.Net framework reliance question

[DeepT]

I may be starting work on a new tool. I naturally want to do it in C# and even though I have used CPP for well over a decade, I really loathe doing anything else in it ever again. The lack of the super nice IDE that C# has doesn't help either. I get used to the suggestions of variables or members and nice single class .cs files and not dealing with headers, not to mention that C# is just flat out better.

The person who wants me to do this tool, they are very concerned that it might not run on a bunch of windows machines. He refers to it as the "Java" problem. What he really means, will we run into trouble with people not having the .Net framework installed?

My theory is this: If Microsoft is seriously trying to create a whole new core API, it would be pretty stupid to make it optional. The should make sure everyone always has the latest .Net framework via patches. I understand if you have an old copy of XP that didn't have .Net on it, that you do have a choice to install it via patches. However if you do install .Net x.0 that after some automatic updates you will be on 3.0. Also, XP service pack 2, IIRC installs .Net 1.0.

I am pretty sure my vista box came with .Net 2.0 on it, but now it has .Net 3.0 on it. I sure don't remember having to approve or ask for the upgrade. It just 'appeared'.

I could be completely wrong about this. How 'safe' is it to develop .Net applications and be assured they can run on an up-to-date machine? I mean, a user just puts the automatically download and notify / install and leaves it like that. If .net 4.0 were to come out, they would end up with .Net 4.0 fairly quickly, right?

[darwen]

Why not just create an installer which installs whichever version of .NET the application was built with ?

Then you're guaranteed success.

Darwen.

[zdavis]

As far as I know once you have the framework installed and updates turned on...everything will update automatically. If you use the setup tool provided in Visual Studio it should detect the .NET framework as a dependency and it should either install the framework with the installer of the new tool or notify the user that they must install the framework.

I hope that helps....

-zd

[DeepT]

Why not just create an installer which installs whichever version of .NET the application was built with ?

Then you're guaranteed success.

Darwen.

Because we do not want to force them to install it and we do not want a large installer. Installer foot-print is a big concern.

[crackersixx]

If you write in c# you are forcing them to install it. (if they need to run your app).

You cannot guarantee the person has .Net framework, and at this point, a vast majority of people do not.

[Arjay]

Because we do not want to force them to install it and we do not want a large installer. Installer foot-print is a big concern.

What .Net version are you targetting? What OS's do you plan on running under?

[darwen]

Because we do not want to force them to install it and we do not want a large installer. Installer foot-print is a big concern.

Why not do two installers : one with the .NET framework and one without.

It'll enable people who know what they're doing to decide if they already have that version of the .NET framework or not and download the smaller version.

Darwen.

[TheCPUWizard]

If your program will be being distibuted over the Web (which is where installer size is a typical issue), then just follow the standard patern of detect and download/install if necessary. You KNOW the people already have a web connection (they just downloaded your program).

If you are going to distribute on media, this should still be the primary approach. If you "bundle" the framework with your application, then you will not (necessarily) have the latest version of the runtime, and will have maintenance headaches.

As a Note, my firm dev elopes primarily "business" software. Our programs actually detect if all windows updates have been nstalled in a timely manner, and if not, start displaying a warning that there will be NO technical support provided for un-patched machines. It has cut our incident rate nearly in 1/2 and has not caused a single customer complaint.