To use .NET or not...
|
Welcome to my new blog! This is the MSDev blog, and the focus is going to be on Microsoft development. For this first blog, I'm wondering, should we require our users to install .NET? Read on... |
Welcome to my new blog! This is the MSDev blog, and the focus is going to be on Microsoft development. Most of my blogs will be talking about technical aspects of Microsoft development. I'll be providing tips and insights, and a decent amount of hands-on code.
But to get this first blog started, I'd like to pose a question for you. The newest version of .NET comes installed with Windows Vista. Unfortunately, there are many, many Windows XP systems out there that don't have .NET installed on them.
Of course, installing .NET is actually pretty easy, although the download could stand to be a little smaller. (There are ways around this, however, as some third-party programs will re-link the necessary assemblies right into your executable.)
So here's my question: Are we, as developers, okay creating software that comes with the requirement that .NET must be installed, and if it's not there, the user must download and install it? Microsoft .NET 1.1 is a 23 Meg download. Version 2.0 is only slightly smaller at 22 Meg. And version 3.0 is up to 50 Meg. If I'm going to write a little utility (such as a new text editor, for example, or a nice clock program) that targets .NET 2.0, do I really want to require my users to first install a 22 Meg download?
However, maybe it is acceptable. The truth is, we're also usually requiring people to have at least Windows XP. If we write a program and somebody complains that they can't get it to run on Windows 95, well I think it's reasonable to ask them to upgrade. So perhaps .NET should be thought of as an upgrade, and not just a runtime to support our software.
My take is this: In the past I was hesitent to require the .NET framework. But now that it's on Vista, I'm okay asking Windows XP users to "upgrade" to the .NET framework if they haven't yet. And the more software that's out there, the more XP machines will receive this upgrade, and the better our chances are that our users will already have it installed.
What do you all think? You can comment here or we can take it to the DevSource forum.
Comments (7)
While I still do some "Win32" and MFC work, much of the new apps I develop are .NET Framework v2.0 via C#. After having worked with it, it's clear to me that the .NET Framework is the future of application programming and development for the Microsoft Windows platform. Thus, requiring downloading and installing the .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 is reasonable, and, to be frank, not difficult.
Posted by Fred Wortham | March 23, 2007 8:36 AM
Examples: Adobe Reader is a 20.8-MB download. Paint.NET requires Framework 2.0.
I belive ordinary users will download 25-50 MB to install or enable a free program that delivers adequate value. If the prospective user anticipates sufficient value that he or she is willing to pay for it, I don't believe the additional time and effort to install .NET 2.0 or 3.0 will detract significantly from sales.
--rj
(Arrived via a link on Julie's upgraded blog. Good luck with your blog.)
Posted by Roger Jennings | March 23, 2007 9:31 AM
Good comments so far. I agree .NET is the future of Windows, as much of Vista is now built on it. And good point about Acrobat being 20 Meg, and people are still willing to download it.
And thanks for the good luck. Hopefully this new blog will do well!
Posted by Jeff Cogswell | March 23, 2007 11:35 PM
I agree. It is not unreasonable to require that a program have present a specific configuration of software and hardware. Of course any required configuration that is rare will probably limit the number of people that will want the software. But I think it is a good bet that .NET will become as prevalent as Windows. So perhaps on the short term it might be a problem, but wait a few years.
Good luck on your blog!
Posted by Gene Kochanowsky | April 6, 2007 11:24 AM
already few times, when i come across computers to install my app, i notice that there is already .net2
and no body else then me visited those computers before to install such things. strange but i like it.
the main "issue" that i found with the .net, is not the download of the 20MB but the installation itself which can be longer then the download time, it is still longer then installing the acrobat reader.
as far as i can tell.
othre then that, Java is almost the same, and no single java developer feel any shame of asking his users to download/install that wehn they dont have it.
nice blog anyway.
Posted by Esh | April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
Interesting topic. I am jumping back into Windows development to produce an application which would need to run on machines all the way back to Win2k. I would love to do it in .Net to take advantage of the toolsets/documentation but the requirement to download the .Net framework might be a problem. I still haven't decided which way to go.
I wish there was a place that discussed commercial .Net apps, and consequently, installation/deployment issues.
BTW, I like the blog.
Posted by Darrel Davis | May 2, 2007 10:05 PM
Hi
Thanks for the blog.
Im of the contrary opinion here. Ive developed a very small application in .NET that I want others to be able to download.
The application doesnt work if they dont have .NET installed. So I must add an extra link telling that if it doesnt work, you need to download this extra (20M) file. I think Im losing alot of users this way.
I dont like this at all. It sucks, lol.
Posted by Simon | June 21, 2007 4:16 AM