Why there is still life in Win32 apps for a while yet
Craig van Nieuwkerk
left MS for Google. He has an interesting blog entry on shipping software.
"Consider the .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something
innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET framework. How
would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't. Not unless you sign up
to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see, the .NET Framework isn't
widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the world.
Microsoft built the software, tested it, released it to manufacturing. They
"shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for
you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it. If you want to use .NET,
you need to ship Microsoft's software for them. Isn't this an odd state of
affairs?"
http://mark-lucovsky.blogspot.com/2005/02/shipping-software.html
Craig.
Craig van Nieuwkerk
>
> I'm pretty certain the Net Framework can be included by ISV's on their
CD's,
> just like service packs and other updates. The framework itself is noted
as
> redistributable, and for end-users simply running .NET apps, this is all
> they need:
>
Assuming the distribute CD's. I think only 5% of software I buy these days
comes with a CD.
Craig.
Dan Palley
news:4227...@newsgroups.borland.com...
I'm pretty certain the Net Framework can be included by ISV's on their CD's,
just like service packs and other updates. The framework itself is noted as
redistributable, and for end-users simply running .NET apps, this is all
they need:
It's the Framework SDK, including the C# compiler, etc, that you have to
have an agreement with MS to include, which is what Borland did for D8 and
D9.
Dan
David Farrell-Garcia
> "Consider the .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something
> innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET
> framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't.
> Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see,
> the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed.
Ridiculous. If your application uses a particular database you have to
deploy that as well. What is so darn mystical about deploying the .Net
framework. Your installer installs it just like MDAC, or any other
library. Some of you folks really need to get over this. If ya don't
like .Net or don't want to use it you don't have to explain it to
anybody, but whining about it here borders on foolish.
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.2.7
Craig van Nieuwkerk
>
> The last time I looked, the .NET Framework was installed on the systems of
> 15% of visitors to my site - typically older-generation home-users. Does
> this sort of figure justify the claim 'small fraction'? I wouldn't have
> thought so.
>
I would consider 15% to be a small fraction. Certainly too small for me to
assume they have it and not need to deploy it.
> This is a short-term issue. I would be very surprised if the .NET
framework
> isn't installed by default by the OS which is the successor to Windows XP.
>
Depends on what you call short term. The next version of Windows is at least
2 years away and wont be ubiquitous for at least 2 years after that.
Craig/
Chris Burrows
> widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the
> world.
The last time I looked, the .NET Framework was installed on the systems of
15% of visitors to my site - typically older-generation home-users. Does
this sort of figure justify the claim 'small fraction'? I wouldn't have
thought so.
This is a short-term issue. I would be very surprised if the .NET framework
isn't installed by default by the OS which is the successor to Windows XP.
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com
Craig van Nieuwkerk
>
> > "Consider the .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something
> > innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET
> > framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't.
> > Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see,
> > the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed.
>
> Ridiculous. If your application uses a particular database you have to
> deploy that as well. What is so darn mystical about deploying the .Net
> framework. Your installer installs it just like MDAC, or any other
> library. Some of you folks really need to get over this. If ya don't
> like .Net or don't want to use it you don't have to explain it to
> anybody, but whining about it here borders on foolish.
>
I'm not whining, I love .NET and develop with it every day. Just pointing
out that one of the original architects of Windows thinks MS have lost the
plot on deployment issues. A 22mb additional deployment is pretty
significant for a lot of people.
JED
> A 22mb additional deployment is pretty
> significant for a lot of people.
it's around 12 when 7zip'd
--
Screenshots of Version 2 of DCM now available from
http://www.alphalink.com.au/~jed/dcm.htm
Lee Grissom
> Depends on what you call short term. The next version of Windows is
> at least 2 years away and wont be ubiquitous for at least 2 years
> after that.
A good point as I'm still using Windows 2000 (released 5 years ago) at work
and just recently purchased XP (3 years after release) for home. I can't
afford to buy the new license and requisite new hardware at will, so I'm
certain I'll not be updating to Longhorn until at least a year after it's
been out, and most likely longer. There's plenty of steam left for Win32 on
my desktop.
--
Lee
Matt Jacobs
No different than deploying the JRE with your setup. I don't see it as
a major issue.
And if you are worried about *your* bandwidth, you can have your setup
download the .NET framework directly from MS as part of the setup
process.
Eric Grange
> significant for a lot of people.
And it will only get worse with further .Net revisions and their
side-by-side installation requirement, .Net 2.0 is already quite
larger than 1.1.
Eric
Eric Grange
> a major issue.
Still much more complex than not having to deploy anything,
and speaking of JRE, talk about version deployment mess...
If you need to deploy a JRE, you'd better hope your application
is the only one that uses it.
Eric
Chris Brooksbank
if you want to sell a mass market consumer application. Depends on your
target audience.
"Craig van Nieuwkerk" <cra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4227...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Will DeWitt Jr.
> And it will only get worse with further .Net revisions and their
> side-by-side installation requirement, .Net 2.0 is already quite
> larger than 1.1.
Where's that slim and trim VBRUN300.DLL when you need it? :P
Will
--
Want native support in Delphi for AMD64/EM64T? Vote here--
Charles Appel
news:42284cfc$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Where's that slim and trim VBRUN300.DLL when you need it? :P
LOL!
--
Charles Appel
"A generation which ignores history has no past - and no future."
Robert Anson Heinlein
Mark Andrews
>
>
> No different than deploying the JRE with your setup. I don't see it as
> a major issue.
>
> And if you are worried about *your* bandwidth, you can have your setup
> download the .NET framework directly from MS as part of the setup
> process.
If you read MarcL's entire Blog entry, you'll understand what he was
trying to get across - that because of MS's archaic software development
and delivery process, that the burden to deliver their new technology
has fallen on the ISV. It is an interesting chain of events. He
postulates that companies that don't require this of ISV's will be the
ones that will challenge MS's dominance. Its an interesting thought, one
that I hadn't thought of before. Then again, I still haven't bought into
.net myself.
Another note; surely none of us would sell our customers a piece of
software and then inform them that they have to install .net before it
is used, would we? I know that I would be angry if I wasn't told upfront
that I was going to have to install an OS upgrade before I bought a
program.
Mark
David Farrell-Garcia
> Another note; surely none of us would sell our customers a piece of
> software and then inform them that they have to install .net before
> it is used, would we? I know that I would be angry if I wasn't told
> upfront that I was going to have to install an OS upgrade before I
> bought a program.
Well, of course you should, just like you should inform them what
minimum operating system is required. For any applicaiton shipped on
CD/DVD the installer will take care of it, so it is a non issue, but if
it is going to be a web download then they should be informed of the
requirements are Ok the download install of .Net.
![Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWU6JIYTx6kJCxK1P9qy-0IkTLb3QUOOaGRszn1aPNSjVyUm9M=s40-c)
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> This is a short-term issue. I would be very surprised if the .NET
> framework isn't installed by default by the OS which is the successor
> to Windows XP.
That would surprise me as well. My XP Pro SP1 installed .NET without
asking.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://rvelthuis.bei.t-online.de
"Not only is there no God, but try finding a plumber on Sunday."
- Woody Allen (1935-)
Dan Palley
You can embed the .NET framework into your setup that users can download, or
you can have the setup link directly to MS's server to download during
installation.
Dan
Wayne Davis
> and just recently purchased XP (3 years after release) for home. I can't
> afford to buy the new license and requisite new hardware at will, so I'm
> certain I'll not be updating to Longhorn until at least a year after it's
> been out, and most likely longer. There's plenty of steam left for Win32 on
> my desktop.
> -
>
I use Windows 2000 by choice on my development and home systems. XP
added too much useless junk for my taste.
Wayne Davis
says...
> Of course this isnt relevant if you code enterprise apps. Its very relevant
> if you want to sell a mass market consumer application. Depends on your
> target audience.
>
>
Exactly for enterprise apps it's a non-issue, but for desktop consumer
apps it's a huge drawback when considered against Win32
Jan Derk
> That would surprise me as well. My XP Pro SP1 installed .NET without
> asking.
I bought Window XP Pro SP2 a month or so ago and it did *not* install .NET.
Jan Derk
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
> > That would surprise me as well. My XP Pro SP1 installed .NET without
> > asking.
>
> I bought Window XP Pro SP2 a month or so ago and it did not install
> .NET.
Weird. I can't explain it. I didn't know it had installed .NET, but
found out when I wanted to try C#Builder a few months later.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://rvelthuis.bei.t-online.de
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
-- Joseph Stalin.
Matt Jacobs
>Another note; surely none of us would sell our customers a piece of
>software and then inform them that they have to install .net before it
>is used, would we? I know that I would be angry if I wasn't told upfront
> that I was going to have to install an OS upgrade before I bought a
>program.
I don't view installation of the .NET runtimes as an OS upgrade, just
as I don't view installation of a JRE as an OS upgrade.