fs that needs an upfront payment of US $4000 !!!

TC

Nov 21 '05 #149
Rob Nicholson <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> wrote:
Thinstall on the destination OS. Remember that Thinstall is a new
deployment tool not an OS replacement.


I thought it was a virtual machine?


I don't think it really is, from what I've read - at least, not to the
extent that a JVM or CLR is. It looks to me like it's really the
virtual file system and virtual registry which forms the basis of it -
it's as if it takes over certain Win32 functions and redirects them to
the appropriate bit of the original exe (decrypting as it goes) or
going to the in-memory registry. Presumably it also lets you go to the
real registry or file system as well (otherwise you couldn't use it for
anything which would have to save or load real files!).

That's just my current understanding though.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 21 '05 #150

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 zhoujie | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.