How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
will be multiple language Versions.

The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.


Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322


However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.


My concerns are:
- the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
- you must use the language version which matches your OS language
- you must have admin rights


I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.


I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.


What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?


Any opinion is highly appreciated!


Thanks in Advance


Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

On Sep 28, 3:02 pm, Georg Scholz wrote:
> We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
> people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
> will be multiple language Versions.

That sounds like the environments are likely to have a reasonable
network connection - at which point 23MB for the framework shouldn't
be much of an issue even if it's not installed already. If multiple
people within an organisation require the app, you'll only need to
download the framework once.

..NET has been out for about 5 years now, and I believe it's included
in most new system installs.

The best way to find out for *your* users, however, is to write a very
small unmanaged app (e.g. in VB6) which detects whether or not the
framework is present. Collect that information for a representative
sample of users, and you'll be much better informed.

Jon

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

"Georg Scholz" wrote in message
news:1190988168.601753.219990@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
> people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
> will be multiple language Versions.
>
> The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
>
>
> Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322

If I were you I would go to 2.0. There are several reasons why, first even
as 1.1 is supported in Vista the preffered is 2.0 besides VS 2003 in vista
is not supported. VS 2005 target only 2.0 . And you like it or not soon all
the machines will be running Vista.

>
> My concerns are:
> - the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB

Unless you are on dialup this is not that much. Not only that but the
framework is being pushed by windows update for a while now. Most probably
they will have it installed already.

> - you must use the language version which matches your OS language
> - you must have admin rights

> I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.

I do not see how going to use VB6 will solve your languages problems, or not
needed admin rights.

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

Hospitals tend to have more locked down computers due to security
requirements and privacy concerns so if you're building a commercial
app and depending on ability of direct customers (as opposed to
customer's IT staff) to install the framework, then it could be a
concern.

We deal almost exclusively with hospitals but we ship out app on new
computers with all the software we need pre-installed. :-)

HTH,

Sam


------------------------------------------------------------
We're hiring! B-Line Medical is seeking .NET
Developers for exciting positions in medical product
development in MD/DC. Work with a variety of technologies
in a relaxed team environment. See ads on Dice.com.


On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:02:48 -0700, Georg Scholz
wrote:

>We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
>people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
>will be multiple language Versions.
>
....
>
>Georg Scholz
>www.scholz-informatik.at

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

You should go track down my posts ranting about this
(http://tinyurl.com/2kk5a8).

We built and shipped a commercial .Net app, and have had nothing but
problems due to the lack of widespread .Net deployment. Nothing has helped,
to be honest.

With that said, I think you would be nuts to go with VB6. It's obsolete, and
has quite a few drawbacks. It's past it's end of lifecycle, and really
doesn't seem a viable option.

To me, there seem to be two legit options:
1 - To me, the current verstion of Delphi looks like the best answer right
now for building widely deployed desktop applications.

2 - Use .Net, then statically link your app using RemoteSoft or one of the
other static .Net linkers.

3 - Use MFC. To me, this is the least attractive of the 3 options.

--
Chris Mullins, MCSD.Net, MCPD:Enterprise, Microsoft C# MVP
http://www.coversant.com/blogs/cmullins

"Georg Scholz" wrote in message
news:1190988168.601753.219990@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
> people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
> will be multiple language Versions.
>
> The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
>
>
> Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322
>
>
> However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.
>
>
> My concerns are:
> - the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
> - you must use the language version which matches your OS language
> - you must have admin rights
>
>
> I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
> complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.
>
>
> I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.
>
>
> What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?
>
>
> Any opinion is highly appreciated!
>
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
>
> Georg Scholz
> www.scholz-informatik.at
>

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

Georg,
> I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
> complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.
You could use virtualization technology on the application level. Xenocode
Postbuild www.xenocode.com has on option of embedding into the application
the entire .NET run time visible to the application only. This could take
care of admin rights and complexity concerns. Of course, in your case the
setup size would balloon to around 20 MB. I have been burnt by installation
issues more then once. Not every organization has an IT department, and
asking end users if their PC has .NET framework installed is
counter-productive. Most have no clue and get irritated by such questions. I
avoid this embarrassment by making installs with two application
components - one with embedded .NET runtime, another without. At
installation time the setup checks the users machine for .NET framework and
installs the appropriate component without bothering the user. Works on
Windows 2000, XP, Vista with UAC enabled. Besides, Postbuild also obfuscates
the application. This is why I bought it in the first place.

I am not affiliated with Xenocode (the company name is actually Code
Systems Corp.), I am just a happy user of their products.

Michael

"Georg Scholz" wrote in message
news:1190988168.601753.219990@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
> people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
> will be multiple language Versions.
>
> The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
>
>
> Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322
>
>
> However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.
>
>
> My concerns are:
> - the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
> - you must use the language version which matches your OS language
> - you must have admin rights
>
>
> I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
> complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.
>
>
> I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.
>
>
> What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?
>
>
> Any opinion is highly appreciated!
>
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
>
> Georg Scholz
> www.scholz-informatik.at
>

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

Thanks a lot Chris,

I also read your other thread - this confirms my concerns, and we will
definitively switch back to VB6.

I'm a long-year expert both on C++ (Win32+MFC) and VB6; I have always
been mixing the best of these two worlds together. For this app I
prefer VB6 as it is more user-interface oriented.

To me, .NET and C# have a GREAT DESIGN; and we have been developing
for more than one year now indivudal software for clients.

However, finally, the end-user does not care about HOW my app was
written - a software needs to be user-friendly, and installing it
should be a pleasant experience, not an annoying one.

Therefore, unfortunately, the framework seems to be unuseable for mass-
distribution of *small* applications.

Best regards
Georg


---
Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at




On Sep 28, 11:10 pm, "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]"
wrote:
> You should go track down my posts ranting about this
> (http://tinyurl.com/2kk5a8).
>
> We built and shipped a commercial .Net app, and have had nothing but
> problems due to the lack of widespread .Net deployment. Nothing has helped,
> to be honest.
>
> With that said, I think you would be nuts to go with VB6. It's obsolete, and
> has quite a few drawbacks. It's past it's end of lifecycle, and really
> doesn't seem a viable option.
>
> To me, there seem to be two legit options:
> 1 - To me, the current verstion of Delphi looks like the best answer right
> now for building widely deployed desktop applications.
>
> 2 - Use .Net, then statically link your app using RemoteSoft or one of the
> other static .Net linkers.
>
> 3 - Use MFC. To me, this is the least attractive of the 3 options.
>
> --
> Chris Mullins, MCSD.Net, MCPD:Enterprise, Microsoft C# MVPhttp://www.coversant.com/blogs/cmullins
>
> "Georg Scholz" wrote in message
>
> news:1190988168.601753.219990@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > We are about to design an application, which will used by 10,000
> > people world-wide, mainly hospitals, doctors and scientists. There
> > will be multiple language Versions.
>
> > The app will be about 1 MB, it will be distributed via download.
>
> > Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322
>
> > However, my biggest concern is about how widespread the Framework is.
>
> > My concerns are:
> > - the dotnetfx.exe is 23 MB
> > - you must use the language version which matches your OS language
> > - you must have admin rights
>
> > I have big concerns that the whole setup procedure will be too
> > complicated for users and therefore the app will not be accepted.
>
> > I'm already tending to go back to VB 6.0 just for these issues.
>
> > What are you experiences with distributing the .Net Framework ?
>
> > Any opinion is highly appreciated!
>
> > Thanks in Advance
>
> > Georg Scholz
> >www.scholz-informatik.at- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

> Hospitals tend to have more locked down computers due to security
> requirements and privacy concerns so if you're building a commercial
> app and depending on ability of direct customers (as opposed to
> customer's IT staff) to install the framework, then it could be a
> concern.

Yeah, right; this is also my experience with all big companies: Either
they have rolled out the Framework to ALL computers, or none ...

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

> You could use virtualization technology on the application level. Xenocode
> Postbuildwww.xenocode.com has on option of embedding into the application
> the entire .NET run time visible to the application only.

This is another very interesting option, I will have a look at this.
However, for our current plans this might not be useful . I want a
small distribution size - small - quick - easy ... that's out goal.

Best regards
Georg

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

> 2 - Use .Net, then statically link your app using RemoteSoft or one of the
> other static .Net linkers.

I have now been looking onto the RemoteSoft site.
This sounds very very good .. Do you have some experience with it? Is
it really as good as they say? Are apps getting really so small?

Georg

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

Georg,

How many people are having the security options off. Then you have probably
the same amount as non Net installed computers.

Here in the BeNeLux , a 1.5Mb connections is mostly the minimum somebody
has at home. There is low chance that not almost every professional
organisation here (and in the rest from complete Europe) has an Internet
connection for which 23Mb is nothing. (Often the intern computers are
updated from Internet not even building some intern resource for that).

I don't know of course situation where are no hospitals or electricity or
telephone connections in the world.

Cor

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

> > Now we are considering to write it in C#, with .Net 1.1.4322
>
> If I were you I would go to 2.0. There are several reasons why, first even
> as 1.1 is supported in Vista the preffered is 2.0 besides VS 2003 in vista
> is not supported. VS 2005 target only 2.0 . And you like it or not soon all
> the machines will be running Vista.

Well, I'm working with .NET 1.1 for VERY GOOD reason:

Here in Vienna, amongst others, I'm working for four really BIG
international enterprises. All of them have centralized IT, and they
only permit to have "certified" components on their machines.

Well, now guess which OS they are using? THREE (!) of them are still
using Windows 2000 - currently they are in progress to switch to XP.
And ALL of them only have Framework 1.1.4322 certified; NONE has
Framework 2.0 - will come in the next years or so ...

Regarding Vista: In two years, most bugs will be "ironed out", and
then it slowly will begin to drop into business applications. IMHO it
will take at least 4 years until Vista is getting widespread on most
computers.

Georg

---
Georg Scholz
www.scholz-informatik.at

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

On Sep 29, 8:37 am, Georg Scholz wrote:
> I also read your other thread - this confirms my concerns, and we will
> definitively switch back to VB6.

Even without finding out roughly what proportion of your users already
have .NET installed? I suspect you'll find that for most people it
won't be an issue, and you'll be less productive on the development
side.

Additionally, you'll then be on a legacy platform - if you need to do
a next version in a few years time, do you really want to face the
choice of a complete rewrite or sticking with a platform which is a
decade out of date?

At least poll your user base before deciding...

Jon

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

On Sep 29, 11:24 am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:37 am, Georg Scholz wrote:
>
> > I also read your other thread - this confirms my concerns, and we will
> > definitively switch back to VB6.
>
> Even without finding out roughly what proportion of your users already
> have .NET installed? I suspect you'll find that for most people it
> won't be an issue, and you'll be less productive on the development
> side.
>
> Additionally, you'll then be on a legacy platform - if you need to do
> a next version in a few years time, do you really want to face the
> choice of a complete rewrite or sticking with a platform which is a
> decade out of date?
>
> At least poll your user base before deciding...
>
> Jon

Jon, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Just kidding, but
read Georg's post (I reproduce it below) in its entirety to see why he
in fact de facto has "polled" his users. Maybe it wasn't there when
you replied? SOrry then.

RL
[Sea Sharp MVP &expert, kinda, of sorts]

> If I were you I would go to 2.0. There are several reasons why, first even
> as 1.1 is supported in Vista the preffered is 2.0 besides VS 2003 in vista
> is not supported. VS 2005 target only 2.0 . And you like it or not soon all
> the machines will be running Vista.

Well, I'm working with .NET 1.1 for VERY GOOD reason:

Here in Vienna, amongst others, I'm working for four really BIG
international enterprises. All of them have centralized IT, and they
only permit to have "certified" components on their machines.

Well, now guess which OS they are using? THREE (!) of them are still
using Windows 2000 - currently they are in progress to switch to XP.
And ALL of them only have Framework 1.1.4322 certified; NONE has
Framework 2.0 - will come in the next years or so ...

Regarding Vista: In two years, most bugs will be "ironed out", and
then it slowly will begin to drop into business applications. IMHO it
will take at least 4 years until Vista is getting widespread on most
computers.

Georg

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

raylopez99 wrote:
> Jon, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Just kidding, but
> read Georg's post (I reproduce it below) in its entirety to see why he
> in fact de facto has "polled" his users. Maybe it wasn't there when
> you replied? SOrry then.

I hadn't seen that post, but in fact it confirms that using VB6 would
be a bad idea:

"And ALL of them only have Framework 1.1.4322 certified"

To me, that answers the initial post - he shouldn't have any problems
using .NET 1.1, as all of his customers have certified, and with
centralized IT there shouldn't be any problem pushing the framework
onto the client machines - the size of the download becomes irrelevant.

I can see why he'd want to use .NET 1.1 rather than 2.0, but using VB6
would definitely be a backward step.

--
Jon Skeet -
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

> I can see why he'd want to use .NET 1.1 rather than 2.0, but using VB6
> would definitely be a backward step.

(for the list's benefit; I doubt this is news to Jon)

Not just backward, but foolish: this is about to drop off the support
cliff, even for "extended" support; a viewpoint is that this will /
significantly/ diminish it's status as "certified" to many sites,
since there will be no escalation support route, and no comeback if it
suddenly stops working due to some hotfix. That said, in most cases it
will keep on running just fine, but *in particular* in a hospital (or
similar) scenario where life and death is a genuine concern, this
could be important. And yes, I do realise that treatment machines etc
have different rules again, but even availability at a nurses station
could risk life.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vbrun/ms788707.aspx

Marc

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

"Georg Scholz" wrote in message

[.Net is not widly deployed]

> I also read your other thread - this confirms my concerns, and
> we will definitively switch back to VB6.

I can't help but think that's not such a great idea. As Jon & Mark have
pointed out, VB6 is at the very end of it's lifecycle, and may just "stop
working" at some point in the future. There seems to be a whole can of worms
here...

I would still recommend taking a long look at:
1 - Delphi
2 - MFC
3 - One of the .Net static linkers

> Therefore, unfortunately, the framework seems to be unuseable for mass-
> distribution of *small* applications.

It's going to depend on your user base. For the general public, I agree with
you. For a corporate IT shop, I disagree.

--
Chris Mullins

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

"Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP )" wrote :
>
> And you like it or not soon all the machines will be running Vista.
>

Even in the ideal case, I think it'll be a number of years before Vista even
approaches a 50% mark.

The upgrade cycle for coprorate IT users is just too long, and many are
still running Windows 2000. These folks are more likley to upgrade to the
"well known" quantity that is Windows XP, rather than the relativly unknown
Vista.

--
Chris mullins

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

> [.Net is not widly deployed]
>
> > I also read your other thread - this confirms my concerns, and
> > we will definitively switch back to VB6.
>
> I can't help but think that's not such a great idea. As Jon & Mark have
> pointed out, VB6 is at the very end of it's lifecycle, and may just "stop
> working" at some point in the future. There seems to be a whole can of worms
> here...


I find it very interesting to read the "VB6 is past its lifecycle"
argument so often.
Although it not supported anymore by Microsoft, it is a PROVEN and
STABLE system. There are millions of applications everywhere written
in VB6, and the web is full of documentation - all bugs and issues are
known.

I also doubt that VB6 might ever "stop working". In XP, even old MS
DOS applications do work. I even know a company here which is still
maintaining an MS DOS application, using Turbo Pascal 5.0 ....

Of course, in comparison to C# or VB.NET, the language itself is
lacking a lot of features. But in

And this is why I have been switching over to C#

> I would still recommend taking a long look at:
> 1 - Delphi
> 2 - MFC
> 3 - One of the .Net static linkers

I'm fully with you. Delphi might be very interesting, I loved Turbo
Pascal, and I often thought about switching to Delphi. The only issue
is the learning curve ...

MFC: I'm an expert on MFC, but I always disliked the high efforts you
have to take for programming even the simplest dialog boxes. Just try
to set the background color of an edit field. You are getting nuts.
This is why I am preferring VB6 for many applications.

Best regards

Georg

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

On Oct 1, 11:08 am, Georg Scholz wrote:

> MFC: I'm an expert on MFC, but I always disliked the high efforts you
> have to take for programming even the simplest dialog boxes. Just try
> to set the background color of an edit field. You are getting nuts.
> This is why I am preferring VB6 for many applications.
>

You'll love C# and the "Forms" library then Georg--it's like VB6 on
steroids. You'll be a master in about a month. Let the "wizards" do
the work for you, behind the scenes. You just drag and drop. And
with "delegates" and "events" you have more and easier calling of
functions. None of the playing around with obscure structures like
"message maps" and other such nonsense of MFC.

I've coded for about a month in C# (total time) and I practically feel
I can hold my own against Jon and Pete, the resident C# gurus here!

Today I learned XML and it's pretty neat. Every byte in a XML
document is like a "node" in a tree. Even "whitespaces" are
considered nodes.

And remember, no matter what language you use, if you read the fine
print on the shrinkwrap license, you'll see it's not certified for
"mission critical" applications including hospitals and anything
dealing with life support!

Ray Lopez
[C# MVP, kind of, sort of, uncertified of]

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

"raylopez99" wrote in message >
> I've coded for about a month in C# (total time) and I practically feel
> I can hold my own against Jon and Pete, the resident C# gurus here!

Good luck with that. I've been coding C# a long time, and the two of them
(along with a few others) are enough to give somenome a complex! Some of the
people here are way to smart...

> Today I learned XML and it's pretty neat. Every byte in a XML
> document is like a "node" in a tree. Even "whitespaces" are
> considered nodes.

XML is another of those "small, easy to master" topics, kind of like
Databases, Concurrency, and OO.

--
Chris Mullins

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

Chris Mullins [MVP - C#] wrote:
> "raylopez99" wrote in message >
>> I've coded for about a month in C# (total time) and I practically feel
>> I can hold my own against Jon and Pete, the resident C# gurus here!
>
> Good luck with that. I've been coding C# a long time, and the two of them
> (along with a few others) are enough to give somenome a complex! Some of the
> people here are way to smart...

Frankly, I'm a little uncomfortable being called one of "the resident C#
gurus here" (even if I did receive word today that thanks to Jon's
nomination, I'm now a "C# MVP"...and not just "kind of, sort of,
uncertified of"). And I'm especially uncomfortable with the implication
that there are only two such people.

I can think of, just off the top of my head, at least a half-dozen
regular posters here that have much greater claim to "guru-dom" than I
do, especially in (but not limited to) the context of C#. I'd come up
with more names if I spent a few more moments thinking about it.

In fact, one of the amazing things about this newsgroup is the high
number of people who are not only able to answer the mundane, daily
questions that C# newbies are constantly posting, but also those really
weird ones that you can only answer if you've "been there, done that,
ripped your hair out trying to learn it". There's a lot of esoteric
knowledge out there and frankly my own expertise pales in comparison.

Of course, among all those people, not one is Ray. But maybe one day. :)

Pete

Re: How widespread is .Net Framework 1.1.4322 ?

On Oct 1, 3:47 pm, "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]"
wrote:
> "raylopez99" wrote in message >
> > I've coded for about a month in C# (total time) and I practically feel
> > I can hold my own against Jon and Pete, the resident C# gurus here!
>
> Good luck with that. I've been coding C# a long time, and the two of them
> (along with a few others) are enough to give somenome a complex! Some of the
> people here are way to smart...

Agreed. There is such a thing as "thinking too much" or
"overengineering"! :-)

>
> > Today I learned XML and it's pretty neat. Every byte in a XML
> > document is like a "node" in a tree. Even "whitespaces" are
> > considered nodes.
>
> XML is another of those "small, easy to master" topics, kind of like
> Databases, Concurrency, and OO.
>

True, true. I just finished all I need to know (for now) in the book
by Wrox "Beginning C# 2005 Databases" by Karli Watson. Pretty good
stuff. The key is knowing when to use the visual tools to design a
query, and when to use a command (faster), and of course the interface
to the Visual Studio C# front end. Helps to know SQL, which I learned
in about a day. As for XML, if you stick to what is known as the
'forward stream' (non-tree, just moving forward in sequential fashion)
version, it's just like FileStream--plug and chug--the bit about
attributes versus elements is a bit confusing but largely a tempest/
teapot situation. Don't know much about Concurrency yet, but it seems
pretty simple--just stop one thread whenever you need another to catch
up, and so forth. OO is of course the base for all things, and it
does take a while to "think" in OO style, but to be honest, I find
that a lot of stuff that I and others write ends up really being
procedural stuff recast as OO. I mean, how often to you really use
polymorphism anyway? Not all that often.

Happy coding,

RL