.Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 11:28:39 von 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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 12:56:45 von 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

"jim" wrote in message
news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>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
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 12:56:45 von Kevin Spencer

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 12:59:53 von me

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

"jim" wrote in message
news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>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
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 12:59:53 von me

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:12:43 von 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

"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
news:elOyO%23HSIHA.4128@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>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
>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:12:43 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:19:28 von 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

"ThatsIT.net.au" wrote in message
news:1E20AF5C-0719-418A-B50F-3FE525B245DB@microsoft.com...
> Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows application?
>
>
>
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>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
>>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:19:28 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:37:00 von nemtsev

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> "ThatsIT.net.au" wrote in message
j> news:1E20AF5C-0719-418A-B50F-3FE525B245DB@microsoft.com...
j>
>> Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows
>> application?
>>
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>> 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
>>>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:37:00 von nemtsev

RE: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:46:00 von FamilyTreeMike

"jim" wrote:

> 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?

RE: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:46:00 von FamilyTreeMike

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:53:26 von 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

"Michael Nemtsev [MVP]" wrote in message
news:3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com...
> 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> "ThatsIT.net.au" wrote in message
> j> news:1E20AF5C-0719-418A-B50F-3FE525B245DB@microsoft.com...
> j>
>>> Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows
>>> application?
>>>
>>> "jim" wrote in message
>>> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:53:26 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:53:59 von Jeff Gaines

On 27/12/2007 in message
<3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com> Michael Nemtsev [MVP]
wrote:

>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 :-)

--
Jeff Gaines

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:53:59 von Jeff Gaines

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:55:43 von Coskun

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.

--
All the best,
Coskun SUNALI
MVP ASP/ASP.NET
http://sunali.com

"jim" wrote in message
news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>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
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:55:43 von Coskun

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:57:58 von Jim

"Family Tree Mike" wrote in
message news:5DBCB6AF-010C-4B6F-B4C4-9152387554A5@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "jim" wrote:
>
>> 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?

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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:57:58 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 13:58:31 von Jim

"Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
news:xn0fffyf4e7t4y5000@msnews.microsoft.com...
> On 27/12/2007 in message
> <3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com> Michael Nemtsev [MVP]
> wrote:
>
>>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 :-)
>
> --
> Jeff Gaines

:)

jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:04:21 von 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

"Coskun SUNALI [MVP]" wrote in message
news:uqKuQfISIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
> --
> All the best,
> Coskun SUNALI
> MVP ASP/ASP.NET
> http://sunali.com
>
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>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
>>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:04:21 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:10:12 von nemtsev

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> "Michael Nemtsev [MVP]" wrote in message
j> news:3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com...
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> "ThatsIT.net.au" wrote in message
>> j> news:1E20AF5C-0719-418A-B50F-3FE525B245DB@microsoft.com...
>> j>
>>>> Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows
>>>> application?
>>>>
>>>> "jim" wrote in message
>>>> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>>>> 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
>>>>>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:10:12 von nemtsev

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:12:55 von nemtsev

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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:12:55 von nemtsev

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:44:07 von notmyfirstname

> 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 :-)

Looks to me more that Jim is providing us some spam.

:-)

Cor

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:59:23 von unknown

Hi,

"jim" wrote in message
news:PEMcj.28228$Mu4.12558@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> 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.

--
Ignacio Machin
http://www.laceupsolutions.com
Mobile & warehouse Solutions.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 14:59:23 von unknown

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 15:13:33 von 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" wrote in message
news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>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
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 15:13:33 von John

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 15:41:05 von Jim

"Michael Nemtsev [MVP]" wrote in message
news:3d9fba1a222c98ca16fd2611e560@msnews.microsoft.com...
> 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> "Michael Nemtsev [MVP]" wrote in message
> j> news:3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com...
> 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> "ThatsIT.net.au" wrote in message
>>> j> news:1E20AF5C-0719-418A-B50F-3FE525B245DB@microsoft.com...
>>> j>
>>>>> Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows
>>>>> application?
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim" wrote in message
>>>>> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 15:41:05 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 15:42:23 von CJ

IMHO, I agree.

From my background in the late 80s dBase code needed a runtime and
other supporting files etc to be on the machine to make dBase programs
work. Along came Clipper which compiled essentially dbase code into one
EXE and that one file could be put on any dos or windows computer and
run from the command prompt or an icon etc. No installation or other
files etc necessary. This was touted the new, much faster and better
way to do things. I also worked with C and C++ back then and they also
compiled to one EXE file.

Years later along comes .net and it's new and better to go back to
needing something (.net framework) installed on a pc in order for you
apps to run. I have to shake my head--but whatever. Perhaps I'm
getting old and but what really bothers me is nobody seems to notice
this--maybe the 80s was before they got into programming. Everyone
seems so enamored by .net these days. I find it funny to think that in
another 20 years, maybe less, .net will surely be just another memory,
whatever is out then will be oh so cool and nobody will understand why
anyone liked .net.

I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, I surely appreciate the
help I get here. I just wish more folks seemed to understand where I'm
coming from. I might be happier with .net if I was allowed to jump to
an exclusively .net world and get all into it, but I sit here tasked
with writing web services in .net that sadly is to use a complicated
assortment of Visual FoxPro tables as data sources.

Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 27/12/2007 in message
> <3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com> Michael Nemtsev
> [MVP] wrote:
>
>> 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 :-)
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 15:54:34 von 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

"John" wrote in message
news:%23HEPrKJSIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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" wrote in message
> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>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
>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 15:54:34 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 16:19:43 von 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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 16:19:43 von Eliyahu Goldin

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 16:31:14 von Jim

It was the same thing with COM and shared DLLs.

Microsoft thought that (due in part to the expense of hard drive space at
the time) that sharing DLLs would be an answer to the hard drive space issue
and would save RAM by allowinf several applications to share the same DLLs.

It wasn't a bad theory, it just didn't work well in reality due to DLL
versioning issues. As a matter of fact, the simple answer to DLL Hell for
Visual Basic (and I suspect C++) apps was simply to place a copy of the
needed DLLs in the same directory as your executable. The way Windows works
is to look in the executable's directory for a needed DLL BEFORE using the
registry to find one EVEN IF THE REFERENCED DLL IS REGISTERED ON THE PC
RUNNING THE APPLICATION THAT NEED IT.

You didn't have to change one line of code or alter the method of
registering your DLLS. Just drop them in the EXE directory and, BAM, no
more DLL Hell. But, that was way too simple a solution - so we got .Net.

..Net has now gone back to keeping it's files in the same directory AND using
the registry to share .Net framework files.

So, now we are wasting drive space (not that it's that expensive anymore)
AND having to contend with a bloated 25MB+ framework and possible
application failures due to some developers using hotfixes to patch .Net
while others code around the issues found.

Eventually we will get back to the days of a single, linked and compiled
EXE - and it will be all new and shiny again.

!!!! WARNING! The following paragraphs may be offensive to Microsoft
Groupies! Read at your own risk! I will niether be responsible for your
overreactions nor will I respond to them. This is simply an observation and
remarking on another author's observatiuons. !!!!

That reminds me of an article I read the other day about how MS changed the
way apps used to work when they developed Windows. In the old Xerox and
Apple OS's that Gates observed before and while developing Windows, there
used to be something called time sharing (I think thats what it was called)
where all applications were placed in their own workspace and could not
access each other's memory or workspace. It kept applications from screwing
each other up.

Then, according to the author, Microsoft did away with this time
sharing/application segregation because they wanted the applications to look
and be more integrated with Windows in order to sell more software (like
Word, Works, Office, etc.). The author claims that all of this was done to
increase the market share of Windows apps and to increase revenue for the
investors (which, again, is what a corporation is good for).

Now, with the .Net framework, it seems we are getting back to the 1970's
idea of time sharing and application isolation.

I find it quite funny myself. Next, we'll be back to linked compiled
executables and praising it as another Microsoft breakthrough.

jim

"cj" wrote in message
news:uuk9TbJSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> IMHO, I agree.
>
> From my background in the late 80s dBase code needed a runtime and other
> supporting files etc to be on the machine to make dBase programs work.
> Along came Clipper which compiled essentially dbase code into one EXE and
> that one file could be put on any dos or windows computer and run from the
> command prompt or an icon etc. No installation or other files etc
> necessary. This was touted the new, much faster and better way to do
> things. I also worked with C and C++ back then and they also compiled to
> one EXE file.
>
> Years later along comes .net and it's new and better to go back to needing
> something (.net framework) installed on a pc in order for you apps to run.
> I have to shake my head--but whatever. Perhaps I'm getting old and but
> what really bothers me is nobody seems to notice this--maybe the 80s was
> before they got into programming. Everyone seems so enamored by .net
> these days. I find it funny to think that in another 20 years, maybe
> less, .net will surely be just another memory, whatever is out then will
> be oh so cool and nobody will understand why anyone liked .net.
>
> I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, I surely appreciate the
> help I get here. I just wish more folks seemed to understand where I'm
> coming from. I might be happier with .net if I was allowed to jump to an
> exclusively .net world and get all into it, but I sit here tasked with
> writing web services in .net that sadly is to use a complicated assortment
> of Visual FoxPro tables as data sources.
>
>
> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 27/12/2007 in message
>> <3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com> Michael Nemtsev [MVP]
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 :-)
>>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 16:46:26 von 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-mobility/more-than-half-of-a mericans-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

"Eliyahu Goldin" wrote in
message news:OAxXAwJSIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 16:46:26 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 17:13:10 von notmyfirstname

Jim,

>"It turns out that as few as 28 percent of American households today have
>access to broadband Internet.

I assume that you mean the USA households, however beside that is probably
in those 28% the people that are interested in applications. Those who only
use Interent to browse or to send mail don't need small packages, they
simply don't download.

By the way, this is are International newsgroups, this situation in the USA
does not really interest most of us. (Although I don't believe that this
figur is representative for areas as LA, NY, etc.)

Cor

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 17:13:10 von notmyfirstname

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 18:23:11 von David Wier

I agree - with the obfuscation thrown in, the price definitely escalates.

David Wier
http://aspnet101.com
http://iWritePro.com - One click PDF, convert .doc/.rtf/.txt to HTML with no
bloated markup

"Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP )" wrote in
message news:uwliwCJSIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:PEMcj.28228$Mu4.12558@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> 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.
>
> --
> Ignacio Machin
> http://www.laceupsolutions.com
> Mobile & warehouse Solutions.
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 18:23:11 von David Wier

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 18:29:42 von Chris Shepherd

jim wrote:
> 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.

While there may be uses for it, I don't really see how bloating your app
by almost double the size to run it in a single EXE is of any practical
use to the majority of .NET developers. If you look at Xenocode's
example for Firefox, their "run-once EXE" is over 10 meg in size, while
the Firefox installer for the same version (2.0.11) is 5.7 meg in size.

You discuss people who aren't downloading the 25MB framework package due
to lack of broadband internet access, but I see no "try it" demos of any
..NET apps on either site. I'd be very interested in seeing what the size
of a .NET app actually is (they could do Paint.NET, it's free). Is it
actually any smaller than your compiled app + .Net framework compressed
would be?

As for why it wouldn't get done, I think it's of too limited practical
use. It might be handy, but honestly I can't really see a situation
where I would want to seriously put it to use.

Chris.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:02:49 von Chris Mullins

We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've also
played with Xenocode a bit.

Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had fewer
strange problems.

I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but a
quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do! That
really does suck.

--
Chris Mullins

"jim" wrote in message
news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>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
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:02:49 von Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:17:08 von Jim

Chris,

At least Salamander doesn't have royalties associated with it.

I have contacted a company about producing similar software to Thinstall for
me to make available to hobbyist programmers with no royalties. So far,
they've said it will cost $2,000 to study the project and give me a price
and time estimates.

I'm considering it.

jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
news:OEA%23RKLSIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've also
> played with Xenocode a bit.
>
> Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had
> fewer strange problems.
>
> I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but
> a quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do! That
> really does suck.
>
> --
> Chris Mullins
>
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>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
>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:17:08 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:20:46 von Tom Shelton

On Dec 27, 3:28 am, "jim" wrote:
> 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 - I know of nothing like these products that isn't expensive... I
have read through this thread - so I am familiar with why you think
this would be a desirable product. But, to be honest, I see them as
having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
don't really see any need at all.

1) I'm not sure that I agree with your estimates of broadband
penetration:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10400 (March 2006)
"February saw broadband composition reach an all-time high of 68%,
increasing an impressive 13% over the previous February."

I even found some that say as much as 85%. I know very few people
still on dial-up. In fact, other then my Mother I can't think of any
one I know personally :)

2) DLL/Version hell? Hmmm, not so much. I mean, I'm not saying that
this is 100% eliminated - I have personally experienced this with sp1
to 1.1, but it's rare enough that it's just not that much of a
concern.

My guess is that if you were to take a poll - not many .NET developers
work in a space were this sort of application is really useful. It
does nothing for web-developers. It does nothing for the guy working
on the in-house system, verticle market application, or bespoke
systems. In all of those cases, your usually dealing with managed
networks and can dictate minimum system requirements. So, click-once,
xcopy deployment, or a basic windows installer project are usually
sufficient for their needs. About the only area I could see this
being useful is the developer targeting more of a mass market
horizontal application - and in that case I have to ask, why are you
using .NET (as a side note, I ask the same thing about VB.CLASSIC)?
And even if you are using it - then it's no big deal to bootstrap and
install the framework as needed (bandwidth issues aside :).

So, basically I think that - while these apps are cool - they are
really a niche sort of thing (which explains why they are so
expensive). And, will most likely remain so - just as they have for
the Java and VB.CLASSIC markets.

Anyway, just some random thoughts ;)

--
Tom Shelton

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:33:46 von Chris Mullins

So it turns out I was a bit confused:

The Xenocode product we've played with is PostBuild, which is licensed per
Developer and costs $499. There's no royalties associated with it.

http://www.xenocode.com/Products/Suite/Selection.aspx

.... it'll do the "deploy your app as a single .exe" just like you're looking
for.

--
Chris Mullins

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
news:OEA%23RKLSIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've also
> played with Xenocode a bit.
>
> Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had
> fewer strange problems.
>
> I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but
> a quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do! That
> really does suck.
>
> --
> Chris Mullins
>
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>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
>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:33:46 von Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:39:02 von Chris Mullins

"Tom Shelton" wrote

> But, to be honest, I see them as
> having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
> off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
> don't really see any need at all.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.

The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this a
must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation of
the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.

.... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper or
something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software before
they've even run a line of your code.

It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly, the
reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
know of.

.... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot button
for me.

--
Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:39:02 von Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:41:37 von Peter Duniho

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:04:21 -0800, jim wrote:

> Wow! A little reading goes a long way people.

I agree!

Here's some reading that I think would help you:

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Usenet/Etiquette/

Especially those links that lead to:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/
http://infohost.nmt.edu/tcc/help/news/idiot.html

Paying close attention to the sections specific to cross-posting.

Frankly, not even counting your rude behavior toward people who are just
trying to help, the lack of focus in this thread is a great example of why
it's such a bad idea to post to so many broadly unrelated newsgroups.

If you want specific, relevant advice, stick to posting to specific,
relevant newsgroups. If you can't do that, don't complain when the advice
you get doesn't seem specific or relevant enough for your tastes.

Pete

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:41:37 von Peter Duniho

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:53:25 von Jim

"Chris Shepherd" wrote in message
news:OCFwl3KSIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> jim wrote:
>> 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.
>
> While there may be uses for it, I don't really see how bloating your app
> by almost double the size to run it in a single EXE is of any practical
> use to the majority of .NET developers. If you look at Xenocode's example
> for Firefox, their "run-once EXE" is over 10 meg in size, while the
> Firefox installer for the same version (2.0.11) is 5.7 meg in size.

The major reasons for using this type of application are (1) to end DLL/.Net
version hell, (2) to not make the end user have to install version 1.0, 1.1,
2.0, 3.0 & 3.5 of the .Net framework to run .Net apps, (3) to insulate your
app from decompiling as is easy to do even with most obfuscation, (4) to
allow more users to run your app because Thinstall apps do not require admin
permissions to run whereas admin permission is required to do most app
installations and (5) people like easy - easy sells - and nothing could be
easier than copying an exe and running it.

> You discuss people who aren't downloading the 25MB framework package due
> to lack of broadband internet access, but I see no "try it" demos of any
> .NET apps on either site. I'd be very interested in seeing what the size
> of a .NET app actually is (they could do Paint.NET, it's free). Is it
> actually any smaller than your compiled app + .Net framework compressed
> would be?

Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try and
test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself.

As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it to
6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone.

>
> As for why it wouldn't get done, I think it's of too limited practical
> use. It might be handy, but honestly I can't really see a situation where
> I would want to seriously put it to use.

How about in distributing portable applications for use on USB drives? Or
distributing apps to people that may not have admin permissions to install
applications? Or simply making an application as simple as copying the exe
and running it?

It isn't for everybody.....but I think it improves the distribution and
maintenance of .Net apps for most people.

jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:54:58 von Jim

Chirs,

You're right. It seems to take a little more work than Thinstall, but for
the no royalties part I can stand the extra work.

I was looking at their Virtualization tools.

Thanks for pointing out PostBuild! That's something I can swing.

jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
news:evnNmbLSIHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> So it turns out I was a bit confused:
>
> The Xenocode product we've played with is PostBuild, which is licensed per
> Developer and costs $499. There's no royalties associated with it.
>
> http://www.xenocode.com/Products/Suite/Selection.aspx
>
> ... it'll do the "deploy your app as a single .exe" just like you're
> looking for.
>
> --
> Chris Mullins
>
> "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
> news:OEA%23RKLSIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've
>> also played with Xenocode a bit.
>>
>> Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had
>> fewer strange problems.
>>
>> I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but
>> a quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do!
>> That really does suck.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Mullins
>>
>>
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 19:54:58 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 20:02:17 von Jim

Chris,

I fully agree with you there.

If Microsoft is puttting all of its eggs in the .Net basket, why isn't .Net
(a) included with every Microsoft product and (b) made a top priority
download for the nightly updates done by most end users?

If it was so distributed by MS, the distribution costs for .Net apps woudl
be minimal and there would be a lot more of them out there.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
news:urmcgeLSIHA.5136@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Tom Shelton" wrote
>
>> But, to be honest, I see them as
>> having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
>> off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
>> don't really see any need at all.
>
> I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
> deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.
>
> The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this a
> must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation
> of the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.
>
> ... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper
> or something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software
> before they've even run a line of your code.
>
> It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly,
> the reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and
> doesn't install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product
> that I know of.
>
> ... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot button
> for me.
>
> --
> Chris Mullins
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 20:02:17 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 20:23:15 von CJ

Can we bring back structured programming while we're at it? :) Oh nice
linear code--I just got this really peaceful feeling come over me
thinking of that.

Ooops, didn't last. You know maybe I'm not doing it right but with .net
have you run into the situation where you write code and put it on a
network drive and suddenly it doesn't work. You don't have permission
to run it or something. So for every pc that needs to run one of my
programs on the network I have to make sure it's got the correct version
of .net on it and then follow two different procedures, a gui one (MS
..Net Framwork 1.1 Wizards) for 2003 and a command line one (caspol -m
-cg 1.2 FullTrust) for 2005 to set local intranet to full trust so we
can use the program. BTW what's up with going to a command line one for
2005? Are we moving away from gui to the command prompt? And w/o these
groups who would have found that?

I'm trying to get VS2008 now and I'm sure Vista is in my future. I
shudder to think what I'll have to do with them. I think we're coming
to a sad realization--allow or deny? :)

Anyway, the only constant in this line of work is change so I'm moving
on now. Good luck in your quest.

jim wrote:
> It was the same thing with COM and shared DLLs.
>
> Microsoft thought that (due in part to the expense of hard drive space at
> the time) that sharing DLLs would be an answer to the hard drive space issue
> and would save RAM by allowinf several applications to share the same DLLs.
>
> It wasn't a bad theory, it just didn't work well in reality due to DLL
> versioning issues. As a matter of fact, the simple answer to DLL Hell for
> Visual Basic (and I suspect C++) apps was simply to place a copy of the
> needed DLLs in the same directory as your executable. The way Windows works
> is to look in the executable's directory for a needed DLL BEFORE using the
> registry to find one EVEN IF THE REFERENCED DLL IS REGISTERED ON THE PC
> RUNNING THE APPLICATION THAT NEED IT.
>
> You didn't have to change one line of code or alter the method of
> registering your DLLS. Just drop them in the EXE directory and, BAM, no
> more DLL Hell. But, that was way too simple a solution - so we got .Net.
>
> .Net has now gone back to keeping it's files in the same directory AND using
> the registry to share .Net framework files.
>
> So, now we are wasting drive space (not that it's that expensive anymore)
> AND having to contend with a bloated 25MB+ framework and possible
> application failures due to some developers using hotfixes to patch .Net
> while others code around the issues found.
>
> Eventually we will get back to the days of a single, linked and compiled
> EXE - and it will be all new and shiny again.
>
> !!!! WARNING! The following paragraphs may be offensive to Microsoft
> Groupies! Read at your own risk! I will niether be responsible for your
> overreactions nor will I respond to them. This is simply an observation and
> remarking on another author's observatiuons. !!!!
>
> That reminds me of an article I read the other day about how MS changed the
> way apps used to work when they developed Windows. In the old Xerox and
> Apple OS's that Gates observed before and while developing Windows, there
> used to be something called time sharing (I think thats what it was called)
> where all applications were placed in their own workspace and could not
> access each other's memory or workspace. It kept applications from screwing
> each other up.
>
> Then, according to the author, Microsoft did away with this time
> sharing/application segregation because they wanted the applications to look
> and be more integrated with Windows in order to sell more software (like
> Word, Works, Office, etc.). The author claims that all of this was done to
> increase the market share of Windows apps and to increase revenue for the
> investors (which, again, is what a corporation is good for).
>
> Now, with the .Net framework, it seems we are getting back to the 1970's
> idea of time sharing and application isolation.
>
> I find it quite funny myself. Next, we'll be back to linked compiled
> executables and praising it as another Microsoft breakthrough.
>
> jim
>
>
> "cj" wrote in message
> news:uuk9TbJSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> IMHO, I agree.
>>
>> From my background in the late 80s dBase code needed a runtime and other
>> supporting files etc to be on the machine to make dBase programs work.
>> Along came Clipper which compiled essentially dbase code into one EXE and
>> that one file could be put on any dos or windows computer and run from the
>> command prompt or an icon etc. No installation or other files etc
>> necessary. This was touted the new, much faster and better way to do
>> things. I also worked with C and C++ back then and they also compiled to
>> one EXE file.
>>
>> Years later along comes .net and it's new and better to go back to needing
>> something (.net framework) installed on a pc in order for you apps to run.
>> I have to shake my head--but whatever. Perhaps I'm getting old and but
>> what really bothers me is nobody seems to notice this--maybe the 80s was
>> before they got into programming. Everyone seems so enamored by .net
>> these days. I find it funny to think that in another 20 years, maybe
>> less, .net will surely be just another memory, whatever is out then will
>> be oh so cool and nobody will understand why anyone liked .net.
>>
>> I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, I surely appreciate the
>> help I get here. I just wish more folks seemed to understand where I'm
>> coming from. I might be happier with .net if I was allowed to jump to an
>> exclusively .net world and get all into it, but I sit here tasked with
>> writing web services in .net that sadly is to use a complicated assortment
>> of Visual FoxPro tables as data sources.
>>
>>
>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2007 in message
>>> <3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com> Michael Nemtsev [MVP]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 :-)
>>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 20:41:46 von Chris Shepherd

jim wrote:
>> While there may be uses for it, I don't really see how bloating your app
>> by almost double the size to run it in a single EXE is of any practical
>> use to the majority of .NET developers. If you look at Xenocode's example
>> for Firefox, their "run-once EXE" is over 10 meg in size, while the
>> Firefox installer for the same version (2.0.11) is 5.7 meg in size.
>
> The major reasons for using this type of application are (1) to end DLL/.Net
> version hell, (2) to not make the end user have to install version 1.0, 1.1,
> 2.0, 3.0 & 3.5 of the .Net framework to run .Net apps, (3) to insulate your
> app from decompiling as is easy to do even with most obfuscation, (4) to
> allow more users to run your app because Thinstall apps do not require admin
> permissions to run whereas admin permission is required to do most app
> installations and (5) people like easy - easy sells - and nothing could be
> easier than copying an exe and running it.

Well 1, DLL/.Net version hell has not been really an issue for a while
now -- at least speaking from my own experiences.

2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a
user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they
already have a framework installed. At most you need 2.0/3.0/3.5. It's
only problematic in not up to date OSes, and if you are targeting old
PCs you probably shouldn't be writing stuff in .NET anyway.

3, If it can run, it can be decompiled/disassembled. Obfuscation isn't
as great a solution as many people make it out to be. I understand in
protecting your investment, but there's a line between deterring lazy
people and making your code useless/slow because of the obfuscation
techniques.

4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges
in any way. Installing an application which needs to access certain
parts of the filesystem or registry may require installation privileges,
which are available to Power Users. Using this and #5 as a point *for*
Thinstall and its ilk seems odd, since most commercial software nowadays
installs.

5, Yes, it may make running the software easy, but how trivial is
updating the software, keeping track of (and securing) temporary data
caches, etc., etc..?

>> You discuss people who aren't downloading the 25MB framework package due
>> to lack of broadband internet access, but I see no "try it" demos of any
>> .NET apps on either site. I'd be very interested in seeing what the size
>> of a .NET app actually is (they could do Paint.NET, it's free). Is it
>> actually any smaller than your compiled app + .Net framework compressed
>> would be?
>
> Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try and
> test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself.

Smaller than what?

> As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it to
> 6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone.

And what was the size of your hello world EXE plus the framework
compressed into one file?
This is of course running with you and ignoring the fact that as we go
forward the OSes will/already have the framework already installed, and
many already do thanks to Service Packs/Vista.

>> As for why it wouldn't get done, I think it's of too limited practical
>> use. It might be handy, but honestly I can't really see a situation where
>> I would want to seriously put it to use.
>
> How about in distributing portable applications for use on USB drives? Or
> distributing apps to people that may not have admin permissions to install
> applications? Or simply making an application as simple as copying the exe
> and running it?

The PortableApps guys (http://portableapps.com) have done this just fine
using installations.

> It isn't for everybody.....but I think it improves the distribution and
> maintenance of .Net apps for most people.

Distribution and ease of access, maybe, but I don't see how it improves
maintenance at all.

Chris.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 20:42:33 von Jim

"Tom Shelton" wrote in message
news:e7412c11-4885-46e9-8744-d59ec8c7a32d@s12g2000prg.google groups.com...
> On Dec 27, 3:28 am, "jim" wrote:
>> 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 - I know of nothing like these products that isn't expensive... I
> have read through this thread - so I am familiar with why you think
> this would be a desirable product. But, to be honest, I see them as
> having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
> off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
> don't really see any need at all.
>
> 1) I'm not sure that I agree with your estimates of broadband
> penetration:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10400 (March 2006)
> "February saw broadband composition reach an all-time high of 68%,
> increasing an impressive 13% over the previous February."
>
> I even found some that say as much as 85%. I know very few people
> still on dial-up. In fact, other then my Mother I can't think of any
> one I know personally :)

Then there are sites like http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0704/ that
show (as of December 2006) that show only 50.7% penetration.

I can't seem to find any more current figures. I think that may be by
design. The telcos had rather just say "trust us" than reveal the facts of
how we, as a nation, are falling farther and farther behind in broadband
tchnology and distribution. It's shameful.

>
> 2) DLL/Version hell? Hmmm, not so much. I mean, I'm not saying that
> this is 100% eliminated - I have personally experienced this with sp1
> to 1.1, but it's rare enough that it's just not that much of a
> concern.

It's a huge concern for Microsoft. That's why they require you to call in
to get the hotfixes for .Net instead of simply downloading them (or at least
thats the best reason I could come up with for that ridiculous behavior).

> My guess is that if you were to take a poll - not many .NET developers
> work in a space were this sort of application is really useful.

I would agree with you there. Distribution and maintenance (not to mention
coding) .Net applications is so much more difficult than apss were in
something like VB6, and the performance so much worse from a user
standpoint, that there are only a fraction of the hobbyist programmers that
there used to be that actually put out code for the masses.

>It
> does nothing for web-developers. It does nothing for the guy working
> on the in-house system,

Not true. It greatly simplifies distribution (even eliminating distribution
in the case of streaming Thinstall apps from a central server).

> verticle market application, or bespoke
> systems. In all of those cases, your usually dealing with managed
> networks and can dictate minimum system requirements. So, click-once,
> xcopy deployment, or a basic windows installer project are usually
> sufficient for their needs.

True. They can dictate the environment. But, why would they want to
install .Net 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and so on ad nauseum when they coudl
simply distribute (or stream) apps from a central server and skip the whole
..Net install? I don't know of one in-house shop that would balk at the idea
of lessening the admins' workload.

> About the only area I could see this
> being useful is the developer targeting more of a mass market
> horizontal application - and in that case I have to ask, why are you
> using .NET (as a side note, I ask the same thing about VB.CLASSIC)?

What else would you suggest (seeing as how Microsoft pushes it for their OS
and they supposedly will make the .Net framework play nice with the upcoming
OSs)?

> And even if you are using it - then it's no big deal to bootstrap and
> install the framework as needed (bandwidth issues aside :).

Exactly.

> So, basically I think that - while these apps are cool - they are
> really a niche sort of thing (which explains why they are so
> expensive). And, will most likely remain so - just as they have for
> the Java and VB.CLASSIC markets.

I, repsectfully, disagree. I think they remain niche apps because of the
pricing, just as Ferraris occupy niche markets because they are so
expensive.

This pricing is by design. I bought Thinstall back when it was only $750.
I emailed the owner, Jonathan Clark, quite regularly and discussed his price
increase at length with him in emails and on the phone. I do not disagree
with his reasoning for the price increase, and will not discuss it here (as
it was a private conversation with sensitive matters being discussed). But,
I do think that the same thing can be done as an add-in for .Net or as a
stand alone app for far less money than is being charged.

> Anyway, just some random thoughts ;)

And, I thank you for them.

jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 20:42:33 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 20:48:33 von Jim

"cj" wrote in message
news:ej7dp4LSIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Can we bring back structured programming while we're at it? :) Oh nice
> linear code--I just got this really peaceful feeling come over me thinking
> of that.
>
> Ooops, didn't last. You know maybe I'm not doing it right but with .net
> have you run into the situation where you write code and put it on a
> network drive and suddenly it doesn't work. You don't have permission to
> run it or something. So for every pc that needs to run one of my programs
> on the network I have to make sure it's got the correct version of .net on
> it and then follow two different procedures, a gui one (MS .Net Framwork
> 1.1 Wizards) for 2003 and a command line one (caspol -m -cg 1.2 FullTrust)
> for 2005 to set local intranet to full trust so we can use the program.
> BTW what's up with going to a command line one for 2005? Are we moving
> away from gui to the command prompt? And w/o these groups who would have
> found that?

I have run into the same frustrations.

It seems to me that Microsoft is attempting the impossible - saving users
from themselves.

No amount of code or UAC propmts will save stupid users from installing or
running any free app that they see on the internet. All it will do is
frustrate everyone involved and make PCs more of a chore to use and less of
a pleasure.

That's why (IMHO) the fascination with PCs has fallen away. People that
used to love PCs now dread the very thought of changing their system or
loading a new software package at work. Why? Because they know it won't
work as advertised. They know they are in for at least a week of hell to
get back to a productive system - and that's a best case scenario.

>
> I'm trying to get VS2008 now and I'm sure Vista is in my future. I
> shudder to think what I'll have to do with them. I think we're coming to
> a sad realization--allow or deny? :)

As of we'll have that choice in a couple more releases of Windows. Perhaps
they should consider renaming the OS Shutters?

> Anyway, the only constant in this line of work is change so I'm moving on
> now. Good luck in your quest.

Thanks! And to you too!

jim

>
>
> jim wrote:
>> It was the same thing with COM and shared DLLs.
>>
>> Microsoft thought that (due in part to the expense of hard drive space at
>> the time) that sharing DLLs would be an answer to the hard drive space
>> issue and would save RAM by allowinf several applications to share the
>> same DLLs.
>>
>> It wasn't a bad theory, it just didn't work well in reality due to DLL
>> versioning issues. As a matter of fact, the simple answer to DLL Hell
>> for Visual Basic (and I suspect C++) apps was simply to place a copy of
>> the needed DLLs in the same directory as your executable. The way
>> Windows works is to look in the executable's directory for a needed DLL
>> BEFORE using the registry to find one EVEN IF THE REFERENCED DLL IS
>> REGISTERED ON THE PC RUNNING THE APPLICATION THAT NEED IT.
>>
>> You didn't have to change one line of code or alter the method of
>> registering your DLLS. Just drop them in the EXE directory and, BAM, no
>> more DLL Hell. But, that was way too simple a solution - so we got .Net.
>>
>> .Net has now gone back to keeping it's files in the same directory AND
>> using the registry to share .Net framework files.
>>
>> So, now we are wasting drive space (not that it's that expensive anymore)
>> AND having to contend with a bloated 25MB+ framework and possible
>> application failures due to some developers using hotfixes to patch .Net
>> while others code around the issues found.
>>
>> Eventually we will get back to the days of a single, linked and compiled
>> EXE - and it will be all new and shiny again.
>>
>> !!!! WARNING! The following paragraphs may be offensive to Microsoft
>> Groupies! Read at your own risk! I will niether be responsible for your
>> overreactions nor will I respond to them. This is simply an observation
>> and remarking on another author's observatiuons. !!!!
>>
>> That reminds me of an article I read the other day about how MS changed
>> the way apps used to work when they developed Windows. In the old Xerox
>> and Apple OS's that Gates observed before and while developing Windows,
>> there used to be something called time sharing (I think thats what it was
>> called) where all applications were placed in their own workspace and
>> could not access each other's memory or workspace. It kept applications
>> from screwing each other up.
>>
>> Then, according to the author, Microsoft did away with this time
>> sharing/application segregation because they wanted the applications to
>> look and be more integrated with Windows in order to sell more software
>> (like Word, Works, Office, etc.). The author claims that all of this was
>> done to increase the market share of Windows apps and to increase revenue
>> for the investors (which, again, is what a corporation is good for).
>>
>> Now, with the .Net framework, it seems we are getting back to the 1970's
>> idea of time sharing and application isolation.
>>
>> I find it quite funny myself. Next, we'll be back to linked compiled
>> executables and praising it as another Microsoft breakthrough.
>>
>> jim
>>
>>
>> "cj" wrote in message
>> news:uuk9TbJSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> IMHO, I agree.
>>>
>>> From my background in the late 80s dBase code needed a runtime and other
>>> supporting files etc to be on the machine to make dBase programs work.
>>> Along came Clipper which compiled essentially dbase code into one EXE
>>> and that one file could be put on any dos or windows computer and run
>>> from the command prompt or an icon etc. No installation or other files
>>> etc necessary. This was touted the new, much faster and better way to
>>> do things. I also worked with C and C++ back then and they also
>>> compiled to one EXE file.
>>>
>>> Years later along comes .net and it's new and better to go back to
>>> needing something (.net framework) installed on a pc in order for you
>>> apps to run. I have to shake my head--but whatever. Perhaps I'm getting
>>> old and but what really bothers me is nobody seems to notice this--maybe
>>> the 80s was before they got into programming. Everyone seems so
>>> enamored by .net these days. I find it funny to think that in another
>>> 20 years, maybe less, .net will surely be just another memory, whatever
>>> is out then will be oh so cool and nobody will understand why anyone
>>> liked .net.
>>>
>>> I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, I surely appreciate the
>>> help I get here. I just wish more folks seemed to understand where I'm
>>> coming from. I might be happier with .net if I was allowed to jump to
>>> an exclusively .net world and get all into it, but I sit here tasked
>>> with writing web services in .net that sadly is to use a complicated
>>> assortment of Visual FoxPro tables as data sources.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> On 27/12/2007 in message
>>>> <3d9fba1a222b18ca16f883192660@msnews.microsoft.com> Michael Nemtsev
>>>> [MVP] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 :-)
>>>>
>>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:07:50 von Tom Shelton

On Dec 27, 11:39 am, "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]"
wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" wrote
>
> > But, to be honest, I see them as
> > having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
> > off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
> > don't really see any need at all.
>
> I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
> deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.
>

Which is exactly the market that I said I saw the usefulness for this
application futher down in the post. But, personally, I would never
choose .NET for a horizontal, mass distributed application. That
would have to be something more standalone - like C++, Delphi, or
maybe PowerBasic (personally, I'd probably choose C++).

> The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this a
> must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation of
> the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.
>

Nobody? Really. Do you have stats on that. It's been part of
Windows update for a long time, though optional so you could be
correct. But, frankely, I don't believe most .NET developers are
working in that space anyway.

> ... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper or
> something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software before
> they've even run a line of your code.
>

Why? Because you install a dependency? Please.

> It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly, the
> reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
> install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
> know of.
>

They have pushed via windows update - but as an optional update.

> ... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot button
> for me.

If it's a problem for you, then I respectfully have to say your using
the wrong toolset.

--
Tom Shelton

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:12:04 von Jim

"Chris Shepherd" wrote in message
news:u8JkaBMSIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> jim wrote:
>>> While there may be uses for it, I don't really see how bloating your app
>>> by almost double the size to run it in a single EXE is of any practical
>>> use to the majority of .NET developers. If you look at Xenocode's
>>> example for Firefox, their "run-once EXE" is over 10 meg in size, while
>>> the Firefox installer for the same version (2.0.11) is 5.7 meg in size.
>>
>> The major reasons for using this type of application are (1) to end
>> DLL/.Net version hell, (2) to not make the end user have to install
>> version 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 & 3.5 of the .Net framework to run .Net apps,
>> (3) to insulate your app from decompiling as is easy to do even with most
>> obfuscation, (4) to allow more users to run your app because Thinstall
>> apps do not require admin permissions to run whereas admin permission is
>> required to do most app installations and (5) people like easy - easy
>> sells - and nothing could be easier than copying an exe and running it.
>
> Well 1, DLL/.Net version hell has not been really an issue for a while
> now -- at least speaking from my own experiences.

It really never was an issue - more of an excuse to go to .Net. The simple
fact was that DLL Hell was curable by simply placing all of your apps DLLs
in the same dir as the exe. But, with Thinstall or Postbuild you don't even
have to do that.

> 2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a
> user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they
> already have a framework installed.

Really? When did that start? I am not aware of the framework being
installed as a security update or as a part of SP2? That's been one of my
pet peeves - why wasn't it?

> At most you need 2.0/3.0/3.5.

Unless you or your company wrote 1.0 or 1.1 apps.

> It's only problematic in not up to date OSes, and if you are targeting old
> PCs you probably shouldn't be writing stuff in .NET anyway.

Sound logic.....people with older PCs should just get the hell off the
internet. I like that! (But I wonder what they would think about it.
Hmmmm.... )

> 3, If it can run, it can be decompiled/disassembled. Obfuscation isn't as
> great a solution as many people make it out to be. I understand in
> protecting your investment, but there's a line between deterring lazy
> people and making your code useless/slow because of the obfuscation
> techniques.

Right. It's just that Thinstall/Xenocode make it more difficult than
obfuscation alone.

> 4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges in
> any way. Installing an application which needs to access certain parts of
> the filesystem or registry may require installation privileges, which are
> available to Power Users.

Most useful applications write some data to the registry and do manipulate
files (although not necc system files). I have rarely found programs useful
that are so simple as to not use the system registry or manipulate files on
my systems.

> Using this and #5 as a point *for* Thinstall and its ilk seems odd, since
> most commercial software nowadays installs.

I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal
tension.

> 5, Yes, it may make running the software easy, but how trivial is updating
> the software, keeping track of (and securing) temporary data caches, etc.,
> etc..?

You don't work with the general public, do you?

>>> You discuss people who aren't downloading the 25MB framework package
due
>>> to lack of broadband internet access, but I see no "try it" demos of any
>>> .NET apps on either site. I'd be very interested in seeing what the size
>>> of a .NET app actually is (they could do Paint.NET, it's free). Is it
>>> actually any smaller than your compiled app + .Net framework compressed
>>> would be?
>>
>> Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try
>> and test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself.
>
> Smaller than what?

Than Paint .Net + the .Net framework.

>> As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it to
>> 6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone.
>
> And what was the size of your hello world EXE plus the framework
> compressed into one file?

Just over 24MB. (The .Net install is already compressed.)

> This is of course running with you and ignoring the fact that as we go
> forward the OSes will/already have the framework already installed, and
> many already do thanks to Service Packs/Vista.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But, so far the only OS I have seen it come
on is 2003 (maybe Vista - I shun Vista so I wouldn't know). I have yet to
see the SP that installs .Net. Did I miss it when it installed?

>>> As for why it wouldn't get done, I think it's of too limited practical
>>> use. It might be handy, but honestly I can't really see a situation
>>> where I would want to seriously put it to use.
>>
>> How about in distributing portable applications for use on USB drives?
>> Or distributing apps to people that may not have admin permissions to
>> install applications? Or simply making an application as simple as
>> copying the exe and running it?
>
> The PortableApps guys (http://portableapps.com) have done this just fine
> using installations.

From their site....

"Step 3: The Analysis
The next step is to determine what needs to be altered to make a program
portable. Does it store its settings in the registry? Does it store them
within Documents and Settings? Does it use an INI file? Can any of these be
changed with commandline parameters (eg: --config X:\appdata)? You'll need
to find this out to determine what you'll need to do to make the app
portable."

Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did,
they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app
scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not.

>> It isn't for everybody.....but I think it improves the distribution and
>> maintenance of .Net apps for most people.
>
> Distribution and ease of access, maybe, but I don't see how it improves
> maintenance at all.

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 currently care for 18 small businesses and 300+ PC users, and I'll take
the short road every time, if the users get the same end result.

jim

RE: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:23:03 von pbromberg

I recently wrote a short article on this subject with a simple example, just
out of curiosity:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/04aa7525-f153-49 07-b0e8-10ac501f430a/obfuscation-and-packaging.aspx

Hope it helps.
-- Peter
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
MetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

"jim" wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

RE: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:23:03 von pbromberg

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:31:46 von Tom Shelton

On Dec 27, 12:42 pm, "jim" wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" wrote in message
>
> news:e7412c11-4885-46e9-8744-d59ec8c7a32d@s12g2000prg.google groups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 3:28 am, "jim" wrote:
> >> 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 - I know of nothing like these products that isn't expensive... I
> > have read through this thread - so I am familiar with why you think
> > this would be a desirable product. But, to be honest, I see them as
> > having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
> > off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
> > don't really see any need at all.
>
> > 1) I'm not sure that I agree with your estimates of broadband
> > penetration:
>
> >http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10400(March 2006)
> > "February saw broadband composition reach an all-time high of 68%,
> > increasing an impressive 13% over the previous February."
>
> > I even found some that say as much as 85%. I know very few people
> > still on dial-up. In fact, other then my Mother I can't think of any
> > one I know personally :)
>
> Then there are sites likehttp://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0704/that
> show (as of December 2006) that show only 50.7% penetration.
>
> I can't seem to find any more current figures. I think that may be by
> design. The telcos had rather just say "trust us" than reveal the facts of
> how we, as a nation, are falling farther and farther behind in broadband
> tchnology and distribution. It's shameful.
>
>

I just don't believe it's that low. I suppose, there are regions of
the country where that is the case, some rural areas, but overall - I
believe it's well over half.

>
> > 2) DLL/Version hell? Hmmm, not so much. I mean, I'm not saying that
> > this is 100% eliminated - I have personally experienced this with sp1
> > to 1.1, but it's rare enough that it's just not that much of a
> > concern.
>
> It's a huge concern for Microsoft. That's why they require you to call in
> to get the hotfixes for .Net instead of simply downloading them (or at least
> thats the best reason I could come up with for that ridiculous behavior).
>

They do the same for windows hotfixes as well. Hotfixes are simply
not completely tested. They usually end-up getting rolled into a sp
or an update.

> > My guess is that if you were to take a poll - not many .NET developers
> > work in a space were this sort of application is really useful.
>
> I would agree with you there. Distribution and maintenance (not to mention
> coding) .Net applications is so much more difficult than apss were in
> something like VB6, and the performance so much worse from a user
> standpoint, that there are only a fraction of the hobbyist programmers that
> there used to be that actually put out code for the masses.
>

Wow... I can't disagree more there. On pretty much every point. I
used to hate having to roll out new versions of my VB5/6 based app.
Even though it was on dedicated hardware, there were almost always
problems (particularly with a specific 3rd party component - that will
remain nameless). Oh, upgrades would go well for 95% of the machines,
but you would almost always end up with a few that would be borked and
have to then spend hours trying to figure out why. With the .NET
version, I very rarely had upgrade issues..

> >It
> > does nothing for web-developers. It does nothing for the guy working
> > on the in-house system,
>
> Not true. It greatly simplifies distribution (even eliminating distribution
> in the case of streaming Thinstall apps from a central server).
>

How is that an advantage? On in-house system, your simply going to
push the framework to all your machines and setup a click-once
deployment - all for free. It just doesn't buy you anything in this
case.

> > verticle market application, or bespoke
> > systems. In all of those cases, your usually dealing with managed
> > networks and can dictate minimum system requirements. So, click-once,
> > xcopy deployment, or a basic windows installer project are usually
> > sufficient for their needs.
>
> True. They can dictate the environment. But, why would they want to
> install .Net 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and so on ad nauseum when they coudl
> simply distribute (or stream) apps from a central server and skip the whole
> .Net install? I don't know of one in-house shop that would balk at the idea
> of lessening the admins' workload.
>

Because it's easy and cheap on a managed network to just push it out
if it's needed.

> > About the only area I could see this
> > being useful is the developer targeting more of a mass market
> > horizontal application - and in that case I have to ask, why are you
> > using .NET (as a side note, I ask the same thing about VB.CLASSIC)?
>
> What else would you suggest (seeing as how Microsoft pushes it for their OS
> and they supposedly will make the .Net framework play nice with the upcoming
> OSs)?
>

C++, Delphi, PowerBasic - pretty much anything that will compile to a
standalone exe.

> > And even if you are using it - then it's no big deal to bootstrap and
> > install the framework as needed (bandwidth issues aside :).
>
> Exactly.
>

So, what's the problem? You distribute on a cd, you include the
redistrib. bootstrap and install if needed. No big deal.

> > So, basically I think that - while these apps are cool - they are
> > really a niche sort of thing (which explains why they are so
> > expensive). And, will most likely remain so - just as they have for
> > the Java and VB.CLASSIC markets.
>
> I, repsectfully, disagree. I think they remain niche apps because of the
> pricing, just as Ferraris occupy niche markets because they are so
> expensive.
>

That maybe partially true... But, these have been around for a long
time, and if anything there getting more expensive. And I have rarely
come across anyone that actually uses them.

> This pricing is by design. I bought Thinstall back when it was only $750.
> I emailed the owner, Jonathan Clark, quite regularly and discussed his price
> increase at length with him in emails and on the phone. I do not disagree
> with his reasoning for the price increase, and will not discuss it here (as
> it was a private conversation with sensitive matters being discussed). But,
> I do think that the same thing can be done as an add-in for .Net or as a
> stand alone app for far less money than is being charged.
>

Maybe - I'd be very suprised if it took off.

> > Anyway, just some random thoughts ;)
>
> And, I thank you for them.

Your welcome :)

--
Tom Shelton

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:34:57 von Chris Mullins

"Chris Shepherd" wrote
>
> 2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a
> user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they
> already have a framework installed.

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.

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

> 4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges in
> any way.

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.

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".

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

--
Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:46:32 von Chris Mullins

"Tom Shelton" wrote

>> I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
>> deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.

> But, personally, I would never
> choose .NET for a horizontal, mass distributed application. That
> would have to be something more standalone - like C++, Delphi, or
> maybe PowerBasic (personally, I'd probably choose C++).

I agree. Completly.

>> The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this
>> a
>> must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation
>> of
>> the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.

> Nobody? Really. Do you have stats on that.

In relative terms, very few people do (I don't have numbers, or I would
provide them). It's not installed by default with any O/S or major product,
nor is it pushed by Windows Update.

To have it installed the user either had to manually install it (via an
optional Windows Update), or be running a program that's already installed
it. Both are unlikley scenarios in the general case. Especially for the
non-tech savy users, that small "cute" apps typically target.

>> ... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper
>> or
>> something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software
>> before
>> they've even run a line of your code.

> Why? Because you install a dependency? Please.

Because, the installation process for .Net sometimes takes over an hour. It
also frequently fails to install at all. In the coffee-house scenario, where
users are trying to download and install your app via the free wireless,
it's not usable.

Also, for some reason I don't understand, .Net is signifigantly slower to
install via a bootstrapper than via the stand-alone MSI.

The end result is a bunch of people who were willing to install the app now
think it sucks. They don't know it was the .Net framework that had issues,
they just know they tried to install SoapBox, it took an hour, and ultimatly
failed. This makes up look bad, and our software takes 100% of the blame.

>> It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly,
>> the
>> reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
>> install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
>> know of.
>
> They have pushed via windows update - but as an optional update.

Optional updates don't really do anyone any good. I would love to see the MS
numbers on the this. I would really like to see the reason behind why they
havnen't pushed it wider. I suspect it's due to the high failure rate on
install - especially for the .Net 3.0 stuff.

>> ... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot
>> button
>> for me.
>
> If it's a problem for you, then I respectfully have to say your using
> the wrong toolset.

I agree with you. It's sad, but .Net isn't a suitable toolset for building
widely deployed desktop applications.

The problem for me was a failure to check my/our assumptions. We assumed the
..Net Framework was widely deployed - via Office / Windows update / IE7 / XP
SP2. This turned out to be incorrect, and has caused much pain. Nobody to
blame there by oursleves for such a poor assumption.

--
Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:46:32 von Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:57:44 von Chris Shepherd

jim wrote:
>> Well 1, DLL/.Net version hell has not been really an issue for a while
>> now -- at least speaking from my own experiences.
>
> It really never was an issue - more of an excuse to go to .Net. The simple
> fact was that DLL Hell was curable by simply placing all of your apps DLLs
> in the same dir as the exe. But, with Thinstall or Postbuild you don't even
> have to do that.

Yes. I'm reminded of an episode of the American version of the Office
where they have a "Run for the Cure" for rabies (an already curable
ailment).

>> 2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a
>> user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they
>> already have a framework installed.
>
> Really? When did that start? I am not aware of the framework being
> installed as a security update or as a part of SP2? That's been one of my
> pet peeves - why wasn't it?

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

>> At most you need 2.0/3.0/3.5.
>
> Unless you or your company wrote 1.0 or 1.1 apps.

Yes, then you only need 1.0/1.1.

>> It's only problematic in not up to date OSes, and if you are targeting old
>> PCs you probably shouldn't be writing stuff in .NET anyway.
>
> Sound logic.....people with older PCs should just get the hell off the
> internet. I like that! (But I wonder what they would think about it.
> Hmmmm.... )

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.

>> 3, If it can run, it can be decompiled/disassembled. Obfuscation isn't as
>> great a solution as many people make it out to be. I understand in
>> protecting your investment, but there's a line between deterring lazy
>> people and making your code useless/slow because of the obfuscation
>> techniques.
>
> Right. It's just that Thinstall/Xenocode make it more difficult than
> obfuscation alone.

Either way, it still runs on X86, and therefore must decode to
instructions for those processors.

>> 4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges in
>> any way. Installing an application which needs to access certain parts of
>> the filesystem or registry may require installation privileges, which are
>> available to Power Users.
>
> Most useful applications write some data to the registry and do manipulate
> files (although not necc system files). I have rarely found programs useful
> that are so simple as to not use the system registry or manipulate files on
> my systems.

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.

>> Using this and #5 as a point *for* Thinstall and its ilk seems odd, since
>> most commercial software nowadays installs.
>
> I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal
> tension.

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".

If your counterpoint is that YMMV, well no duh.

>> 5, Yes, it may make running the software easy, but how trivial is updating
>> the software, keeping track of (and securing) temporary data caches, etc.,
>> etc..?
>
> You don't work with the general public, do you?

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

>>> Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try
>>> and test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself.
>> Smaller than what?
>
> Than Paint .Net + the .Net framework.

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.

>>> As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it to
>>> 6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone.
>> And what was the size of your hello world EXE plus the framework
>> compressed into one file?
>
> Just over 24MB. (The .Net install is already compressed.)

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

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.

> Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did,
> they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app
> scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not.

Well, mostly not.

>>> It isn't for everybody.....but I think it improves the distribution and
>>> maintenance of .Net apps for most people.
>> Distribution and ease of access, maybe, but I don't see how it improves
>> maintenance at all.
>
> 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].

> I currently care for 18 small businesses and 300+ PC users, and I'll take
> the short road every time, if the users get the same end result.

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

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.

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.

Chris.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:59:42 von notmyfirstname

Chris,

Will you be so kind to pay more attention to the way you quote, the way you
do this, brings for me Tom's message in a complete other context than I was
assuming what he wrote.

Cor

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 21:59:42 von notmyfirstname

Chris,

Will you be so kind to pay more attention to the way you quote, the way you
do this, brings for me Tom's message in a complete other context than I was
assuming what he wrote.

Cor

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:11:25 von Chris Mullins

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 try to quote as little as possible, while still retaining context...

--
Chris Mullins

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" wrote in message
news:464BB461-55CB-43DF-85E0-CD0F305E877E@microsoft.com...
> Chris,
>
> Will you be so kind to pay more attention to the way you quote, the way
> you do this, brings for me Tom's message in a complete other context than
> I was assuming what he wrote.
>
> Cor

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:11:25 von Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:15:09 von Registered User

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:46:26 -0500, "jim" wrote:

>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-mobility/more-than-half-of- americans-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.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:15:09 von Registered User

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:29:13 von Chris Shepherd

Chris Mullins [MVP - C#] wrote:
> "Chris Shepherd" wrote
>> 2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a
>> user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they
>> already have a framework installed.
>
> 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?

>> 4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges in
>> any way.
>
> 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.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:35:08 von nemtsev

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>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:35:08 von nemtsev

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:42:37 von Chris Mullins

"jim" wrote:
> 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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:42:37 von Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:45:16 von Tom Shelton

On Dec 27, 1:46 pm, "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]"
wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" wrote
>
> >> I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
> >> deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.
> > But, personally, I would never
> > choose .NET for a horizontal, mass distributed application. That
> > would have to be something more standalone - like C++, Delphi, or
> > maybe PowerBasic (personally, I'd probably choose C++).
>
> I agree. Completly.
>

There you go! :)

> >> The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this
> >> a
> >> must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation
> >> of
> >> the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.
> > Nobody? Really. Do you have stats on that.
>
> In relative terms, very few people do (I don't have numbers, or I would
> provide them). It's not installed by default with any O/S or major product,
> nor is it pushed by Windows Update.
>

Well, it finally is starting with Vista - so maybe in 7 or 8 years
this won't be an issue :) But, that makes sense.

> To have it installed the user either had to manually install it (via an
> optional Windows Update), or be running a program that's already installed
> it. Both are unlikley scenarios in the general case. Especially for the
> non-tech savy users, that small "cute" apps typically target.
>

Again, makes sense. I ask this because I have never been in that
market - so I have no idea what the .NET landscape is like outside of
corporate networks :)

> >> ... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper
> >> or
> >> something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software
> >> before
> >> they've even run a line of your code.
> > Why? Because you install a dependency? Please.
>
> Because, the installation process for .Net sometimes takes over an hour. It
> also frequently fails to install at all. In the coffee-house scenario, where
> users are trying to download and install your app via the free wireless,
> it's not usable.
>

I've never had it take that long... But, that would be painful if
that's the case. But, again, I wouldn't choose .NET for that sort of
app anyway.

> Also, for some reason I don't understand, .Net is signifigantly slower to
> install via a bootstrapper than via the stand-alone MSI.
>

I've never noticed that myself - but, again I don't bother with that
stuff for the most part, because I don't have too.

> The end result is a bunch of people who were willing to install the app now
> think it sucks. They don't know it was the .Net framework that had issues,
> they just know they tried to install SoapBox, it took an hour, and ultimatly
> failed. This makes up look bad, and our software takes 100% of the blame.
>

Ouch. I can understand and feel your pain. I used to have the same
issues updating/installing an old VB5/6 app that I used to maintain.
Mostly it would work - but, there was always a percentage of machines
were it would always cause issues. And of course, even though it was
the install of a 3rd party package - we always took the heat.

> >> It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly,
> >> the
> >> reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
> >> install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
> >> know of.
>
> > They have pushed via windows update - but as an optional update.
>
> Optional updates don't really do anyone any good. I would love to see the MS
> numbers on the this. I would really like to see the reason behind why they
> havnen't pushed it wider. I suspect it's due to the high failure rate on
> install - especially for the .Net 3.0 stuff.
>

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....

> >> ... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot
> >> button
> >> for me.
>
> > If it's a problem for you, then I respectfully have to say your using
> > the wrong toolset.
>
> I agree with you. It's sad, but .Net isn't a suitable toolset for building
> widely deployed desktop applications.
>

I agree with that. It is sad.

> The problem for me was a failure to check my/our assumptions. We assumed the
> .Net Framework was widely deployed - via Office / Windows update / IE7 / XP
> SP2. This turned out to be incorrect, and has caused much pain. Nobody to
> blame there by oursleves for such a poor assumption.

It happens.... Believe me, I've been bitten by my own assumptions
before as well.

--
Tom Shelton

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 22:51:28 von Chris Mullins

"Chris Shepherd" wrote
>> 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?

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 Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 23:02:08 von Chris Shepherd

Chris Mullins [MVP - C#] wrote:
> "Chris Shepherd" wrote
>>> 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?
>
> 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.

>> 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.

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? :P

Chris.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 23:02:46 von Chris Mullins

"Tom Shelton" wrote

>> Optional updates don't really do anyone any good. I would love
>> to see the MS numbers on the this. I would really like to see the
>> reason behind why they havnen't pushed it wider. I suspect it's
>> due to the high failure rate on install - especially for the .Net 3.0
>> stuff.

> 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..

--
Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 23:02:46 von Chris Mullins

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 27.12.2007 23:20:38 von Tom Shelton

On Dec 27, 3:02 pm, "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]"
wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" wrote
>
> >> Optional updates don't really do anyone any good. I would love
> >> to see the MS numbers on the this. I would really like to see the
> >> reason behind why they havnen't pushed it wider. I suspect it's
> >> due to the high failure rate on install - especially for the .Net 3.0
> >> stuff.
> > 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.
>

That's too bad. Really, I just never have had that particular problem
- of course, like I said I've always worked in controlled
environments.

> 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".
>

I can imagine that 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..
>

As for the rest - beta? Yeah, I've had lots of the beta stuff fail
and there were problems uninstalling some of it as well. That's why
for the last several cycles, I pretty much limit the beta stuff to
vm's then It's not a big deal to rebuild it :)

--
Tom Shelton

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 03:44:47 von Scott Roberts

>> It was the same thing with COM and shared DLLs.
>>
>> Microsoft thought that (due in part to the expense of hard drive space at
>> the time) that sharing DLLs would be an answer to the hard drive space
>> issue and would save RAM by allowinf several applications to share the
>> same DLLs.
>>
>> It wasn't a bad theory, it just didn't work well in reality due to DLL
>> versioning issues. As a matter of fact, the simple answer to DLL Hell
>> for Visual Basic (and I suspect C++) apps was simply to place a copy of
>> the needed DLLs in the same directory as your executable. The way
>> Windows works is to look in the executable's directory for a needed DLL
>> BEFORE using the registry to find one EVEN IF THE REFERENCED DLL IS
>> REGISTERED ON THE PC RUNNING THE APPLICATION THAT NEED IT.
>>
>> You didn't have to change one line of code or alter the method of
>> registering your DLLS. Just drop them in the EXE directory and, BAM, no
>> more DLL Hell. But, that was way too simple a solution - so we got .Net.

I disagree with your analogy. I view the .Net framework as a more
"developer-friendly" and object-oriented WinAPI. The fact that this new
WinAPI is not yet universally installed is a problem for the developer. When
you target an OS, it is necessary for your users to be running that OS. You
wouldn't write a linux app then complain that it didn't run on OS X, would
you?

If you want a Win32 app, write one.

>> Eventually we will get back to the days of a single, linked and compiled
>> EXE - and it will be all new and shiny again.

Eventually? That's what our company has deployed today. And you can too!
Just choose the right development tools!

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 06:46:32 von Scott Roberts

>>> It's only problematic in not up to date OSes, and if you are targeting
>>> old
>>> PCs you probably shouldn't be writing stuff in .NET anyway.
>>
>> Sound logic.....people with older PCs should just get the hell off the
>> internet. I like that! (But I wonder what they would think about it.
>> Hmmmm.... )

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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 10:08:54 von Jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
news:OlDvFFNSIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "jim" wrote:
>> 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?

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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 10:08:54 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 10:30:57 von Jim

Peter,

That's a very interesting example. Thanks!

jim

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote in message
news:79730354-E91F-4362-ACCA-A9C500FA1E83@microsoft.com...
>I recently wrote a short article on this subject with a simple example,
>just
> out of curiosity:
>
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/04aa7525-f153-49 07-b0e8-10ac501f430a/obfuscation-and-packaging.aspx
>
> Hope it helps.
> -- Peter
> Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
> MetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com
>
>
> "jim" wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 10:30:57 von Jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 10:55:36 von Hans-Peter Sauer

"jim" wrote in message
news:bGTcj.37701$N67.22302@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did, they
> basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app scheme.
> Thinstall\Postbuild do not.
>

I've not read the websites, apologies, but just out of curiosity how do these
both deal with

a) persistance of data/settings
b) loading of dynamic classes at runtime?

Can you force either to not wrap certain bits of the application up? If so, how?

Shak

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 10:55:59 von notmyfirstname

Jim,

Mostly we read a lot, some of the contributions from jim@home.net on
Internet this month.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.government.abuse/browse_t hread/thread/efa766e0ff2a8e55/13096eda5f01c33a?hl=en&lnk=st& q=#13096eda5f01c33a

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_thread/thre ad/46b2557ae2783f31/f92d76d753ba8287?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#f92d76d 753ba8287

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/browse_thread /thread/b7ae194c45232f28/ce229c7925ec802a?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#ce 229c7925ec802a

A happy trolling new year,

Cor

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 10:55:59 von notmyfirstname

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 11:18:43 von Jim

"Shak" wrote in message
news:5tjvjnF1e1mp9U1@mid.individual.net...
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:bGTcj.37701$N67.22302@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>> Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did,
>> they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable
>> app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not.
>>
>
> I've not read the websites, apologies, but just out of curiosity how do
> these both deal with
>
> a) persistance of data/settings
> b) loading of dynamic classes at runtime?
>
> Can you force either to not wrap certain bits of the application up? If
> so, how?

The short answer is "yes".

Check out the Chapter entitled "Isolation Modes" at
http://thinstall.com/help/ThinstallVS.pdf . It explains it much better than
I can here.

jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 12:53:20 von Jim

"Chris Shepherd" wrote in message
news:eHe04rMSIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> jim wrote:

>>> 2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a
>>> user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they
>>> already have a framework installed.
>>
>> Really? When did that start? I am not aware of the framework being
>> installed as a security update or as a part of SP2? That's been one of
>> my pet peeves - why wasn't it?
>
> 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.

>>> At most you need 2.0/3.0/3.5.
>>
>> Unless you or your company wrote 1.0 or 1.1 apps.

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.
>
>>> It's only problematic in not up to date OSes, and if you are targeting
>>> old PCs you probably shouldn't be writing stuff in .NET anyway.
>>
>> Sound logic.....people with older PCs should just get the hell off the
>> internet. I like that! (But I wonder what they would think about it.
>> Hmmmm.... )
>
> 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.

>>> 4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges
>>> in any way. Installing an application which needs to access certain
>>> parts of the filesystem or registry may require installation privileges,
>>> which are available to Power Users.
>>
>> Most useful applications write some data to the registry and do
>> manipulate files (although not necc system files). I have rarely found
>> programs useful that are so simple as to not use the system registry or
>> manipulate files on my systems.
>
> 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).

>>> Using this and #5 as a point *for* Thinstall and its ilk seems odd,
>>> since most commercial software nowadays installs.
>>
>> I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal
>> tension.
>
> 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).

>>> 5, Yes, it may make running the software easy, but how trivial is
>>> updating the software, keeping track of (and securing) temporary data
>>> caches, etc., etc..?
>>
>> You don't work with the general public, do you?
>
> 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.

>>>> Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try
>>>> and test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself.
>>> Smaller than what?
>>
>> Than Paint .Net + the .Net framework.
>
> 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.

>>>> As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it
>>>> to 6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone.
>>> And what was the size of your hello world EXE plus the framework
>>> compressed into one file?
>>
>> Just over 24MB. (The .Net install is already compressed.)
>
> 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.)

>> Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did,
>> they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable
>> app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not.
>
> Well, mostly not.

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

You design and

>
>>>> It isn't for everybody.....but I think it improves the distribution and
>>>> maintenance of .Net apps for most people.
>>> Distribution and ease of access, maybe, but I don't see how it improves
>>> maintenance at all.
>>
>> 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.).

>> I currently care for 18 small businesses and 300+ PC users, and I'll take
>> the short road every time, if the users get the same end result.
>
> 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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 12:56:47 von Jim

"jim" wrote in message
news:U34dj.32889$vt2.20229@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Shak" wrote in message
> news:5tjvjnF1e1mp9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:bGTcj.37701$N67.22302@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I
>>> did, they basically required you to change your app to fit into the
>>> portable app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not.
>>>
>>
>> I've not read the websites, apologies, but just out of curiosity how do
>> these both deal with
>>
>> a) persistance of data/settings
>> b) loading of dynamic classes at runtime?
>>
>> Can you force either to not wrap certain bits of the application up? If
>> so, how?
>
> The short answer is "yes".
>
> Check out the Chapter entitled "Isolation Modes" at
> http://thinstall.com/help/ThinstallVS.pdf . It explains it much better
> than I can here.

In fact, you can see a complete video of building Paint .Net at
http://thinstall.com/demos/dnet20/.

It comes in eventually at about 47 MB.

Older versions of Thinstall were not as heavy as the newer Thinstall
Virtualization Suite 3.0. Older versions only included the library
components of .Net needed to run the app. It seems the Thinstall V Suiute
is grabbing a lot more than it used to.

jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 13:25:12 von 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

"jim" wrote in message
news:PEMcj.28228$Mu4.12558@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Kevin,
>
> While I certainly appreciate your willingness to peck out those URLs, they
> are in no way whatsoever related to the functionality of the applications
> that I mentioned (Thinstall and Xenocode).
>
> Windows Installer does not wrap the executable and associated files into a
> single executable. Windows Installer does not allow a user to run a .Net
> application without having .Net installed. Windows Installer does not
> obfuscate the executable contents. Windows Installer does not allow you
> to create no-install applications that will run without being "installed"
> on the end users PC (simply copy the created executable and run - no .Net
> install & no application install needed).
>
> Bless your pointed little head....but, what I need is so far advanced from
> Windows Installer its not even funny.
>
> Just in case you decide to read about the referenced applications BEFORE
> you post, you can do so at http://www.thinstall.com/ and
> http://www.xenocode.com/.
>
> jim
>
> "Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
> news:elOyO%23HSIHA.4128@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Windows Installer:
>>
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2kt85ked.aspx
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa372866.aspx
>>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Chicken Salad Surgeon
>> Microsoft MVP
>>
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:e7Lcj.28193$Mu4.22146@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 13:25:12 von Kevin Spencer

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 13:40:35 von Chris Shepherd

jim wrote:
>>> I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal
>>> tension.
>> 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).

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.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 13:59:36 von Jim

"Chris Shepherd" wrote in message
news:OyxGg6USIHA.5136@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> jim wrote:
>>>> I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's
>>>> anal tension.
>>> 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).
>
> 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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 17:14:49 von 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.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 17:25:35 von Jim

"Scott Roberts" wrote in
message news:eOtUEzWSIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

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.)

>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

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

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 17:55:08 von Scott Roberts

"jim" wrote in message
news:Rr9dj.31822$Mu4.13870@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> 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.......

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 18:04:07 von sherifffruitfly

On Dec 27, 2:28=A0am, "jim" wrote:
> I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and an=
y
> needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>
> I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exe=
s)
> and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). =A0But, I'd lik=
e
> 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. =
=A0It
> would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end us=
er
> to have .Net installed or to install the application. =A0It also avoids DL=
L
> 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 p=
er
> copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> jim

There's ILMerge, but I don't know if that's precisely what you're
after.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3D2 2914587-B4AD-4EA=
E-87CF-B14AE6A939B0&displaylang=3Den

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 18:09:06 von Jim

"Scott Roberts" wrote in
message news:%23fbOmJXSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:Rr9dj.31822$Mu4.13870@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> 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 suppose there are simply gonna be trade-offs depending on what you value
most.

The web apps offer portability, no install at all, and reach. The desktop
apps offer faster UIs (unless it is .Net - like in Symantec's case), the
ability to do low level stuff and better graphics capabilities.

I am looking into Adobe Air also. It seems to me that Microsoft missed the
boat with Click and Run apps when they locked down the functionality based
on where the .Net app was launched from.

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

Probably. People will fall for most anything.

jim

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 28.12.2007 18:36:53 von Scott Roberts

> I suppose there are simply gonna be trade-offs depending on what you value
> most.

That is 100% true. Use the right tool for the job.

> I am looking into Adobe Air also. It seems to me that Microsoft missed
> the boat with Click and Run apps when they locked down the functionality
> based on where the .Net app was launched from.

MS is trying to balance security and functionality. In the past they favored
ease of use over security and enterprise users (and journalists, and linux
enthusiasts) have pointed fingers all along the way. Now they are focusing
on security and hobbyists and freelancers are upset. You can't please all of
the people all of the time.

>> I predict that this internet thing is gonna be big.......
>
> Probably. People will fall for most anything.

True again. :)

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 29.12.2007 20:04:25 von Francois Soucy

> 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.

I don't know the details of Thinstall and/or Xenocode, I've only been
reading through this thread, but for this particular point to actually
support your position, you'd have to have your one-EXE program include:
- your app's own code
- the Thinstall/Xenocode code
- the .NET framework

....and all of these components together somehow would have to result in a
single file that's smaller than the 25MB .NET framework on its own...is that
correct?

And then as soon as you have another application that also uses
Thinstall/Xenocode, it would also have to include the same components
internally. IOW, a copy of .NET is wrapped up in every single application.

Please tell me this is not how it works.

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 29.12.2007 20:04:25 von Francois Soucy

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 30.12.2007 15:05:27 von dviljoen

jim wrote:
> *"Family Tree Mike" wrote
> in
> message news:5DBCB6AF-010C-4B6F-B4C4-9152387554A5@microsoft.com...
> >
> >
> > "jim" wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 *

Here's a backwards way of doing it, but it might work. (disclaimer: I
haven't done this, its only a suggestion for research) I know that gcc
can be used as a cross compiler. See if it can compile IL into a win32
binary. If so, you want to have it build a statically linked win32 exe.
That is essentially what you're looking for. (You may need Mono to do
this... don't really know)

--
dviljoen
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Posted via http://www.codecomments.com
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

am 31.12.2007 09:22:11 von Jim

Thanks for the idea!

If I give it a try, I'll post back to the group.

jim

"dviljoen" wrote in message
news:dviljoen.32eqdo@mail.codecomments.com...
>
> jim wrote:
>> *"Family Tree Mike" wrote
>> in
>> message news:5DBCB6AF-010C-4B6F-B4C4-9152387554A5@microsoft.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > "jim" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 *
>
>
> Here's a backwards way of doing it, but it might work. (disclaimer: I
> haven't done this, its only a suggestion for research) I know that gcc
> can be used as a cross compiler. See if it can compile IL into a win32
> binary. If so, you want to have it build a statically linked win32 exe.
> That is essentially what you're looking for. (You may need Mono to do
> this... don't really know)
>
>
>
> --
> dviljoen
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
> Posted via http://www.codecomments.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
>