Are there any new ways to overcome .NET Overheads?
Timothy Casey
weeks for the mail to clear customs, anti-terror inspections, etc. Most have
no access to broadband, and given that broadband and cable are
infrastructure dependent technologies, it is unlikely that the bulk of my
customers will be able to use this form of internet access for a very long
time. Given the 30Mb overhead of .NET programs due to the shipping of the
.NET framework with every program, and the expense of having to pay for
3-5Gb of bandwidth per sale of .NET developed applications, I fail to see
any benefit in "meta-languages" such as .NET.
Enthusiasts are keen to point out that the customer can be given the option
to download the .NET framework only if they need it; but this only serves to
make the process more confusing. When in doubt, the customers will download
the .NET framework anyway; if the sheer size of the package, and the
diversion from their intended product (to what amounts to a giant patch)
doesn't put them off altogether!
In other words, it is way too much to ask consumers to know whether they
have the .NET Framework in place on their system or on any intended system.
This is why I still use VB6 even though I purchased VB7 .NET 2003 some time
ago.
So, as I am keen to share in the benefits of this bleeding edge technology,
I am not quite ready to slash the wrists of my business with it just yet!
:^)
My question then, is whether there has emerged any new way to adapt .NET to
the needs of software developers who directly service private consumers
without confusing or discouraging the clientele or blowing out the bandwidth
budget...?
Alternatively, should I kiss the money I spent goodbye, and just use the
.NET 2003 CD as a coaster?
Thanks in Advance for any suggestions...
--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >> 11950 is the num...@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover the most advanced speed comprehension application at:
www.fieldcraft.biz/shop <BRef http://www.fieldcraft.biz/ki.htm >
Bob Butler
message news:426ef...@news.iprimus.com.au
> The vast majority of my customers (PC/Windows Users) do not want to
--
<response type="generic" language="VB.Net">
This newsgroup is for users of Visual Basic version 6.0
and earlier and not the misleadingly named VB.Net
or VB 200x. Solutions, and often even the questions,
for one platform will be meaningless in the other.
When VB.Net was released Microsoft created new newsgroups
devoted to the new platform so that neither group of
developers need wade through the clutter of unrelated
topics. Look for newsgroups with the words "dotnet" or
"vsnet" in their name. For the msnews.microsoft.com news
server try these:
microsoft.public.dotnet.general
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb
</response>
Karl E. Peterson
> The vast majority of my customers (PC/Windows Users) do not want to
> wait six weeks for the mail to clear customs, anti-terror
> inspections, etc. Most have no access to broadband, and given that
> broadband and cable are infrastructure dependent technologies, it is
> unlikely that the bulk of my customers will be able to use this form
> of internet access for a very long time. Given the 30Mb overhead of
> .NET programs due to the shipping of the .NET framework with every
> program, and the expense of having to pay for 3-5Gb of bandwidth per
> sale of .NET developed applications, I fail to see any benefit in
> "meta-languages" such as .NET.
Almost everyone here would certainly agree with you on this, and in fact everyone
here is still using Classic VB (since that's what this group is dedicated to). The
enormity of the framework has put off many from using it, and pretty well makes it
totally unusable for most sorts of web offerings. Ironic, that, but undisputable
even by Microsoft.
> In other words, it is way too much to ask consumers to know whether
> they have the .NET Framework in place on their system or on any
> intended system.
Agreed.
> This is why I still use VB6 even though I purchased
> VB7 .NET 2003 some time ago.
Heck, it's why I use VB5(!) when I want widespread, trouble-free distribution! Now
there's a runtime that's nearly universal.
> So, as I am keen to share in the benefits of this bleeding edge
> technology, I am not quite ready to slash the wrists of my business
> with it just yet! :^)
Smart.
> My question then, is whether there has emerged any new way to adapt
> .NET to the needs of software developers who directly service private
> consumers without confusing or discouraging the clientele or blowing
> out the bandwidth budget...?
You could distribute on CDs, or just stick with works.
Later... Karl
--
Working Without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/petition
Peter Aitken
news:u39Jlh0S...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Timothy Casey wrote:
>> The vast majority of my customers (PC/Windows Users) do not want to
>> wait six weeks for the mail to clear customs, anti-terror
>> inspections, etc. Most have no access to broadband, and given that
>> broadband and cable are infrastructure dependent technologies, it is
>> unlikely that the bulk of my customers will be able to use this form
>> of internet access for a very long time. Given the 30Mb overhead of
>> .NET programs due to the shipping of the .NET framework with every
>> program, and the expense of having to pay for 3-5Gb of bandwidth per
>> sale of .NET developed applications, I fail to see any benefit in
>> "meta-languages" such as .NET.
>
> Almost everyone here would certainly agree with you on this, and in fact
> everyone
> here is still using Classic VB (since that's what this group is dedicated
> to). The
> enormity of the framework has put off many from using it, and pretty well
> makes it
> totally unusable for most sorts of web offerings. Ironic, that, but
> undisputable
> even by Microsoft.
>
What overhead? For .Net web apps everything is on the server and all the end
user needs is a browser.
--
Peter Aitken
Remove the crap from my email address before using.
Veign
distributed on the web) not Web Application..
--
Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP (VB)
Veign's Resource Center
http://www.veign.com/vrc_main.asp
--
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
"Peter Aitken" <pai...@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uYbXy70S...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Ken Halter
> end user needs is a browser.
....and, who mentioned "web apps"? Plus, people with slow connections still
have to wait 30 seconds or so for a page to load. That's not exactly
"blazing fast" imo.
--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Sign up now to help keep VB support alive - http://classicvb.org/petition
Please keep all discussions in the groups..
Karl E. Peterson
> He said Web Offerings (as in shareware type applications or
> application distributed on the web) not Web Application..
It's good to see that reading comprehension isn't a (totally!) lost art...
Peter Aitken
news:esqaz90S...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> He said Web Offerings (as in shareware type applications or application
> distributed on the web) not Web Application..
>
> --
OK, gotcha.
Timothy Casey
> news:u39Jlh0S...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > Timothy Casey wrote:
>
> What overhead? For .Net web apps everything is on the server and all the
end
> user needs is a browser.
>
Web documents are fine, but web applications? ?
Have people forgotten that a web page is just a public document?
Have people forgotten that you should scan ALL code before running it on
your PC? NEWSFLASH: JavaScript, VBscript, plug-ins are all code! (as opposed
to mark-up) This is the most basic PC Security 101!
So why would anyone want to run a "web application" client-side if they
cannot:
1. Download and quarantine it for at least 72 hours
2. Scan for virii, worms, trojans, spyware, and other crimeware
3. Then install & run ONLY if clean.
Otherwise, anything instant should run server-side. No client-side scripts
and no client-side plug-ins. End of story.
Timothy Casey
> Veign wrote:
> > He said Web Offerings (as in shareware type applications or
> > application distributed on the web) not Web Application..
>
> It's good to see that reading comprehension isn't a (totally!) lost art...
Should I have plugged my speed reading & comprehension package?
www.field-craft.com/software/speed-reading
:^)
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
I'd be interested in signing the petition BUT...
The petition needs to have meaning for the large number of VB shareware
developers:
Is the use of the term, "unmanaged" in the proposed VB .COM petition a in
any way intended to refer to compact or nil dependency files for shipping
with the final package?
For anyone that is curious, it turns out that the compact framework for .NET
does NOT work on PCs (only for Windows PDAs etc.).
Well I hope that I can eventually find a use for that .NET license....
I am always open to suggestions! :^)
Karl E. Peterson
> "Karl E. Peterson" <ka...@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23HrYJW1...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Veign wrote:
>>> He said Web Offerings (as in shareware type applications or
>>> application distributed on the web) not Web Application..
>>
>> It's good to see that reading comprehension isn't a (totally!) lost
>> art...
>
> Should I have plugged my speed reading & comprehension package?
> www.field-craft.com/software/speed-reading
>
> :^)
<g>
>> --
>> Working Without a .NET?
>> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
> I'd be interested in signing the petition BUT...
>
> The petition needs to have meaning for the large number of VB
> shareware developers:
The rationale is a request for continued support. The suggested method of delivery
is open to negotiation. I think that would apply to *all* VB developers, shareware
or otherwise.
> Is the use of the term, "unmanaged" in the proposed VB .COM petition
> a in any way intended to refer to compact or nil dependency files for
> shipping with the final package?
Not as I understand it?
> For anyone that is curious, it turns out that the compact framework
> for .NET does NOT work on PCs (only for Windows PDAs etc.).
>
> Well I hope that I can eventually find a use for that .NET license....
> I am always open to suggestions! :^)
eBay?