Run .NET Appllications without runtime.

I know it is possible to run a .NET App without installing the
framework.
http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?welcometothinstall.htm

What I want to know is how effective this is and if there are
alternatives to the above link.

I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.

Thanks,
Nick Z.

Roel
Sun Sep 25 13:29:31 CDT 2005

Only good alternative is to use a non-,net-framework programming environment
(vb6 b.e.).
Described alternative links the used framework libraries to your exe (so
your exe will be blown up to several megabites, I gues 20Mb, the size of the
framework runtime deployment...) And then the question is if Thinstall is
able to run the framework without compatibility issues there the functioning
of the framework depends on a machine-dependent configuration. You can try
it of cource, but a few issues I can tell you at now:
* Your executable loadtime will increase, because of the need to load the
framework libraries
* The cost of Thinstall licence
* Most machines for deployment will already have the framework (WinXp, 2003,
Vista, etc)

Roel

<pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127668043.141166.284650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I know it is possible to run a .NET App without installing the
> framework.
> http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?welcometothinstall.htm
>
> What I want to know is how effective this is and if there are
> alternatives to the above link.
>
> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick Z.
>

Nick
Mon Sep 26 00:43:05 CDT 2005

Roel Oost wrote:

> Only good alternative is to use a non-,net-framework programming environment
> (vb6 b.e.).
> Described alternative links the used framework libraries to your exe (so
> your exe will be blown up to several megabites, I gues 20Mb, the size of the
> framework runtime deployment...) And then the question is if Thinstall is
> able to run the framework without compatibility issues there the functioning
> of the framework depends on a machine-dependent configuration. You can try
> it of cource, but a few issues I can tell you at now:
> * Your executable loadtime will increase, because of the need to load the
> framework libraries

Not an option. The nature of the application requires fast startup (any
general tips/guidelines for achieving that?).

> * The cost of Thinstall licence

Definitely not an option, the license is way too expensive for
Thinstall.Basically they take commission from your sales(downloads?).

> * Most machines for deployment will already have the framework (WinXp, 2003,
> Vista, etc)

Thats what I'm betting on. I heard somewhere that 68% of machines
already have .net installed, whatever that means. Is there any official
figure or some authoritative estimate on that?

>
> Roel
>
> <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127668043.141166.284650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I know it is possible to run a .NET App without installing the
>>framework.
>>http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?welcometothinstall.htm
>>
>>What I want to know is how effective this is and if there are
>>alternatives to the above link.
>>
>>I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>>framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>>runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>>workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Nick Z.
>>
>
>
>

Carl
Mon Sep 26 09:29:47 CDT 2005

The problem is that .NET 2.0 is just around the corner, and we'll have to
deploy a whole new set of runtime libraries, once again!

Regarding Thinstall load up time, I doubt there's a difference with regular
.NET applications. Even with the framework preinstalled on a machine, your
application will need to load it. It would be nice to see some benchmarks
for both.

Carl

"Nick Z." <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5VLZe.27$Xq.15@fe11.lga...
> Thats what I'm betting on. I heard somewhere that 68% of machines already
> have .net installed, whatever that means. Is there any official figure or
> some authoritative estimate on that?

Kevin
Mon Sep 26 09:41:52 CDT 2005

> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.

You're barking up the wrong tree, Nick. First, the .Net Framework is a free
download from the Microsoft Windows Update web site. Second, you can include
the .Net Framework distributable in your app, and set up your setup project
to install it automatically during the setup of your app. Third, consider
Java. You can't run a Java app without the Java Virtual Machine installed on
your machine. Why should .Net be different?

Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and related
technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets. The web site you mentioned
is trying to make money off of you. It doesn't have your best interests at
heart. Rumors, idle chat, SPAM, and random web searches are not sources of
information. If you really want to leverage the power of the .Net platform,
download the FREE Microsoft .Net SDK. The SDK for .Net 1.1 can be downloaded
from:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en

This titanic resource has all the information you could possibly want or
need about the .Net Framework. I spend at least an hour a day in it, and
I've been doing .Net for about 5 years now. Study it. You will find that you
don't need anything other than the .Net Framework, and (if at all possible)
Microsoft Visual Studio.Net to design, create, and deploy .Net applications.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

<pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127668043.141166.284650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I know it is possible to run a .NET App without installing the
> framework.
> http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?welcometothinstall.htm
>
> What I want to know is how effective this is and if there are
> alternatives to the above link.
>
> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick Z.
>

William
Mon Sep 26 11:09:00 CDT 2005

I agree. Also, MS has the Bootstrapper kit that will install .Net Framework
version (if not already installed) from your CD or Inet. It will also
bootstrap things like sql express, etc.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/downloads/tools/bootstrapper/
http://blogs.msdn.com/chrsmith/

So this can make your install pretty clean for the user and self contained.

--
William Stacey [MVP]

"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OQ4WwhqwFHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>
> You're barking up the wrong tree, Nick. First, the .Net Framework is a
> free download from the Microsoft Windows Update web site. Second, you can
> include the .Net Framework distributable in your app, and set up your
> setup project to install it automatically during the setup of your app.
> Third, consider Java. You can't run a Java app without the Java Virtual
> Machine installed on your machine. Why should .Net be different?
>
> Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and
> related technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets. The web site you
> mentioned is trying to make money off of you. It doesn't have your best
> interests at heart. Rumors, idle chat, SPAM, and random web searches are
> not sources of information. If you really want to leverage the power of
> the .Net platform, download the FREE Microsoft .Net SDK. The SDK for .Net
> 1.1 can be downloaded from:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en
>
> This titanic resource has all the information you could possibly want or
> need about the .Net Framework. I spend at least an hour a day in it, and
> I've been doing .Net for about 5 years now. Study it. You will find that
> you don't need anything other than the .Net Framework, and (if at all
> possible) Microsoft Visual Studio.Net to design, create, and deploy .Net
> applications.
>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.
>
> <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127668043.141166.284650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I know it is possible to run a .NET App without installing the
>> framework.
>> http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?welcometothinstall.htm
>>
>> What I want to know is how effective this is and if there are
>> alternatives to the above link.
>>
>> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick Z.
>>
>
>

Roel
Mon Sep 26 13:41:55 CDT 2005

> .NET applications. Even with the framework preinstalled on a machine,
> your application will need to load it. It would be nice to see some
> benchmarks
Yes, but when using more .net apps, the framework libraries should only been
loaded once. Further, parts of the operating system will depend on the
framework, so the framework should load at booting the operatingsystem. Your
.net application should then have a fine fast loadtime

"Carl Mercier" <carl@carl-mercier_pleeeeez_no_spam_..com> wrote in message
news:%23qQdCbqwFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The problem is that .NET 2.0 is just around the corner, and we'll have to
> deploy a whole new set of runtime libraries, once again!
>
> Regarding Thinstall load up time, I doubt there's a difference with
> regular .NET applications. Even with the framework preinstalled on a
> machine, your application will need to load it. It would be nice to see
> some benchmarks for both.
>
> Carl
>
> "Nick Z." <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5VLZe.27$Xq.15@fe11.lga...
>> Thats what I'm betting on. I heard somewhere that 68% of machines already
>> have .net installed, whatever that means. Is there any official figure or
>> some authoritative estimate on that?
>
>

Phil
Mon Sep 26 14:09:28 CDT 2005

There is this too, a bit more versatile:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=cd11be5a-c735-48d9-9cdd-a6d211c2e1c1&displaylang=en
--
Phil Wilson [MVP Windows Installer]
----
"William Stacey [MVP]" <staceyw@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eKlKgSrwFHA.664@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I agree. Also, MS has the Bootstrapper kit that will install .Net
>Framework version (if not already installed) from your CD or Inet. It will
>also bootstrap things like sql express, etc.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/downloads/tools/bootstrapper/
> http://blogs.msdn.com/chrsmith/
>
> So this can make your install pretty clean for the user and self
> contained.
>
> --
> William Stacey [MVP]
>
> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
> news:OQ4WwhqwFHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>>> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>>> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>>> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>>
>> You're barking up the wrong tree, Nick. First, the .Net Framework is a
>> free download from the Microsoft Windows Update web site. Second, you can
>> include the .Net Framework distributable in your app, and set up your
>> setup project to install it automatically during the setup of your app.
>> Third, consider Java. You can't run a Java app without the Java Virtual
>> Machine installed on your machine. Why should .Net be different?
>>
>> Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and
>> related technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets. The web site you
>> mentioned is trying to make money off of you. It doesn't have your best
>> interests at heart. Rumors, idle chat, SPAM, and random web searches are
>> not sources of information. If you really want to leverage the power of
>> the .Net platform, download the FREE Microsoft .Net SDK. The SDK for .Net
>> 1.1 can be downloaded from:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en
>>
>> This titanic resource has all the information you could possibly want or
>> need about the .Net Framework. I spend at least an hour a day in it, and
>> I've been doing .Net for about 5 years now. Study it. You will find that
>> you don't need anything other than the .Net Framework, and (if at all
>> possible) Microsoft Visual Studio.Net to design, create, and deploy .Net
>> applications.
>>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.
>>
>> <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1127668043.141166.284650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>I know it is possible to run a .NET App without installing the
>>> framework.
>>> http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?welcometothinstall.htm
>>>
>>> What I want to know is how effective this is and if there are
>>> alternatives to the above link.
>>>
>>> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>>> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>>> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>>> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick Z.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Carl
Mon Sep 26 15:11:12 CDT 2005

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the .NET framework assemblies need to be
reloaded for each AppDomain. Again, I might be wrong!

I'm not saying that packaging an application with the framework is a good
thing. We don't do that and never had an intend to do so, but sometimes, it
can be necessary (ie: prerequisites installation routine).

I'm still curious about how much overhead thinstall puts on a .NET
executable.

Carl



"Carl Mercier" <carl@carl-mercier_pleeeeez_no_spam_..com> wrote in message
news:%23qQdCbqwFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The problem is that .NET 2.0 is just around the corner, and we'll have to
> deploy a whole new set of runtime libraries, once again!
>
> Regarding Thinstall load up time, I doubt there's a difference with
> regular .NET applications. Even with the framework preinstalled on a
> machine, your application will need to load it. It would be nice to see
> some benchmarks for both.
>
> Carl
>
> "Nick Z." <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5VLZe.27$Xq.15@fe11.lga...
>> Thats what I'm betting on. I heard somewhere that 68% of machines already
>> have .net installed, whatever that means. Is there any official figure or
>> some authoritative estimate on that?
>
>

William
Mon Sep 26 17:10:11 CDT 2005

Yes. And there is a generic bootstrapper built into VS2005, so not sure
how/what/why these fit together or if they have merged into one product or
not.

--
William Stacey [MVP]

"Phil Wilson" <Phil.Wilson@unisys.spamcom> wrote in message
news:%23oI$S3swFHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> There is this too, a bit more versatile:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=cd11be5a-c735-48d9-9cdd-a6d211c2e1c1&displaylang=en
> --
> Phil Wilson [MVP Windows Installer]
> ----
> "William Stacey [MVP]" <staceyw@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:eKlKgSrwFHA.664@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>I agree. Also, MS has the Bootstrapper kit that will install .Net
>>Framework version (if not already installed) from your CD or Inet. It
>>will also bootstrap things like sql express, etc.
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/downloads/tools/bootstrapper/
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/chrsmith/
>>
>> So this can make your install pretty clean for the user and self
>> contained.
>>
>> --
>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>
>> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
>> news:OQ4WwhqwFHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>>>> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>>>> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>>>> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>>>
>>> You're barking up the wrong tree, Nick. First, the .Net Framework is a
>>> free download from the Microsoft Windows Update web site. Second, you
>>> can include the .Net Framework distributable in your app, and set up
>>> your setup project to install it automatically during the setup of your
>>> app. Third, consider Java. You can't run a Java app without the Java
>>> Virtual Machine installed on your machine. Why should .Net be different?
>>>
>>> Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and
>>> related technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets. The web site
>>> you mentioned is trying to make money off of you. It doesn't have your
>>> best interests at heart. Rumors, idle chat, SPAM, and random web
>>> searches are not sources of information. If you really want to leverage
>>> the power of the .Net platform, download the FREE Microsoft .Net SDK.
>>> The SDK for .Net 1.1 can be downloaded from:
>>>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en
>>>
>>> This titanic resource has all the information you could possibly want or
>>> need about the .Net Framework. I spend at least an hour a day in it, and
>>> I've been doing .Net for about 5 years now. Study it. You will find that
>>> you don't need anything other than the .Net Framework, and (if at all
>>> possible) Microsoft Visual Studio.Net to design, create, and deploy .Net
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> --
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Kevin Spencer
>>> Microsoft MVP
>>> .Net Developer
>>> I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.
>>>
>>> <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1127668043.141166.284650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I know it is possible to run a .NET App without installing the
>>>> framework.
>>>> http://www.thinstall.com/help/index.html?welcometothinstall.htm
>>>>
>>>> What I want to know is how effective this is and if there are
>>>> alternatives to the above link.
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>>>> framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>>>> runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>>>> workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Nick Z.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Nick
Mon Sep 26 19:21:23 CDT 2005

Carl Mercier wrote:

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the .NET framework assemblies need to be
> reloaded for each AppDomain. Again, I might be wrong!

I think you are right and I think this is horrible. I just profiled an
application I'm making it uses about 4.5 MB throughout its lifetime,
which seems pretty reasonable.

However, simply starting the application and opening task manager the
application is shown using 20 MB of memory. After doing what is supposed
to do, the application is using 38 MB of memory. Keep in mind that CLR
Profiler is showing that 4.5 MB of memory was used. Excuse my French but
wtf? Is it a memory leak or is this supposed to be like that?

>
> I'm not saying that packaging an application with the framework is a good
> thing. We don't do that and never had an intend to do so, but sometimes, it
> can be necessary (ie: prerequisites installation routine).
>
> I'm still curious about how much overhead thinstall puts on a .NET
> executable.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> "Carl Mercier" <carl@carl-mercier_pleeeeez_no_spam_..com> wrote in message
> news:%23qQdCbqwFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>>The problem is that .NET 2.0 is just around the corner, and we'll have to
>>deploy a whole new set of runtime libraries, once again!
>>
>>Regarding Thinstall load up time, I doubt there's a difference with
>>regular .NET applications. Even with the framework preinstalled on a
>>machine, your application will need to load it. It would be nice to see
>>some benchmarks for both.
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>"Nick Z." <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:5VLZe.27$Xq.15@fe11.lga...
>>
>>>Thats what I'm betting on. I heard somewhere that 68% of machines already
>>>have .net installed, whatever that means. Is there any official figure or
>>>some authoritative estimate on that?
>>
>>
>
>

Nick
Mon Sep 26 19:28:32 CDT 2005

Kevin Spencer wrote:

>>I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>>framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>>runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>>workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>
>
> You're barking up the wrong tree, Nick. First, the .Net Framework is a free
> download from the Microsoft Windows Update web site. Second, you can include
> the .Net Framework distributable in your app, and set up your setup project
> to install it automatically during the setup of your app. Third, consider
> Java. You can't run a Java app without the Java Virtual Machine installed on
> your machine. Why should .Net be different?
>
> Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and related
> technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets. The web site you mentioned
> is trying to make money off of you. It doesn't have your best interests at
> heart. Rumors, idle chat, SPAM, and random web searches are not sources of
> information. If you really want to leverage the power of the .Net platform,
> download the FREE Microsoft .Net SDK. The SDK for .Net 1.1 can be downloaded
> from:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en
>
> This titanic resource has all the information you could possibly want or
> need about the .Net Framework. I spend at least an hour a day in it, and
> I've been doing .Net for about 5 years now. Study it. You will find that you
> don't need anything other than the .Net Framework, and (if at all possible)
> Microsoft Visual Studio.Net to design, create, and deploy .Net applications.
>

Well I know its free... However, my concerns are completely different
and I think I've been fairly clear describing them.

Some shareware developers are claiming that .NET might not be a good
choice for making shareware, simply because it requires downloading .NET
if the user does have it, which may potentially drive people away from
your product. Now I do not agree really with this statement, I think
most users would not mind or already have it. I was trying to consider
my options however. For example it would be nice to have two versions,
one smaller that requires .NET and one that is somewhat larger but runs
without it. Thinstall might be doing that, but the price is completely
unacceptable, that is why I was asking if there are alternatives.

Jon
Tue Sep 27 01:04:41 CDT 2005

Kevin Spencer <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and related
> technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets

While I agree that Thinstall isn't a good way to go for most people, I
think the above is a huge overstatement. There are plenty of ways the
framework could be improved - and is being improved for .NET 2.0. I
don't expect 2.0 to be "as perfect as it gets" either - I expect
Microsoft to keep improving it.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Kevin
Tue Sep 27 06:31:10 CDT 2005

> Some shareware developers are claiming that .NET might not be a good
> choice for making shareware, simply because it requires downloading .NET
> if the user does have it, which may potentially drive people away from
> your product.

I hope that opinions don't make your decisions for you. An opinion is a poor
substitute for a fact. That is why I recommended studying the .Net SDK. It
is nothing but facts. If I depended upon the opinions of others to make my
decisions, I would STILL be writing shareware, which I haven't done in a
dozen years.

There are 2 ways to acquire wisdom: 1. Experience, and 2. By heeding the
advice of those who already have it. The second is by far the easier way to
go, but both work equally well.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

"Nick Z." <pacemkr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7o0_e.123$Xq.2@fe11.lga...
> Kevin Spencer wrote:
>
>>>I am thinking of developing a shareware application based on the .net
>>>framework, however some people argue that the need to install the
>>>runtime may drive prospective customers away. So I'm looking for
>>>workarounds or anything else, just to explore my options.
>>
>>
>> You're barking up the wrong tree, Nick. First, the .Net Framework is a
>> free download from the Microsoft Windows Update web site. Second, you can
>> include the .Net Framework distributable in your app, and set up your
>> setup project to install it automatically during the setup of your app.
>> Third, consider Java. You can't run a Java app without the Java Virtual
>> Machine installed on your machine. Why should .Net be different?
>>
>> Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and
>> related technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets. The web site you
>> mentioned is trying to make money off of you. It doesn't have your best
>> interests at heart. Rumors, idle chat, SPAM, and random web searches are
>> not sources of information. If you really want to leverage the power of
>> the .Net platform, download the FREE Microsoft .Net SDK. The SDK for .Net
>> 1.1 can be downloaded from:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9B3A2CA6-3647-4070-9F41-A333C6B9181D&displaylang=en
>>
>> This titanic resource has all the information you could possibly want or
>> need about the .Net Framework. I spend at least an hour a day in it, and
>> I've been doing .Net for about 5 years now. Study it. You will find that
>> you don't need anything other than the .Net Framework, and (if at all
>> possible) Microsoft Visual Studio.Net to design, create, and deploy .Net
>> applications.
>>
>
> Well I know its free... However, my concerns are completely different and
> I think I've been fairly clear describing them.
>
> Some shareware developers are claiming that .NET might not be a good
> choice for making shareware, simply because it requires downloading .NET
> if the user does have it, which may potentially drive people away from
> your product. Now I do not agree really with this statement, I think most
> users would not mind or already have it. I was trying to consider my
> options however. For example it would be nice to have two versions, one
> smaller that requires .NET and one that is somewhat larger but runs
> without it. Thinstall might be doing that, but the price is completely
> unacceptable, that is why I was asking if there are alternatives.

Kevin
Tue Sep 27 06:40:24 CDT 2005

> I think the above is a huge overstatement. There are plenty of ways the
> framework could be improved - and is being improved for .NET 2.0. I
> don't expect 2.0 to be "as perfect as it gets" either - I expect
> Microsoft to keep improving it.

You misunderstood the statement, Jon. What I said precisely is that the .Net
Framework is about as perfect "as it gets." I did NOT say that the .Net
Framework is about as perfect as any Framework could possibly be. What I
meant was that, comparing the .Net Framework to any other existing
Framework, there is nothing better, and that, given the limitations of time
and resources, the .Net Framework, as it now stands, is about as perfect as
any Framework could be. At this time. In other words, "as it gets."

Of course Microsoft will continue to improve it. The .Net Framework 2.0 is
light-years beyond the 1.1 Framework. That is to be expected. But comparing
any existing technology to the infinite future possibilities of all
technologies is fruitless and meaningless.

I hope I have clarified my remark to your satisfaction.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1da2f1545396933098c7da@msnews.microsoft.com...
> Kevin Spencer <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Microsoft spent years of reasearch developing the .Net Framwork and
>> related
>> technologies. It is about as perfect as it gets
>
> While I agree that Thinstall isn't a good way to go for most people, I
> think the above is a huge overstatement. There are plenty of ways the
> framework could be improved - and is being improved for .NET 2.0. I
> don't expect 2.0 to be "as perfect as it gets" either - I expect
> Microsoft to keep improving it.
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too