C# WinApp as a stand alone application

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman Yankin
  • Start date Start date
R

Roman Yankin

Hello All,

Is there a way to compile C# windows application as a stand alone program?

In my univ class we don't have VS.NET installed and I need to have my
executable running with out .NET environment. Is it possible?

As i'm getting the following error:



To run this application you first must install one of the following versions
of .net framework 1.1.4322 [...]



Unfortunately i have no chance for installing anything there.



Thanks,

Roman.
 
Nope. You have to install .NET Framework.

Hello All,

Is there a way to compile C# windows application as a stand alone program?

In my univ class we don't have VS.NET installed and I need to have my
executable running with out .NET environment. Is it possible?

As i'm getting the following error:



To run this application you first must install one of the following versions
of .net framework 1.1.4322 [...]



Unfortunately i have no chance for installing anything there.



Thanks,

Roman.
 
Actually this is pretty strange to write library that can't be used without
installation of 100 MB neither on Win98 nor on Win2000...?
 
Roman Yankin said:
Actually this is pretty strange to write library that can't be used without
installation of 100 MB neither on Win98 nor on Win2000...?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about installed footprint size, or download size? The
download for the framework is only 23MB.
 
I'm talking about the installed size. For instance in my case i simply want
to write a small program on C# that emulates some abstract process (my lab.
exercise). In our university class we got only Win2000 Pro and some IDEs
(VS6, Borlands, etc...) obviously i can't install Framework there. And can
someone explain me what's the sense in writing programs on .NET framework if
you can't deploy a compiled app without libraries being installed on the
client PC?
 
Roman said:
Actually this is pretty strange to write library that can't be used
without installation of 100 MB neither on Win98 nor on Win2000...?
Click to expand...

.Net isn't a library, it's an extention of the OS.

And isn't stranger to be using Win98 (or even Win2000) in 2004?
 
I'm talking about the installed size. For instance in my case i simply
want to write a small program on C# that emulates some abstract
process (my lab. exercise). In our university class we got only
Win2000 Pro and some IDEs (VS6, Borlands, etc...) obviously i can't
install Framework there. And can someone explain me what's the sense
in writing programs on .NET framework if you can't deploy a compiled
app without libraries being installed on the client PC?
Click to expand...

The same was true of (say) VB, which required VB DLLs to be installed. The
ones for .NET are much larger, but also much more comprehensive.

Andy D
 
Hi Roman Yankin,
Actually this is pretty strange to write library that can't be used
without installation of 100 MB neither on Win98 nor on Win2000...?
Click to expand...

This is not strang, this is by design!
And if you do not like it, you must not use it. This is very simple.
Anyone who programs in the managed world should be (or must be) aware of
this fact.

--
Greetings
Jochen

My blog about Win32 and .NET
http://blog.kalmbachnet.de/
 
Roman Yankin said:
I'm talking about the installed size. For instance in my case i simply want
to write a small program on C# that emulates some abstract process (my lab.
exercise). In our university class we got only Win2000 Pro and some IDEs
(VS6, Borlands, etc...) obviously i can't install Framework there. And can
someone explain me what's the sense in writing programs on .NET framework if
you can't deploy a compiled app without libraries being installed on the
client PC?
Click to expand...

Would you say the same thing about VB, which also required libraries?

I'm not sure that it's obvious that you can't install the framework at
university - have you asked the sys admins whether it would be
acceptable?
 
Hi Jon Skeet [C# MVP],

I suggest to automaticaly post once a week in all managed newsgroups:


Subject:
WARNING: .NET-Framework is required for C#/VB.NET/Managed C++

Text:
If you want do deploy an application which was written with any programming
language, which is based on the .NET-Framework, you must also install the
..NET-Framework on the target computer!
This requires, that you either pointt to the MS-download site or pack it on
your installation CD.

If you do not want this, then please use a different programming language
(for example native C++ / VB6 / Perl / PHP).

--
Greetings
Jochen

My blog about Win32 and .NET
http://blog.kalmbachnet.de/
 
Jochen Kalmbach said:
I suggest to automaticaly post once a week in all managed newsgroups:

Subject:
WARNING: .NET-Framework is required for C#/VB.NET/Managed C++

Text:
If you want do deploy an application which was written with any programming
language, which is based on the .NET-Framework, you must also install the
.NET-Framework on the target computer!
This requires, that you either pointt to the MS-download site or pack it on
your installation CD.

If you do not want this, then please use a different programming language
(for example native C++ / VB6 / Perl / PHP).
Click to expand...

That would be useful if people read the group before posting, but I
don't think that happens very often.
 
Hi Roman,

I might be horribly wrong, but I believe the message you get might
indicate that one version or the framework is already installed. If
framework wasn't installed you would get some mscorlib error.
I'm guessing Framework 1.0 is installed, but you are compiling with
framework 1.1.
If 1.0 is installed then there is even less reason for the administrators
not to install 1.1.
Then again, a patch might have changed the error behaviour of framework
programs on non framework systems.
 
Dont know if this helps you much, but it is easy to deploy NET framework and
keep it updatet using Software Update Services. SUS is a free utility that
is to be found on Microsofts homepage. Writing code using C# has many
advantages and is saving you lots of time, so spending a little time
evaluating options regarding installing NET framework is maybee not a bad
thing. I realise that you did not ask about this and that this is a little
on the side, but a tip is often OK anyway :-)
Using Win98 is not an optimal solution in an developement environment. From
an administraters (like me) point of view it is really bad.
Best regards
Trond
 
And isn't stranger to be using Win98 (or even Win2000) in 2004?

I consider it odd as well to use W2K in 2004 but at work(new place for me)
we have nothing but W2K. In addition, they just moved over from Exchange 5.5
last week.
 
Subject:
WARNING: .NET-Framework is required for C#/VB.NET/Managed C++
Click to expand...

Well of course it is! Computers evolve, programming evolves, things
change...

You don't bemoan the fact that Windows XP is hundreds of times larger than
Windows 95...

The .NET Framework is an extension to the operating system.

..NET apps require the .NET Framework - if you don't like it, program in
something else...
 
Back
Top