Redistributable on Windows 95

[Chris Crabtree]

I wanted to test deploying a .NET application on a Windows
95 machine. I built a simple console Hello World and then
built a deployment project based on that. The deployment
project includes the dotnetfxredist_x86_enu.msm, of
course, and I set it to use the Windows Installer
Bootstrapper.

The deployment ends up at about 17MB, which isn't too bad.

When I run the Setup.EXE, things go along fine for a bit
(Windows Installer does indeed bootstrap, etc.), but then
I get this message:
.NET Framework is not supported on Windows 95.

I can understand this message with Beta 2, but my question
is will I also have this problem with the released version?

I have seen several posts that conflict in this regard,
and I haven't seen anything definitive from MS. That bit
in the ASP.NET Platform Requirements where it says:
The Microsoft .NET Framework SDK is supported on Windows
2000, Windows NT 4 with Service Pack 6a, Windows ME,
Windows 98, Windows SE and Windows 95.

is the only place that addresses it, but since it's part
of the ASP.NET docs just as an aside, it makes me wonder
if that is the authorative source for this information,
you know?

Thanks!

[Rusty Miller [msft]]

Hi Chris,

Where in the documenation did you see this:

> The Microsoft .NET Framework SDK is supported on Windows
> 2000, Windows NT 4 with Service Pack 6a, Windows ME,
> Windows 98, Windows SE and Windows 95.

Windows 95 is not supported by the .NET Frameworks.

Thanks,
Rusty Miller
Microsoft Corp.

"Chris Crabtree" <chris_c...@shoneys.com> wrote in message
news:064301c0ff39$9ee5e860$9ae62ecf@tkmsftngxa02...

[Chris Crabtree]

First, I am of course disappointed that the runtime will not run on Windows
95. That seems to be a big chunk of users left out in general, and in my
situation in particular it leaves out all of my primary users but two.

I'm afraid I don't understand technically what would allow the .NET
Framework to run on Windows 98 but not on Windows 95. Can you shed any light
on that for us? I've spent no small amount of time developing for 95 and
while I readily admit that the file system, USB support, and driver model
are superior in 98 (not to mention the newer Windows editions, of course), I
haven't run into that much difference in the core OS.

I do understand the need to limit your test cases somehow, and supporting 95
obviously was not an option for Beta 2. And you say it will not in version 1
release, either. How about version 2?

In the meantime, where does that leave me? I can continue with Visual Studio
6.0 tools. I can switch to Delphi/Kylix and gain some uniformity across
platforms. Or I can jump on the Java bandwagon. Practically speaking, I will
have to move off of VS6 within the next year or I won't be able to easily
find good developers who are still interested in programming in that
environment. I had been holding out .NET as that greener pasture, but it
looks like I made a mistake. Upgrading our 95 systems *sounds* like an easy
solution, but for reasons I can't go into right here, it is unfortunately
just not going to happen.

Anyway, here is how to get to the documentation I referenced:
Start menu-->Programs-->Microsoft .NET Framework SDK-->Documentation.

In the Contents pane, follow this tree:
- .NET Framework SDK
- Building .NET Framework Applications
- Creating ASP.NET Web Applications
- ASP.NET Platform Requirements

It's the second paragraph.

Thanks.

"Rusty Miller [msft]" <rustym....@m.i.c.r.o.s.o.f.t.com> wrote in
message news:eEiP3$0$AHA.1628@tkmsftngp05...

[Lance Olson (MSFT)]

Chris,

While use and deployment of Windows 95 in the corporate space is rapidly
trending downward, we recognize that there is currently a large base of
machines still relying on it. It was for this reason that we initally (in
beta 1) intended to support running the Framework on Windows 95. This is
why you see the entry in the documentation that didn't get updated to say
that we do not support Windows 95.

The decision not to support the .NET Framework on Windows 95 was not an easy
one. It was made only after several weeks of consideration on a number of
key factors such as the impact on developers and current installed base of
Windows 95, consistency with other Microsoft products (like Office XP), and
the impact on our own quality assurance and development teams. In the end,
we made the decision that we would be providing more value for our customers
by shipping a solid product sooner on fewer platforms, than by slipping our
dates our further in order to guarantee ample coverage on Windows 95.
Technically, there are not a ton of differences between Windows 95 and
Windows 98, but there certainly are some, and we can't just assume that they
won't have an impact and not test them so the cost of coverage to our QA and
Dev teams remains the same even if the OS's aren't too far apart.

I realize that this is a disappointment for you as the .NET Framework is a
very compelling platform and it would be great to have it on Windows 95.
Given the factors and priorities listed above I do not expect to see
Microsoft providing support for the Framework on Windows 95 unless enough
customers indicate that they would rather see Windows 95 support in leiu of
shipping the current feature set on schedule.

Lance Olson
Lead Program Manager
.NET Framework Team

>>>>>>>>
"Chris Crabtree" <chris_c...@shoneys.com> wrote in message

news:eCxWcU4$AHA.1396@tkmsftngp05...

[Chris Crabtree]

First of all, thanks for your response. How about this as a compromise?

1. Don't support .NET Framework on Windows 95.
2. However, allow the .NET Framework redist to be installed on Windows 95
(obviously, the setup is checking explicitly for 95).
3. If I have problems, I'll keep them to myself, because of #1 above. :-)
4. Where I don't have problems, I get the benefits of the .NET Framework as
a compelling platform.

I would be comfortable with this because I've never had to call MSFT anyway,
but I understand why you wouldn't want this situation for every user.
Perhaps allow users who explicitly want to do this to set an obscure
setting, so there could be no question that we know that we are asking the
software to do something that isn't supported. Maybe check for the existence
of a registry key: HKEY_USERS/All
Users/IWillNotCallMicrosoftForDotNETSupport=(dword)0x01.

Anyway, I will forward this to my MS rep to cast our vote for continued 95
support.

Thanks!
"Lance Olson (MSFT)" <lan...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ugfCxkxABHA.1668@tkmsftngp02...

[Jonathan Taylor]

I agree with Chris - there are large user groups, such as Covenant
HealthCare, who will not be migrating to Windows 2000 for another year or
two due to financial reasons. Why can't Microsoft make the .NET framework
run on Windows 95 so that we can continue to deploy to that platform while
we develop on the new .NET Framework ?

This strategy will force my company to maintain two separate code sets until
all our user groups are off of Windows 95 !!

Please respond....

Thanks,
Jonathan Taylor

"Chris Crabtree" <chris_c...@shoneys.com> wrote in message

news:eCxWcU4$AHA.1396@tkmsftngp05...

[Brian Ballard]

OK I hear Microsoft stating that Windows 95 will not be supported, but what
about the other platforms, especially Windows NT 4.0?

"Jonathan Taylor" <tay...@orau.gov> wrote in message
news:u$OAuxAJBHA.1256@tkmsftngp02...