How widespread is the .NET Framework?

[esposito]

I would like to produce my commercial software switching from VB6 to VB.NET but what prevents me from doing so is the fact that the .NET Framework may not be widespread enough and users could not be able to run my programs.

 

I develop shareware apps and so far I have been distributing my software on the Internet or in CD-ROMs attached to Italian computer magazines.

 

My question is, are there any worldwide official statistics about the percentage of computers having the .NET Framework installed?

 

I know Macromedia did something like that for Flash MX. They say the Shockwave player is installed on 95% of computers on earth.

 

Has Microsoft conducted any similar survey about the .NET Framework?

 

TIA

[Robby]

You really should have no problem while distributing on CD, however if it's an online download you can always point them towards the framework runtimes (21 mb).

 

Since the XP and 2K Updates have included the framework for over a year now I would say that most computer savvy people already have it installed, but that's merely a guess on my part.

 

I haven't seen any stats from MS yet.

[samsmithnz]

MS probably won't release a statistic until it is very high (ie 80-100%).

 

Also, I thought that Win XP came with the framework?

[Robby]

It started with SP1

[esposito]

As I said, my programs are often published on CDs attached to some Italian computer magazines. I'm afraid the publishing houses would not be willing to include the .NET Framework on their CDs, so all I could do is inform the users to download it from the Internet.

 

Unfortunately, too many people in Italy still log on to the Internet using a normal telephone connection and this would make it too expensive and time-consuming to download 21 megabytes of software just to make my applications work. Many users would just give it up and switch to less problematic software.

 

I did some research and found out that the majority of my clients use Windows 98 or Millennium which, as you know, are not provided with the .NET Framework. As far as I know, the only version of the MS OS which is currently equipped with the Framework is Windows Server 2003.

 

For the above mentioned reasons, I really look forward to the day when the .NET Framework becomes as widespread as the Flash MX player currently is. In the meantime, I'll try to find out how many users among my clients have already installed it on their Win98-based computers by releasing some freeware developed in VB.NET and asking for feedback.

 

I would like to ask you two questions: (1) do you know the exact link that allows you to download the .NET Framework v.1.1 from the MS Web site, since I would like to include it in the readme file accompanying my VB.NET applications? (2) suppose I want to include the .NET Framework (file dotnetfx.exe) on a CD together with my VB.NET app, do I have to ask Microsoft for permission?

 

Thanks again for your help.

[Robby]

1) this is direct to the download http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/a/c/aac39226-8825-44ce-90e3-bf8203e74006/dotnetfx.exe

 

This is the page with instructions http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=262D25E3-F589-4842-8157-034D1E7CF3A3&displaylang=en

 

 

2) No

[samsmithnz]

Considering the size of applications these days, and the high possiblity that your .NET applications are less than 10 MB themselves, 15MB for the .NET Framework is nothing.

 

And I don't believe there are that many people still using Windows 98 anymore, and even less using ME. Windows 2000 is a good stable implementation of the Platform, and you can do everything on it (Games, applications, etc)

[esposito]

I have another question about the compatibility between different versions of the .NET Framework.

 

If I create an executable with VB.NET 2003 (Framework v.1.1), will it be compatible with future versions of the Framework?

 

Similarly, is an executable created under Framework v.1.0 compatible with Framework 1.1 or does the user have to install the new version?

[Shazbots]

its back compatible - ie. 1.0 apps work in 1.1 and above but 1.1 app may have more functionality then 1.0 allows (vs.net doesn't want to open vs.net 2003 project files).

[hog]

But you can tweak 2003 project files to open in 2002

[Shazbots]

thats right but some features like xp style without manifest are only avaible with vs.net 2003

[esposito]

About forward compatibility, do I have to include a configuration file if I develop a 1.0 app in order to make it work in 1.1 or does the .NET Framework v.1.1 support 1.0 apps natively? (no config files needed)

 

its back compatible - ie. 1.0 apps work in 1.1 and above but 1.1 app may have more functionality then 1.0 allows (vs.net doesn't want to open vs.net 2003 project files).

[samsmithnz]

You won't find many users with Framework 1.0, I doubt most people even know what version they have. The MS update site attempts to update the Framework as soon as it can.

[Grimfort]

.Net applications do run on windows 98, its just the environment that must have NT technology to run. If you search the MS site you can get a list of what the requirements are for the older OS systems, ie NT4 with service pack 6.

[iebidan]

And I don't believe there are that many people still using Windows 98 anymore, and even less using ME. Windows 2000 is a good stable implementation of the Platform, and you can do everything on it (Games, applications, etc)

 

Says who???, at the office we still have plenty of computers running W98 and Me (almost 50%), even worst, some computers have W95, this is because some apps we have won't run in W2K or WXP, we're solving that, but you have to consider that many companies and people still use old OS, I don't think W9X are almost gone, I still believe that more than 50% of the computers around the world or more still run in this OS.

About compatibility, it's simple, if you create an app using 1.1 wom't run in 1.0, if this app you created using 1.1 has the compatibility property activated, it will run on 1.0, an app created in 1.0 will run in 1.1, but you have to consider that some object, functions and routines changed in 1.1, also some stuff about security, so better test your apps created on 1.0 in a 1.1 FW

 

Cheers!!!!!

[esposito]

I understood perfectly that there is backward compatibility. What is unclear to me is whether you have to create a configuration file, i.e. an XML file characterized by a CONFIG extension, in order to make your 1.0 app work under 1.1.

 

Is this CONFIG file necessary or not, provided that in your 1.0 app you don't use any code incompatible with Framework 1.1?

 

The reason why I'd like to know it is, if a CONFIG file is necessary, I will have to provide my registered users with it whenever Microsoft releases a new version of the Framework.

[samsmithnz]

Says who???, at the office we still have plenty of computers running W98 and Me (almost 50%), even worst, some computers have W95, this is because some apps we have won't run in W2K or WXP, we're solving that, but you have to consider that many companies and people still use old OS, I don't think W9X are almost gone, I still believe that more than 50% of the computers around the world or more still run in this OS.

About compatibility, it's simple, if you create an app using 1.1 wom't run in 1.0, if this app you created using 1.1 has the compatibility property activated, it will run on 1.0, an app created in 1.0 will run in 1.1, but you have to consider that some object, functions and routines changed in 1.1, also some stuff about security, so better test your apps created on 1.0 in a 1.1 FW

 

Cheers!!!!!

 

You poor sod. In my world I consider myself lucky. At Work everyone uses Windows 2000. :P

 

But honestly, those computers using Windows 98 (and 95 - yucky), must be pushing on a bit now, and may even struggle to run some applications.

[a_jam_sandwich]

I understood perfectly that there is backward compatibility. What is unclear to me is whether you have to create a configuration file, i.e. an XML file characterized by a CONFIG extension, in order to make your 1.0 app work under 1.1.

 

If you want an application created in 1.1 to work on 1.0 then yes add a config file and specify that.

 

If you have an application created in 1.0 framework and have the 1.1 framework installed on the target PC then you don't have to include a config file.

 

Andy

[esposito]

Thanks, this is exactly what I wanted to know.

 

This means that if now I release an application created in VB.NET 2003, in the future I won't have to worry about new versions of the Framework.

 

As I said, if a config file had been necessary, I would have had to release it to my registered users whenever Microsoft would have produced a new version of the Framework. Thank God, it doesn't work that way. It would have been a pain in the neck.

 

A final question, a_jam_sandwich: is the source from which you got this information reliable? Would you mind quoting it?

 

If you want an application created in 1.1 to work on 1.0 then yes add a config file and specify that.

 

If you have an application created in 1.0 framework and have the 1.1 framework installed on the target PC then you don't have to include a config file.

 

Andy

[Beat-Down]

Something that should be brought up whenever you are considering a move from vb6 to vb.net is the overhead that .net application require.

 

I have not been able to produce an app with vb.net that did not consume 20+MB of memory while running under NT, 2000, or XP, where my VB6 apps maxed out at 6 or 7.

 

I tested this theory. I wrote the smallest app I could think of. It had a text box, and command button, and when you pushed the button it printed Hello World in the text box. It still took 20+MB.

 

Computers that are going to be running .NET apps really need to be much faster with more memory.

 

Well thats my 2 cents

[PlausiblyDamp]

How much RAM was in the system you tested the app on? .Net implements a lazy garbage collector - if there is plenty of spare RAM why not use some of it rather than wasting time saving a few meg? If the RAM is needed then .Net will free it up then.

[Beat-Down]

Its running right now

The system has 256MB of physical ram

 

PF Usage = 438MB

.Net App = 31.948MB

 

Its a little bit larger program but the executable is only .5 MB

The program has been up maybe 2 hours.

Appears to me that its not freeing anything up.

[divil]

Yes, because nothing else has come along and needed that memory. Try switching and working in another application for a while. Try minimizing your .NET app.