How to install VB.NET app w/o .NET?

[Brett]

Is there a way to create a VB.NET application without having the client
download the 20+ megs of .NET framework? Just seems impractical for people
on dial-up. How are you handling this situation?

Thanks,
Brett

[Carlos J. Quintero [.NET MVP]]

No, you need the 20+ MB .NET Framework runtime. For that reason, .NET is not
suitable for dial-up downloads. You need broad-band, CD distribution or to
use VB6 instead.

--

Carlos J. Quintero

MZ-Tools 4.0: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio .NET
You can code, design and document much faster.
http://www.mztools.com
"Brett" <[e-mail]> escribió en el mensaje
news:eM**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Is there a way to create a VB.NET application without having the client
download the 20+ megs of .NET framework? Just seems impractical for
people on dial-up. How are you handling this situation?

Thanks,
Brett

[Crouchie1998]

Why don't you use Winzip Self Exrtractor to install the application instead
of the Windows Installer?

Yes, you still need the framework for the application to function, but at
least this way you wont HAVE to download the framwork.

Look at it a different way: What percentage of computers aren't running the
framework these days?

[David Pendrey]

Check out the conversation titled 'Stand Alone EXE' by me (David Pendrey) on
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. We are having a very similar
discussion and there has been a program mentioned which aparently can make a
..EXE program which does not require the .NET framework to be installed

"Crouchie1998" <Cr**********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7**********************************@microsof t.com...

Why don't you use Winzip Self Exrtractor to install the application
instead
of the Windows Installer?

Yes, you still need the framework for the application to function, but at
least this way you wont HAVE to download the framwork.

Look at it a different way: What percentage of computers aren't running
the
framework these days?

[Cor Ligthert]

Crouchie,

Yes, you still need the framework for the application to function, but at
least this way you wont HAVE to download the framwork.

I add to this message the last time "when it is not installed" why people in
this newsgroup think forever that that is not done already.

Just to let you know,

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

David,

Do you real believe that this is new to the ones who are active in this
newsgroup?

A sample from this newsgroup

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...62997f6eed3d1d

Cor

[Brett]

Thanks.

How is this handled:
"Things like Thinstall do definitely
have advantages, but if a bug crops up in a .NET component, how do you patch
it? You need to tell your users (it becomes a problem in YOUR code, rather
than the framework) rather than letting them just get updates via Windows
Update etc."

Brett

"David Pendrey" <fa*******@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42********@news.comindico.com.au...

Check out the conversation titled 'Stand Alone EXE' by me (David Pendrey)
on microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. We are having a very similar
discussion and there has been a program mentioned which aparently can make
a .EXE program which does not require the .NET framework to be installed

"Crouchie1998" <Cr**********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7**********************************@microsof t.com...

Why don't you use Winzip Self Exrtractor to install the application
instead
of the Windows Installer?

Yes, you still need the framework for the application to function, but at
least this way you wont HAVE to download the framwork.

Look at it a different way: What percentage of computers aren't running
the
framework these days?