.Net packaging/wrapper application?

[jim]

I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exes)
and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd like
something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as a
single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite. It
would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end user
to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids DLL
and .Net Version Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should be
it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require per
copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Windows Installer:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2kt85ked.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa372866.aspx

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Chicken Salad Surgeon
Microsoft MVP

 

[ThatsIT.net.au]

Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows application?

 

[jim]

Kevin,

While I certainly appreciate your willingness to peck out those URLs, they
are in no way whatsoever related to the functionality of the applications
that I mentioned (Thinstall and Xenocode).

Windows Installer does not wrap the executable and associated files into a
single executable. Windows Installer does not allow a user to run a .Net
application without having .Net installed. Windows Installer does not
obfuscate the executable contents. Windows Installer does not allow you to
create no-install applications that will run without being "installed" on
the end users PC (simply copy the created executable and run - no .Net
install & no application install needed).

Bless your pointed little head....but, what I need is so far advanced from
Windows Installer its not even funny.

Just in case you decide to read about the referenced applications BEFORE you
post, you can do so at http://www.thinstall.com/ and
http://www.xenocode.com/.

jim

 

[jim]

For several reasons.....

1) An application is just the first step. I plan on coding .Net
applications. The request has to do with distribution of those
applications - not coding the applications.

2) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from a single
EXE - no application need be installed.

3) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run without .Net
installed.

4) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode do not suffer from DLL or
..Net version hell.

5) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode are smaller than .Net +
Application installs.

6) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from a USB drive
or (if Thinstalled) be streamed over a network with no installation
whatsoever (not even copying the exe).

Please read up on Thinstall and Xenocode at http://www.thinstall.com/ and
http://www.xenocode.com/. Once you do, you too will wonder just why we
don't have this functionality in .Net.

jim

 

[Michael Nemtsev [MVP]]

Hello jim,

ok, what's from that list cant be done with Windows Installer?
except the point 3 the Windows Installed can do the same things, maybe not
so silently


---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog: http://spaces.live.com/laflour

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo


j> For several reasons.....
j>
j> 1) An application is just the first step. I plan on coding .Net
j> applications. The request has to do with distribution of those
j> applications - not coding the applications.
j>
j> 2) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from a
j> single EXE - no application need be installed.
j>
j> 3) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run without
j> .Net installed.
j>
j> 4) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode do not suffer from
j> DLL or .Net version hell.
j>
j> 5) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode are smaller than
j> .Net + Application installs.
j>
j> 6) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from a USB
j> drive or (if Thinstalled) be streamed over a network with no
j> installation whatsoever (not even copying the exe).
j>
j> Please read up on Thinstall and Xenocode at http://www.thinstall.com/
j> and http://www.xenocode.com/. Once you do, you too will wonder just
j> why we don't have this functionality in .Net.
j>
j> jim
j>
j> j>

 

[Family Tree Mike]

I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exes)
and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd like
something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as a
single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite. It
would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end user
to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids DLL
and .Net Version Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should be
it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require per
copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim

I may be missing your goal with this, but, it looks like these tools are
designed to create something similar to what VMWare does, a distributable
preconfigured machine. Have you looked at VMWare? If so, does it lack some
capability you need?

 

[jim]

Really?

That's quite interesting. Just how do you cover #4 with Windows Installer?
Is there a new function that will stop DLLs from being overwritten or that
will accomodate differences in .Net versions (like when hotfixes are
installed to patch .Net problems)?

Or how about #5 (smaller distributions - remember that Windows Installer
REQUIRES the .Net runtimes be installed if they are not already and that WI
does not compress the executable like Thinstall and Xenocode).

As far as #6 is concerned, Windows Installer actively blocks code that would
access files (as most code that is useful does) if it is run from the
network or insternet. The Thinstall/Xenocode wrapped apps retain all
functionality.

And, (might as well mention it since we are comparing Windows Installer and
Thinstall/Xenocode) Windows Installer requires administrator privileges to
do most installs. Using Thinstall (not sure about Xenocode), you don't need
admin permissions to run the executable (no matter its functionality)
because nothing is every "installed" on the system (no registry entries
needed, no install to run). That'd be #7 - for those counting at home.

jim

Hello jim,

ok, what's from that list cant be done with Windows Installer? except
the point 3 the Windows Installed can do the same things, maybe not so
silently


---
WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog:
http://spaces.live.com/laflour
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo

j> For several reasons.....
j> j> 1) An application is just the first step. I plan on coding .Net
j> applications. The request has to do with distribution of those
j> applications - not coding the applications.
j> j> 2) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from a
j> single EXE - no application need be installed.
j> j> 3) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run without
j> .Net installed.
j> j> 4) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode do not suffer from
j> DLL or .Net version hell.
j> j> 5) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode are smaller than
j> .Net + Application installs.
j> j> 6) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from a USB
j> drive or (if Thinstalled) be streamed over a network with no
j> installation whatsoever (not even copying the exe).
j> j> Please read up on Thinstall and Xenocode at
http://www.thinstall.com/
j> and http://www.xenocode.com/. Once you do, you too will wonder just
j> why we don't have this functionality in .Net.
j> j> jim
j> j>

 

[Jeff Gaines]

Hello jim,

ok, what's from that list cant be done with Windows Installer? except
the point 3 the Windows Installed can do the same things, maybe not so
silently

Looks to me like Jim is looking for the .NET equivalent of compiling with
static libraries to produce a single executable. I'll add my vote to his
wish list

 

[Coskun SUNALI [MVP]]

Hi,

If you are looking from the angle of a hobby, I can suggest you using
InnoSetup (free) http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php . It is really
successful.

If you need further help with using it, I will be looking forward to hear.

 

[jim]

I may be missing your goal with this, but, it looks like these tools are
designed to create something similar to what VMWare does, a distributable
preconfigured machine. Have you looked at VMWare? If so, does it lack
some
capability you need?

VMWare is great. However (if I understand the creation of virtual
appliances correctly), it carries with it a HUGE overhead because it wraps
up the entire OS with your virtual appliance. Virtual appliances created
for/from VMWare also require a license for every copy if you distribute any
proprietary operating system (like Windows XP, Vista, 2003 Server, etc.) in
your virtual appliance - that's why virtually every virtual appliance you
see is done with Linux.

jim

 

[jim]

Wow! A little reading goes a long way people.

Thinstall and Xenocode are NOT installation applications! They are
essentially application wrappers that create virtual registry entries and
virtual directory structures that exist only while the application is
running. They wrap all files (DLLs, COM controls, etc.) into a single
executable that can be run with no admin permissions or the alteration of
the operating system. Thinstall/Xenocode applications do not require the
installation of the .Net framework to run .Net applications because they
extract the needed .Net framework libraries and include them in the single,
wrapped EXE.

www.thinstall.com

www.xenocode.com

Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this is
something that is missing in .Net studio.

jim

 

[Michael Nemtsev [MVP]]

Hello jim,

j> That's quite interesting. Just how do you cover #4 with Windows
j> Installer? Is there a new function that will stop DLLs from being
j> overwritten or that will accomodate differences in .Net versions
j> (like when hotfixes are installed to patch .Net problems)?

no, it up to u how u are going to disturb this
I suppose u select the Xenodcode not only for this option?

j> Or how about #5 (smaller distributions - remember that Windows
j> Installer REQUIRES the .Net runtimes be installed if they are not
j> already and that WI does not compress the executable like Thinstall
j> and Xenocode).

there are some wrappers (like inno) which wrap WI functionality and provide
compression

j> As far as #6 is concerned, Windows Installer actively blocks code
j> that would access files (as most code that is useful does) if it is
j> run from the network or insternet. The Thinstall/Xenocode wrapped
j> apps retain all functionality.

installer has no relation to assembly trust level - what blocks to run it
from network
u need to set the correct trust level

j> And, (might as well mention it since we are comparing Windows
j> Installer and Thinstall/Xenocode) Windows Installer requires
j> administrator privileges to do most installs. Using Thinstall (not
j> sure about ), you don't need admin permissions to run the
j> executable (no matter its functionality) because nothing is every
j> "installed" on the system (no registry entries needed, no install to
j> run). That'd be #7 - for those counting at home.


if nothing installed then how it works? I assume it installs smth but
u don't even noted this

Actually Im against these kind of tools, because it works for the small part
of winforms application and if you decided to extend your app - provide security,
CAS and etc u can hardly predict how it affects yout Xenocode wrapper app


---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog: http://spaces.live.com/laflour

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo

j>
j> j>

Hello jim,

ok, what's from that list cant be done with Windows Installer?
except the point 3 the Windows Installed can do the same things,
maybe not so silently

---
WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog:
http://spaces.live.com/laflour
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high
and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo
j> For several reasons.....
j> j> 1) An application is just the first step. I plan on coding
.Net
j> applications. The request has to do with distribution of those
j> applications - not coding the applications.
j> j> 2) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from
a
j> single EXE - no application need be installed.
j> j> 3) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run
without
j> .Net installed.
j> j> 4) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode do not suffer
from
j> DLL or .Net version hell.
j> j> 5) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode are smaller
than
j> .Net + Application installs.
j> j> 6) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from
a USB
j> drive or (if Thinstalled) be streamed over a network with no
j> installation whatsoever (not even copying the exe).
j> j> Please read up on Thinstall and Xenocode at
http://www.thinstall.com/
j> and http://www.xenocode.com/. Once you do, you too will wonder
just
j> why we don't have this functionality in .Net.
j> j> jim
j> j>

Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows
application?

I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application
(and any needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for
your exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your
exe). But, I'd like something that is actually affordable for a
hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and
ship it as a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net
application suite. It would simplify the shipping & installation
and not even require the end user to have .Net installed or to
install the application. It also avoids DLL and .Net Version
Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies
should be it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not
require per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim

 

[Michael Nemtsev [MVP]]

Hello jim,

j> Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this
j> is something that is missing in .Net studio
j>

why is it important?

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog: http://spaces.live.com/laflour

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo

 

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

Kevin,

While I certainly appreciate your willingness to peck out those URLs, they
are in no way whatsoever related to the functionality of the applications
that I mentioned (Thinstall and Xenocode).

Windows Installer does not wrap the executable and associated files into a
single executable. Windows Installer does not allow a user to run a .Net
application without having .Net installed. Windows Installer does not
obfuscate the executable contents. Windows Installer does not allow you
to create no-install applications that will run without being "installed"
on the end users PC (simply copy the created executable and run - no .Net
install & no application install needed).

Maybe that is why it's soo expensive

Kevin's suggestion is the best you could do with "free" tools.

You can always pack everything in a single compacted .EXE and do your
installation like that.

 

[John]

Hi Jim,

Microsoft already purchased SoftGrid so I doubt that they
would purchase Thinstall or Xenocode.

SoftGrid is not free, however, so I don't think it is a solution
for a hobbyist. Perhaps in the future they will create a limited
version that is free of CAL or SA requirements

J

 

[jim]

Hello jim,

j> That's quite interesting. Just how do you cover #4 with Windows
j> Installer? Is there a new function that will stop DLLs from being
j> overwritten or that will accomodate differences in .Net versions
j> (like when hotfixes are installed to patch .Net problems)?

no, it up to u how u are going to disturb this
I suppose u select the Xenodcode not only for this option?
j> Or how about #5 (smaller distributions - remember that Windows
j> Installer REQUIRES the .Net runtimes be installed if they are not
j> already and that WI does not compress the executable like Thinstall
j> and Xenocode).

there are some wrappers (like inno) which wrap WI functionality and
provide compression

But, with Inno (which is a really good installer), it is only compressed
until it is installed. With Thinstall or Xenocode the single exe is always
compressed and no install is needed to run the app - just copy the single
exe to the PC or any media installed in the PC (like a USB drive) and run
it. Nothing to install. Nothing to uninstall.

j> As far as #6 is concerned, Windows Installer actively blocks code
j> that would access files (as most code that is useful does) if it is
j> run from the network or insternet. The Thinstall/Xenocode wrapped
j> apps retain all functionality.

installer has no relation to assembly trust level - what blocks to run it
from network
u need to set the correct trust level

But, you must do this via control panel applets etc., right? Most people
don't know how to do this. That is why Microsoft's click and run stuff
never took off.

With Thinstall (not sure about Xenocode) you don't have any trust issues.
The executables simply run.

j> And, (might as well mention it since we are comparing Windows
j> Installer and Thinstall/Xenocode) Windows Installer requires
j> administrator privileges to do most installs. Using Thinstall (not
j> sure about ), you don't need admin permissions to run the
j> executable (no matter its functionality) because nothing is every
j> "installed" on the system (no registry entries needed, no install to
j> run). That'd be #7 - for those counting at home.


if nothing installed then how it works? I assume it installs smth but u
don't even noted this

Thinstall and Xenocode create virtual registry entries and virtual
directories that your app uses to run. These virtual objects are destroyed
when the app closes.

Actually Im against these kind of tools, because it works for the small
part of winforms application and if you decided to extend your app -
provide security, CAS and etc u can hardly predict how it affects yout
Xenocode wrapper app

I haven't used Xenocode, but as for Thinstall - Thinstall does not affect
the functionality of your application at all. If you want to enforce
security using the .Net classes in your app you can.

I'm telling you....Thinstall-capability is the answer to distribution
issues, DLL/version hell issues, permission issues, setup issues and even
helps maintain security on the desktop. Why nobody is making an affordable
version for the masses, or has taken this on as an open source project is
beyond me.

The benefits are so great that NOT including this technology in .Net studio
is simply negligent.

jim

---
WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog:
http://spaces.live.com/laflour
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo
j> j>

Hello jim,

ok, what's from that list cant be done with Windows Installer?
except the point 3 the Windows Installed can do the same things,
maybe not so silently

---
WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog:
http://spaces.live.com/laflour
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high
and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo
j> For several reasons.....
j> j> 1) An application is just the first step. I plan on coding
.Net
j> applications. The request has to do with distribution of those
j> applications - not coding the applications.
j> j> 2) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from
a
j> single EXE - no application need be installed.
j> j> 3) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run
without
j> .Net installed.
j> j> 4) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode do not suffer
from
j> DLL or .Net version hell.
j> j> 5) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode are smaller
than
j> .Net + Application installs.
j> j> 6) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from
a USB
j> drive or (if Thinstalled) be streamed over a network with no
j> installation whatsoever (not even copying the exe).
j> j> Please read up on Thinstall and Xenocode at
http://www.thinstall.com/
j> and http://www.xenocode.com/. Once you do, you too will wonder
just
j> why we don't have this functionality in .Net.
j> j> jim
j> j>
Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows
application?

I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application
(and any needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for
your exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your
exe). But, I'd like something that is actually affordable for a
hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and
ship it as a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net
application suite. It would simplify the shipping & installation
and not even require the end user to have .Net installed or to
install the application. It also avoids DLL and .Net Version
Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies
should be it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not
require per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim

 

[jim]

Hi J,

I took a look at SoftGrid, and it looks like MS took the same technology in
Thinstall/Xenocode and added an application server, authentication and
licensing. Essentially they took a very clean idea and tied its hands to
its feet.

I'm not criticizing MS, but, that's what Microsoft does. They are in
business to make their investors happy - not their software users. They are
in business to make money for the investors, so they will add licensing and
restrictions to everything that they touch in an effort to fulfill their
mission.

This is not a critical statement concerning Microsoft. That's what most
corporations do - server the investors over the customers. Besides, The
head developer on the Office 2007 team wrote that very thing on his blog
when somebody complained about something in Office 2007. He said that
Microsoft was not in the business of pleasing customers, they were in the
business of pleasing investors.

I was not aware of Microsoft's work with the SoftGrid product. It looks
like a decent solution for use inside a large corporate intranet - but not
really for distributed applications outside a corporate environment.

Thanks for the pointer to SoftGrid, but I'm still looking.

This SoftGrid stuff makes it look like we aren't going to get an application
virtualization add-on for .Net studio though.

jim

 

[Eliyahu Goldin]

Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this is

something that is missing in .Net studio.

Perhaps there is no enough demand for this sort of applications. Like
Michael, I don't see ability to run without dotnet as an important benefit.
As a customer, I would rather prefer to use a product that is as standard as
possible. This is important from troubleshooting perspective. If you have a
problem with dotnet, all web is yours. If you limit yourself to a specific
tool, you are bound to them for all support issues.

--
Eliyahu Goldin,
Software Developer
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]
http://msmvps.com/blogs/egoldin
http://usableasp.net

 

[jim]

What is it with Microsoft MVPs that they do not read about a subject before
posting on it?

Thinstall and Xenocode change NOTHING about the .Net framework or your
application. They simply wrap all needed .Net functionality and your
executable and any dependent files (like DLLs or ActiveX controls or other
files that your .Net app needs) into a single executable file.

This means that your potential customer that is still on dial-up, the 25+MB
..Net framework may never get downloaded so your apps are worthless to them.

Are people still on dial up? Yep. The last hard figures I could find on
short notice said "It turns out that as few as 28 percent of American
households today have access to broadband Internet. That's according to
reporter Richard Hoffman in a Nov. 20, 2006 Information Week article, citing
data from Government Accountability Office." -
http://blog.tmcnet.com/wireless-mob...s-still-using-dialup-internet-connections.asp.
And, while this report is now just over 1 year old, even if the # of
households with DSL doubled in 12 months (which is HIGHLY unlikely) that
means that 44% of households in the US are still on dial up.

As for your comparison of .Net prgramming to the use of Thinstall or
Xenocode, that only proves that you haven't read anything about either of
them.

MVPs.......God save us from Microsoft MVPs.

jim

Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this is
something that is missing in .Net studio.

Perhaps there is no enough demand for this sort of applications. Like
Michael, I don't see ability to run without dotnet as an important
benefit. As a customer, I would rather prefer to use a product that is as
standard as possible. This is important from troubleshooting perspective.
If you have a problem with dotnet, all web is yours. If you limit yourself
to a specific tool, you are bound to them for all support issues.

--
Eliyahu Goldin,
Software Developer
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]
http://msmvps.com/blogs/egoldin
http://usableasp.net