Feedback about experiences deploying .Net 3.5

My company is considering moving up from .Net 2.0 to .Net 3.5(SP1) as a
prerequisite on the ClickOnce deployment for our application.

Does anybody have any experience deploying .Net 3.5 either as a
prerequisite, or just by itself? Have you had any problems installing it?

One issue I've seen reported is when pushed as a prerequisite, it progresses
so far during installation, then sits there for a long time seemingly doing
nothing, and then finishes. Has anyone seen this?

I would greatly appreciate any feedback or information anyone can relate.

Thanks in advance,
RobinS.
GoldMail.com

"RobinS" <robins@imnottelling.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:VbGdne7lfq1VZCnVnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> My company is considering moving up from .Net 2.0 to .Net 3.5(SP1) as a
> prerequisite on the ClickOnce deployment for our application.
>
> Does anybody have any experience deploying .Net 3.5 either as a
> prerequisite, or just by itself? Have you had any problems installing it?
No I haven't any experience of this kind.

> One issue I've seen reported is when pushed as a prerequisite, it
> progresses so far during installation, then sits there for a long time
> seemingly doing nothing, and then finishes. Has anyone seen this?
Yes it is. the 3.5 installation is very slow !
But you should notice that ClickOnce has been enhanced with the 3.5 SP1, and
perhaps you could deploy the SP1...

"Oriane" <oriane@noemail.noemail> wrote in message
news:up7iBECCJHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "RobinS" <robins@imnottelling.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:VbGdne7lfq1VZCnVnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>> My company is considering moving up from .Net 2.0 to .Net 3.5(SP1) as a
>> prerequisite on the ClickOnce deployment for our application.
>>
>> Does anybody have any experience deploying .Net 3.5 either as a
>> prerequisite, or just by itself? Have you had any problems installing it?
> No I haven't any experience of this kind.

Do you mean you haven't had any experience deploying it, or you haven't had
any problems?

>
>> One issue I've seen reported is when pushed as a prerequisite, it
>> progresses so far during installation, then sits there for a long time
>> seemingly doing nothing, and then finishes. Has anyone seen this?
> Yes it is. the 3.5 installation is very slow !
> But you should notice that ClickOnce has been enhanced with the 3.5 SP1,
> and perhaps you could deploy the SP1...
>

We would definitely deploy .Net 3.5 SP-1; we have already updated our
versions of Visual Studio. I'm not sure that would be any smaller than .Net
2.0, although I have heard rumors that it is better at "partial installs",
i.e. if the user already has .Net 2.0, it only installs the extra bits.

Thanks,
RobinS.
GoldMail.com

On Aug 27, 7:35*pm, "RobinS" <rob...@imnottelling.com> wrote:
> We would definitely deploy .Net 3.5 SP-1; we have already updated our
> versions of Visual Studio. I'm not sure that would be any smaller than .Net
> 2.0, although I have heard rumors that it is better at "partial installs",
> i.e. if the user already has .Net 2.0, it only installs the extra bits.

That's the "client profile"m though it's actually the other way
around. If user does not have .NET 2.0+ installed on his PC, client
profile bootstrapper will download and install only a subset of .NET
3.5 SP1, which cuts down the size to about 60% of a normal .NET 3.5
install. But, if the user already has 2.0 or higher installer, the
bootstrapper will download and install the full 3.5 SP1 (which should
still be around 60Mb downloads in all).

"RobinS" <robins@imnottelling.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:d9udnd8_s8rb6SjVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> Do you mean you haven't had any experience deploying it, or you haven't
> had any problems?
I haven't had any experience deploying it.

>
> We would definitely deploy .Net 3.5 SP-1; we have already updated our
> versions of Visual Studio. I'm not sure that would be any smaller than
> .Net 2.0, although I have heard rumors that it is better at "partial
> installs", i.e. if the user already has .Net 2.0, it only installs the
> extra bits.
See the answer of Pavel.

RobinS,

Yes I apparently seem to have deployment problem. My application is a wpf
application developed using VS2008 sp1 and .NET 3.5 sp1.

During deployment, it needs .NET 3.5 sp1 (otherwise application will crash
even on 3.5 without sp1 - in a sense the term "sp1" is misleading, the
compatibility between 3.5 & 3.5 sp1 has indeed broken - logically sp1 is
really some target version > 3.5 ). But when users try to install 3.5 sp1, it
took 40 minutes just to install .net framework - I have encountered two cases
with users one in vista and another in xp sp2. There is also no such thing as
..NET 3.5 sp1 runtime/compact/re-distributable version that microsoft has
posted (just to take care of minimal runtime to be installed for deployment
environment).

Bottomline is:- during deployment, installation of .net 3.5 sp1 takes 40
minutes - one can bear with it during development but unacceptable for normal
users during deployment (they can't just wait for 40 minutes for your
application dependencies to be installed). I am trying to contact microsoft
and get this fixed (refer my new post with title as ** 40 minutes **).

New technologies (such as .NET 3.5 sp1) certainly bring exciting features
for developers but its real stability of deployment & runtime needs to be
watched closely. I hope that microsoft will proactively help to fix the
bugs/problems as quickly as possible - otherwise these things will be
unusable by the end users. I also request to share your experience of
deployment & fixes (were your users be able to install .NET 3.5 sp1 in less
time - say under 5 minutes - no matter what they did or did not have
previously in their client desktop)?

Thanks
G. Narayanan

"RobinS" wrote:

>
> My company is considering moving up from .Net 2.0 to .Net 3.5(SP1) as a
> prerequisite on the ClickOnce deployment for our application.
>
> Does anybody have any experience deploying .Net 3.5 either as a
> prerequisite, or just by itself? Have you had any problems installing it?
>
> One issue I've seen reported is when pushed as a prerequisite, it progresses
> so far during installation, then sits there for a long time seemingly doing
> nothing, and then finishes. Has anyone seen this?
>
> I would greatly appreciate any feedback or information anyone can relate.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> RobinS.
> GoldMail.com
>
>