Well, I care! hehe
I'm interested in selling to the PUBLIC. And I don't know one person that
does what you suggest. Most end-users just install software as is, they
don't test a thing. The only thing that will annoy them is trying to run my
application and getting a 'you can't do that' screen of death upon
execution, with a message no layman is ever going to read, they'll just
return the software!
And while it would take my customers less then a minute to install my
program, it could take many minutes to install its support. And like I said,
if they miss that step, they might interpret the system error screen as an
indicator to return the product to get their money back! Which is why this
decision is bad for those who want to use VS to make COMERCIAL products.
It sounds like you're more use to delivering software to companies, not
consumers. Consumers just want it to work with as little installation as
possible. I know, I've been doing consumer software applications (mostly
games) for 25+ years.
Ahhh, that's Microsoft's problem, not the consumers, and not mine. THEY
should make sure their stuff is backwards compatible. Otherwise, they should
make sure BOTH versions exist simultaneously.
You're suggesting this is a problem to be solved by the CONSUMER, that THEY
have to compromise to make it work. In this case, you're suggesting the
consumer be forced to manually maintain the proper .NET Frameworks on his
machine. That's too much to expect of the average consumer! Most such
engines do this without such need of manual attention on the part of the
end-users. DirectX for example is basically transparent to the end-user,
EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE to all previous version!
All this would take is changing .NET Frameworks update status to critical
instead of optional. As it is, MS is expecting the end-user to be aware that
loading .NET Framework 3.0 might clober 2.0 causing his stuff not to work.
Again, this pushes the problem of compatibility to the end-user, when it
should be Microsoft's responsibility to make sure stuff we made with THEIR
tools to work on THEIR OS to deal with backwards compatibility!
I agree with the pop-up idea. The killer is the system error screen. If
instead it came up with something like ".NET Framework XXX not installed.
Install it now?" then I'd be happy!
But, anyway, why would 'forcing' the end-user to upgrade AUTOMATICALLY not
be good? They 'force' updates on us all the time! In fact, last night at 3AM
my computer at home and the office were both updated, which in each case
caused an AUTOMATIC re-boot! So much for MS's policy NOT forcing updates!
In fact, I've left a program running over night to collect statistics, only
to discover my computer had been re-booted, forcing me to start all over!
Yes, I could make Updates not be automatic. But so could people who don't
want .NET Framework updated too, couldn't they?
So, if I have to tolerate this, why would it be so intrusive to update .NET
Framework automatically? Please tell me how an end-user could possibly be
harmed by this?
My main point is that default actions should be done with a COMPUTER
ILLITERATE END-USER CONSUMER in mind. Not the typical programmer or systems
developer in mind. Not someone who knows what .NET Framework is. They
shouldn't have to know anything about it to buy a product that uses it IMHO.
It should take care of issues, such as backwards compatibility, FOR the
end-user. The end-user should not even have to know .NET Framework exists or
what it is. How would you like it if to be ABLE to drive your car you needed
to know what a carberator is and how to replace it?
I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this!
