.Net packaging/wrapper application?

[Registered User]

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.

Your initial post isn't very clear about what you want. These products
are mentioned but nothing is said about the functionality they
provide. It is a bit much to expect everyone to read about these tools
just to understand what question you're really asking.

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.

You know nothing about anyone's potential customer base except perhaps
your own. If the app is important enough to the user, the user will
find a way to obtain and install the framework. Minimum requirements
should always be set. Will Thinstall/Xenocode really let your app run
on _any_ computer?

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.

I haven't read about these tools because I have no reason to. You want
to write an app using .NET tools and have it run as a single
executable on a platform which does not have.NET installed. Perhaps
you have chosen the wrong tools with which to write the application.

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

You may have fewer problems with MVPs responding to your queries in
the future.

regards
A.G.

 

[Chris Shepherd]

If only that were true. Unforunatly, it's not.

Windows XP SP2 doesn't install any versions of the .Net Framework by
default. Nor is it installed via Windows Update by default.

Hmm, I was completely certain it came with XP SP2, but I was mistaken I
see.

The only desktop Microsoft O/S that has .Net on it is Vista - that comes
with .Net 3.0.

Doesn't it come with Office 2003/2007? I notice in your other post you
mention it doesn't, but does that include Office 2007?

Installing a .Net app requires installing the .Net framework. This
installation requires Admin rights, and a machine reboot. This means I've
got cranky users before they have even seen my application.

This is only true if the framework is not present.

I also wasn't commenting specifically on .NET applications, but rather
the more general "installed applications" vs "single-exe" applications.
Sorry that wasn't clearer.

In the classic coffee-house scenario, on a slow wireless, the .Net framework
installion takes - I kid you not - over an hour. This means any positive
viral impact your cool little app has is long gone, replaced by a negative
viral "that app sucks".

Right, and I wasn't arguing any of that. I'm just saying I don't see it
being included, and that I personally don't have a lot of use for it.
Sure, a few people here and there might find it handy, but at least the
majority of the .NET developers I know are in businesses that target a
business environment.

If Microsoft made XP SP3 include .NET 1.0/1.1 + 2.0/3.0/3.5, I think it
would pretty much invalidate the whole point of this discussion. It
seems to me that they would be far more likely to do that than they
would develop something for a somewhat niche market.

For building desktop apps, Delphi or Adobe Air currently seem the best way
to go.

Well, again, that depends on what you're targeting. If you're building
desktop applications aimed at being able to be run anywhere, yeah,
absolutely.

Chris.

 

[Michael Nemtsev [MVP]]

Hello jim,

So, if nobody made it yet, then it means it have some serious limitation
which we can't see right now
there is no silver bullet in development world.

---
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> I'm telling you....Thinstall-capability is the answer to distribution
j> issues, DLL/version hell issues, permission issues, setup issues and
j> even helps maintain security on the desktop. Why nobody is making an
j> affordable version for the masses, or has taken this on as an open
j> source project is beyond me.
j>
j> The benefits are so great that NOT including this technology in .Net
j> studio is simply negligent.
j>

 

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

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

Hrm. Let's see:

You post questions on free, public, forum to get answers from people.

.... are these people giving answers being paid? Nope.

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

That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. Sure you want to stand
by a statement like that?

 

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Doesn't it come with Office 2003/2007? I notice in your other post you
mention it doesn't, but does that include Office 2007?

I'm not sure about Office 2007. It's so complicated due to the many
variations of the product - I don't think the Word / Excel stuff installs
it, but the complete version (with Groove) might.

I know Office 2003 didn't install it, and my suspision is that Office 2007
doesn't either. I don't know that for a fact. A quick search doesn't turn up
anything either way.

If Microsoft made XP SP3 include .NET 1.0/1.1 + 2.0/3.0/3.5, I think it
would pretty much invalidate the whole point of this discussion. It seems
to me that they would be far more likely to do that than they would
develop something for a somewhat niche market.

I sure hope they do. I can't for the life of me figure out why they haven't
already rolled it out. With the inroads the web is making into the desktop,
you would think providing the platform for building rich desktop
applications would be a primary concern...

A quick search of the web though returns nothing hopefull with regards to XP
SP3 and .Net.

 

[Chris Shepherd]

I'm not sure about Office 2007. It's so complicated due to the many
variations of the product - I don't think the Word / Excel stuff installs
it, but the complete version (with Groove) might.

I'd think that Groove requires it, so it must be bundled. Then again...

I know Office 2003 didn't install it, and my suspision is that Office 2007
doesn't either. I don't know that for a fact. A quick search doesn't turn up
anything either way.

Yeah, it seems very undocumented whether it is or isn't bundled.

I sure hope they do. I can't for the life of me figure out why they haven't
already rolled it out. With the inroads the web is making into the desktop,
you would think providing the platform for building rich desktop
applications would be a primary concern...

A quick search of the web though returns nothing hopefull with regards to XP
SP3 and .Net.

Maybe we need a separate petition-style thread on this asking them to
include it for XP SP3? How do we even go about demanding things be in a
service pack?

Chris.

 

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Have you really had that many failures? Seriously, I've
installed .NET on hundreds of machines (and I mean that literally) -
and I can't ever recall having it fail....

We haven't seen that many true failures- maybe a few dozen. We've seens lots
of "Took a reallllly long time. Wireless networke died after 40 minutes. Had
to restart. You product sucks. FOAD." In nearly all these cases (the ones
we've been able to analyze) the culprit has been the very long .Net
framework install.

The problem is when the install fails, we hear all about it, as people
quickly get very vocal. Then it's on forms that get archived and indexed by
search engines, and the next thing you know the top hits for the product are
all "Unable to installed.", "Broken", "Sucks".

Everything seems to install quite well on fresh computers. But on computers
that have been around a while (and are often infected with stuff), or are
running strange virus / malware scanners, or have had beta versions of stuff
installed, it seems to fail the most.

On the other hand, it's... very frustrating.

I personally have had to rebuild 2 dev workstations due to .Net install
failures. These involve beta versions of the .Net 3 & 3.5 frameworks that
failed to uninstall properly. I expect some of this given that they're beta,
but it's very frustrating how fragile the installers are..

 

[Peter Duniho]

Hrm. I just went back and re-read, and I don't think I mis-quoted
anything,
or took anything out of context. What did I misquote, and goof the
context
on?

I think it's possible that Cor's not referring to the quoted text per se,
but rather to how the message reply was generated.

I haven't taken the time to figure out exactly what's going on, but every
now and then someone will reply to a thread, but their reply will show up
in a new thread. While display of threads is somewhat
newsreader-specific, I have seen this behavior show up in multiple
newsreaders.

I can't tell you _what_ you did, nor even whether you actually have
control over it. But something about the way that your reply was posted
caused it to show up in a new thread, which can in fact be a bit confusing
to someone trying to follow the thread.

Maybe that's what Cor was trying to convey?

Pete

 

[Family Tree Mike]

I have not seen a post from Tom Shelton on this thread. I have no clue where
this line came from... I think Peter is right. I've noticed this alot on
threads that goto multiple .net groups and it gets worse when the posts
explode exponentially.

 

[Scott Roberts]

What does .Net have to do with using the internet?

 

[jim]

Hrm. Let's see:

You post questions on free, public, forum to get answers from people.

... are these people giving answers being paid? Nope.


That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. Sure you want to stand
by a statement like that?

My apologies to the Microsoft MVP community as a whole. But, the majority
of MVPs that "contribute" to threads seem to be adverse to actually reading
about or trying to understand the topic that they are responding to.

This majority of responders makes the MVP community as a whole look quite
foolish.

jim

 

[jim]

Peter,

That's a very interesting example. Thanks!

jim

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Jim,

Mostly we read a lot, some of the contributions from (e-mail address removed) on
Internet this month.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....6eda5f01c33a?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#13096eda5f01c33a

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....76d753ba8287?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#f92d76d753ba8287

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....9c7925ec802a?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#ce229c7925ec802a

A happy trolling new year,

Cor

 

[jim]

jim wrote:

I must be mistaken about XP, but I know Vista has the framework installed.

But it has an old version of the .Net framework and Vista still does not
automatically install newer versions of the .NEt framework as they are
released. Same problem, different version.

Most users ( I am talking about users in general, not users in a rigid
corporate environment) will want to use applications regardless of the .Net
framework version. That means that users that want the capability to run
any app written for their version of Windows will need to have every version
of the .Net framework installed.

To my knowledge, there is 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5. That's just over 1.04
GB of uncompressed installations for the .Net framework (assuming a regular
uncompressed size of 208,625,088 bytes as was the case for installing .Net
2.0 on my VM).

Yes, then you only need 1.0/1.1.


What I said and your response are vastly different. I simply suggested you
should use a different language for development if your target environment
has little to no support for recent updates/the .NET framework. My onus
was on the developer, not on the user.

I was being sarcastic - sorry. You are right. The onus is on the
developer.

Note the *certain parts* in the point you replied to. Anyone can write
files to the system, there's a specific spot for it for each user in fact.
It's more *where* you can write files to that are controlled by security.

I suppose I am looking at things from the viewpoint that a user simply want
to use the program that s/he wants to use. They don't care (or even know)
about security issues. If they are challenged with a security dialog, they
will just keep hitting "yes" until they get what they want (which, btw, is
why Vista's UAC is a miserble failure).

As a hobbyist coder, I wnt to code apps that are on par with the system and
environment of my users (the general PC-using public) and to make using my
apps as smooth and seemless as possible. That does not include talking them
through how to get around security restrictions when a simple product like
Thinstall makes security a moot point (for 99.9% of users).

Yes, but trying to get around restrictive administrative policies such as
not installing software is probably a breach of the AUP of the
organization you work for. Most AUPs I've read/written include copying
files which do not alter the windows registry or install to a permanent
location as "installation".

I'm not talking about using software at work that is restricted. Clearly
you should work when at work.

I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.
That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that
will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).

Which is exactly my point. This is why the majority of software comes in
installable form and maintains itself by checking for updates.

Those installable apps are restrigcting themselves when dealing with the
general public by their very nature.

Which wasn't even the discussion at hand. I'm not saying Paint.NET should
be used as the basis for comparison, in fact, I have no idea how you came
to that conclusion. What I'm saying is that I would like to see Paint.NET
using Thinstall vs Paint.NET and the .NET framework.

What I was saying is that an executable of Paint .Net using Thinstall is
MUCH smaller than an installation of Paint .Net that requires the install of
the .Net framework.

Then how does Thinstall manage to provide full framework functionality in
6MB?

It scans the .Net framework and only includes the functions that are called
for the particular application. Or, it did the last time I used it.

Not only that, you're missing the obvious point that the 24MB framework
download is just once, then there's just application updates. 24MB
one-time vs 6MB every time there's any kind of update/new version? On some
software that could be weekly. Plus, it's not a 1:1 like
Xenocode/Thinstall are, since the framework can/will get used by other
applications as well.

That is true. But, since the onus is on the developer as you have said, my
consideration is for my applicatio to be as seemless and worry free as
humanly possible. As the developer, I am not concerned with what other
applications use or must install on the users PC. My goal is an orgasmic
experience with my software...period.

And, I so not wish to limit my users from using my software from USB drives
either. Thinstall can wrap the 208+ MB .Net framework plus an app like
Paint .Net into a 47 MB executable that can be executed from almost anywhere
on any PC. (See http://thinstall.com/demos/dnet20/ for this example.)

Well, mostly not.

The current version of Thinstall that I have tried actually works this
way....

You design and

Streaming and replacing or updating single EXEs on a streaming server or
on each desktop is infinitely easier than running updates (or, God
forbid, uninstalls & re-installs) on each desktop.

I don't see how [replacing one file] is "infinitely easier" than
[replacing multiple files].

From the viewpoint of a hobbyist developer that develops for the internet
community as a whole, the fewer files that upi have to distribute the fewer
things there are to go wrong (i.e. be stomped on by an antivirus app or
anti-Xware app or accidentally deleted by a user or PC cleaning app, etc.).

If you care for all these users' PCs, can't you ensure their PCs have
appropriate .NET framework versions?

Yes, I can. But I don;t write software for distribution to these PCs only.
I write for the general public. And, while my 300 users may be fat and
happy, I want 3,000,000+ users fat and happy - without having to administer
their PCs.

If it's of use to you, power to you for being able to use something like
this. I was not disputing that in any way, shape, or form. I'm simply
suggesting not everyone believes the same, especially since there aren't
many threads clamoring to have an all-in-one package like you're
suggesting.

I agree. Its not for everybody. There are many developers that write for a
closed system (like a corporate environment) where they can control the
client machines to the nth degree.

But, for my needs in writing and distributing software to the masses, being
able to distribute a single executable and not worry about having a
framework installed or having some other app overwrite my DLL or ActiveX
component with a newer version is a God-send.

Again, I think it has its place, but for me it wouldn't be anything more
than a nifty feature I might use once or twice. Especially since the
framework is on everyone I know's PC anyway.

Thanks so much for your thoughts on the subject.

jim

 

[Kevin Spencer]

jim,

Windows Installer is a programming API which is perfectly extensible. In
fact, Microsoft Visual Studio (as well as all other Microsoft products) is
installed with Windows Installer. The reason I mention Visual Studio is that
it is one of the most complex software products on the market, with special
requirements to install, and if Windows Installer can install that, it can
install anything. There are no limitations on what you can do with it, other
than your own lack of imagination and creativity.

I sent you TWO URLs. The second is a link to the full Windows Installer API
reference. The first is a link to the Visual Studio documentation on the
built-in tools for doing .Net installations with it. The Visual Studio tools
are quite limited, but do provide the tools to deploy many applications
straight out of the box, and a good starting point for more complex Windows
Installer applications.

The problem with people like you is that you patronize and insult people
without knowledge. You think you have superior knowledge, but that is
because you lack knowledge. When a person of superior skills is humble, the
discovery of their true ability is a pleasant surprise to others. When a
person behaves as if they are superior when they are not, the discovery of
their true ability shames them publicly.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Chicken Salad Surgeon
Microsoft MVP

 

[Chris Shepherd]

I'm not talking about using software at work that is restricted. Clearly
you should work when at work.

I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.
That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that
will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).

Ripping on MS MVPs for not reading what they're replying to and then
turning around and failing to even read what you yourself wrote amazes
me. Enjoy your stay at the troll motel.



Chris.

 

[jim]

Ripping on MS MVPs for not reading what they're replying to and then
turning around and failing to even read what you yourself wrote amazes me.
Enjoy your stay at the troll motel.

If you wanted out of the thread, you could just go. No need to manufacture
an excuse.

jim

 

[Scott Roberts]

I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.

That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that
will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).

That's why I haven't started a new "Windows Application" in 5+ years. Web
apps, my man.

Those installable apps are restrigcting themselves when dealing with the
general public by their very nature.

So are your Win32 apps. They don't run on Macs, they don't run on linux,
they don't run on anything other than Windows machines.

What I was saying is that an executable of Paint .Net using Thinstall is
MUCH smaller than an installation of Paint .Net that requires the install
of the .Net framework.

And web apps require *NO* installation of any software whatsoever.

But, for my needs in writing and distributing software to the masses,
being able to distribute a single executable and not worry about having a
framework installed or having some other app overwrite my DLL or ActiveX
component with a newer version is a God-send.

For my needs, writing and not even having to distribute software is the real
God-send.

 

[jim]

That's why I haven't started a new "Windows Application" in 5+ years. Web
apps, my man.

That almost makes me want to cry. Web apps (IMHO) are a pathetic
replacement for a true desktop application.

Slow, clunky and an interface that is a bastardization of HTML.

Although .Net is primarily aimed at web based applications (as it's slowness
will testify to), and even taking into consideration that web apps are about
the only apps that you can truly secure, I still abhor them.

So are your Win32 apps. They don't run on Macs, they don't run on linux,
they don't run on anything other than Windows machines.

REALbasic apps run on all 3. And are single executables. But, RB lacks some
of the power that I need. (Or, at least I have not seen it yet.)

And web apps require *NO* installation of any software whatsoever.

I still want an APPLICATION. No web based platform that I have seen (with
the exception of running activex controls from the web) is a substitution
for wrtiting desktop applications - especially desktop apps that do intense
work.

For my needs, writing and not even having to distribute software is the
real God-send.

Web based software is fine for simple stuff - and if you don't mind the UI
being slow and if you don't mind not being able to use the app when offline
and if you don't have anything really intense to do or want to monitor the
desktop (as a lot of my apps do).

jim

 

[Scott Roberts]

That almost makes me want to cry. Web apps (IMHO) are a pathetic
replacement for a true desktop application.

Well, you are welcome to your own opinion. Sounds like you want to stay 5-10
years behind the curve. I have no problem with that. As I mentioned in your
other thread, Delphi will be great for you.

I still want an APPLICATION. No web based platform that I have seen (with
the exception of running activex controls from the web) is a substitution
for wrtiting desktop applications - especially desktop apps that do
intense work.

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "intense work". Virus
scanning is probably not an ideal candidate for a web app (though many web
sites do offer it via an ActiveX control or some such), but I would maintain
that you can write very complex and useful applications for the web.
QuickBooks Online is a pretty good example.

Web based software is fine for simple stuff - and if you don't mind the UI
being slow and if you don't mind not being able to use the app when
offline and if you don't have anything really intense to do or want to
monitor the desktop (as a lot of my apps do).

Web based software is fine for most stuff - especially if you want to be
able to use it from anywhere, and from any OS, and if you don't want to
install anything, and you want your data backed up by the vendor, and you
have multiple users in remote locations around the world, and........

I predict that this internet thing is gonna be big.......