.Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

I don't know they have 1.1 installed. This is a product for the general
public. The question is if anybody knows how many of the general public
have any version of the .Net framework installed, and if they know the
distribution.

Robin S.
--------------------------
"Bob Milton" <DocBob1945@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:uxjkU0XcHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Robin,
> How do you know any of your customers have 1.1 installed? That is not
> a given, except for Server 2003. While 1.1 is in SP2 of XP, it was NOT
> automatically installed. If you don't want to install anything else ever,
> don't use .NET (or java for that matter).
> Bob
> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message
> news:6uednecyLfUASpfbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not
>> discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers
>> on my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO
>> of the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks?
>>
>> So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement
>> isn't getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-(
>>
>> Robin S.
>> ------------------------------------
>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message
>> news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>
>>> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
>>> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
>>> migrate it to .Net 2.0.
>>>
>>> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net
>>> framework before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers
>>> to acceptance".
>>>
>>> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is
>>> moot, unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.
>>>
>>> Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
>>> number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
>>> maybe some kind of number of computers?
>>>
>>> Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
>>> thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to
>>> stay with 1.1.
>>>
>>> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
>>> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?
>>>
>>> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
>>> VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
>>> Anyone know where it is?
>>>
>>> I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin S.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message
news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
> market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
> migrate it to .Net 2.0.
>
> Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
> before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
> acceptance".

Where was this "concern" when the project was started? Were they too busy
playing golf?

> If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
> unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.

This can be dependent on what other updates the user has on their computer.
My experience is that no reboot is ever required for both.

>
> Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
> number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
> maybe some kind of number of computers?
>
> Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
> thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
> with 1.1.
>
> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?

Based on managements concern, sticking with 1.1 would seem to be the best
"marketing" decision however we are programmers here so we are probably
biased towards 2.0. E.g. once you use generics, there is no going back (i
know it doesn't rhyme!!!).

>
> Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
> VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
> Anyone know where it is?

google MSBee

>
> I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.

My advice is to include the 2.0 framework in the installation package, keep
the code at 1.1 and only install the 2.0 framework if 1.1 is not installed.
Then later if you migrate to 2.0 a lot of your existing customers will be
ready to go.

PS

RobinS wrote:
>
> Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
> choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?


Vista ships with .NET 2.0, so over time more users will already have
..NET 2.0.

FYI, our product is in the same position, developed with 1.1 and VS2003.
We support either 1.1 or 2.0 and install 2.0 if neither version is
installed. No reboot required.

Cheers,

RobinS wrote:
> Are you *SURE* about .Net 2.0 being pushed by Windows Update? If that was
> true, then I could probably use that as a selling point.

Of course it's not pushed as a "critical" patch,
but if they click the 'Microsoft Update' or Windows update (whatever)
and then click the 'Custom' button instead of the 'Express' button, then
they will see the .NET Framework under "Software, Optional" link.
Selecting that will install it.

So, it is part of the auto update, but it's optional.

Patrice;

thank you-- this is in the proxy log information?
I don't know how I never realized this.

This was a MAJOR problem for me-- not knowing which version of the
framework is on machine X.


Thanks


-Susie



On Mar 28, 10:20 am, "Patrice" <http://www.chez.com/scribe/> wrote:
> The plug in you are looking for is perhaps :http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.as...jectName=MSBee
>
> I don't have any stat to offer but it's likely a site that shows browser
> statistics could (.NET versions installed on the client computer are partof
> the user agent string).
>
> --
> Patrice
>
> "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> a écrit dans le message de news:
> Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mn...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
> > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
> > migrate it to .Net 2.0.
>
> > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
> > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
> > acceptance".
>
> > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
> > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.
>
> > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
> > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
> > maybe some kind of number of computers?
>
> > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
> > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
> > with 1.1.
>
> > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
> > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?
>
> > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
> > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
> > Anyone know where it is?
>
> > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Robin S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm sorry bud.

..NET is _NOT_ PUSHED via Windows Update
it _SHOULD_BE_ but it's not.

it is an OPTIONAL download; you have to go under custom in order to
see this.

I think that MS should push the damn framework into every machine in
the world.
I'm serious


and for the record, _NEITHER_ .NET 1.0 or 1.1 are installed with XP.

_RIGHT_?




On Mar 28, 10:59 am, "Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)" <machin TA
laceupsolutions.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message
>
> news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>
>
> > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
> > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
> > migrate it to .Net 2.0.
>
> Yes, we developers always want that , the very same happen in my current
> company.
>
> > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
> > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
> > acceptance".
>
> You will have to do the same with either framework. What if the target
> computer has win2K?
> Besides IIRC XP SP2 shipped with .NET 1.0, not 1.1 ( I may be wrong with
> this though). Additionally 2.0 has been pushed using MS Update for a while
> now.
>
> > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
> > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.
>
> What is wrong with a old good reboot?
>
> Besides installing either framework does not requires a reboot.

Robin;

have you considered using Vb6?

VB6 runtime is on every machine in the real world




On Mar 28, 2:01 pm, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote:
> To address the responses that say downloading and rebooting would not
> discourage you, I share this piece of information: The other developers on
> my team say it would discourage them, and (more importantly), the CEO of
> the company agrees. Any guesses on who signs my checks?
>
> So arguing the case about whether rebooting would be a discouragement isn't
> getting me anywhere. Been there, tried that. :-(
>
> Robin S.
> ------------------------------------"RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message
>
> news:Os2dnRPTQvIsPJfbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am working at a company that is going to publish a product on the
> > market. The code is currently in .Net 1.1. The developers would like to
> > migrate it to .Net 2.0.
>
> > Management has concerns about users having to install the .Net framework
> > before using the product. They want to "minimize any barriers to
> > acceptance".
>
> > If .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 both require a reboot, then that issue is moot,
> > unless a lot more people have .Net 1.1 installed.
>
> > Does anybody know of any statistics or numbers out there that show the
> > number of installations of either or both .Net framework versions? And
> > maybe some kind of number of computers?
>
> > Because if .Net 1.1 is only installed on 1% of computers, that's one
> > thing; if it's installed on 20%, that's a more compelling reason to stay
> > with 1.1.
>
> > Can you think of any compelling reasons I can present to management to
> > choose .Net 2.0 over .Net 1.1?
>
> > Barring that, I understand there is some kind of plug-in I can use with
> > VS2005 that will allow me to develop .Net 1.1 code -- is that right?
> > Anyone know where it is?
>
> > I would appreciate any help or advice you can give me here.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Robin S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Susie DBA [MSFT]" <susiedba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175125280.045396.27170@r56g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...
> I'm sorry bud.
>
> .NET is _NOT_ PUSHED via Windows Update
> it _SHOULD_BE_ but it's not.
>
> it is an OPTIONAL download; you have to go under custom in order to
> see this.
>
> I think that MS should push the damn framework into every machine in
> the world.
> I'm serious
>
>
> and for the record, _NEITHER_ .NET 1.0 or 1.1 are installed with XP.
>
> _RIGHT_?

It would appear you have never tried to download the frameworks on a modem

--
LTP

well if Microsoft can't get the frameworks on EVERY MACHINE EVERYWHERE
then they just need to go back to Vb6

I swear to god; clientside deployment of the framework is the ONLY
reason I'm such an asshole when it comes to .NET

more importantly-- is 1.0 / 1.1 _REQUIRED_ for XP SP2?

I wish I would have known that; I've always had the worst time trying
to figure out what version of the framework is on a particular machine

if the WINVER / Proxy Command string is right-- I can't wait to look
it up in the proxy logs i've got @Home




On Mar 28, 5:32 pm, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamlicious_z_XX...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
> "Susie DBA [MSFT]" <susie...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175125280.045396.27170@r56g2000hsd.go oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm sorry bud.
>
> > .NET is _NOT_ PUSHED via Windows Update
> > it _SHOULD_BE_ but it's not.
>
> > it is an OPTIONAL download; you have to go under custom in order to
> > see this.
>
> > I think that MS should push the damn framework into every machine in
> > the world.
> > I'm serious
>
> > and for the record, _NEITHER_ .NET 1.0 or 1.1 are installed with XP.
>
> > _RIGHT_?
>
> It would appear you have never tried to download the frameworks on a modem
>
> --
> LTP
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Susie DBA [MSFT]" <susiedba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175134045.359964.254210@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> well if Microsoft can't get the frameworks on EVERY MACHINE EVERYWHERE
> then they just need to go back to Vb6
>
> I swear to god; clientside deployment of the framework is the ONLY
> reason I'm such an asshole when it comes to .NET
>
> more importantly-- is 1.0 / 1.1 _REQUIRED_ for XP SP2?
>
> I wish I would have known that; I've always had the worst time trying
> to figure out what version of the framework is on a particular machine
>
> if the WINVER / Proxy Command string is right-- I can't wait to look
> it up in the proxy logs i've got @Home

Bundle your installations with a .NET framework. It's not that big of a
deal.

If it bothers you so much you could write your apps in assembly language/old
windows SDK.

BTW - don't top post.

Microsoft ~HAS~ a forced upgrade strategy. It is called Vista - they are
working on it.

--
LTP