.Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

Just to let you know, if you deploy to vista machines .NET 2.0 is installed
there by default! which is nice for once to finally have it installed by
default

"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.
>

On Mar 28, 5:04 pm, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote:
> Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install.
> However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require,
> the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is
> widespread, it's better to do 1.1

I haven't had to reboot after installing the framework. Not even to
install my own software. I can understand download size being
discouraging, but rebooting? I'm sorry, but that part of the argument
is just plain stupid. Its was pretty standard to have to reboot after
installing ANYTHING in windows for a while, so much that its a running
joke in Linux crowds.

> 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.

Yes, although I think its an optional component, so your use may have
to go to the windowsupdate site on their own. Actually, .Net 3 is now
available on WU as well.

Andy

On Mar 28, 6:14 pm, Peter Bromley <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 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,

Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually..

"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.
Another points to consider is that Vista installs .NET 3.0 automatically,
and 3.0 is 2.0 with some additional Vista stuff. 100% of Vista machines will
run your app if you go 2.0.

and there in lies your arguement with the CEO ...

CEO's should be concerned with one thing .. supplying those that do the work
with the appropriate tools and work environment. period. I know this may
sound ridiculas ... but who came first the software or the CEO ...

If you want to produce state-of-the-art technology or best of the bread
software (terms CEO's understand) - you cannot restrict your developers to
OLDER technologies simply because they have some preconceived idea that if a
user has to reboot they won't want your product!!! Get proof that user's
hate to reboot after installing your software ... I am sorry, but if your
software is that good ... the CEO and User will not care if they have to
reboot after install. If your CEO is bent on 'if the user needs to reboot,
use a lesser technology' , then you have a very strong case for VB6 ...
'cause you can be certain that they user will not need to reboot...

As far as reboot after .net2 framework is installed, this is not the case -
I just released a new application to a client with over 50 desktops (all of
which needed the .net 2 framework) and they did not have to reboot once...

So, before you go down any path, I would strongly recommend that you test
the install of the various .net framework's in all situations...so you can
say for sure what is happening ... and what will be required by your
potential 'general public' customers.

I bet if you made a business case as to why you want .net2 framework (added
functionality, added productivity, added features ...) you would not be
having this discussion with your 'paycheck' signature.

Plus, any NEW computer comes / ships with .net 2.0 framework...that should
be proof in-itself that you should be using 2.0 framework. Try to draw a
line for your CEO showing the planned path of Microsoft and they support and
upgrade paths ... show him or her how 1.1 goes and 2.0 goes...

I just cannot believe that a CEO is making such a technical decision that
ultimately impact the future of the product, based on the fact of a single
reboot!!! WOW !!! get off the boat now !!!

Jeff.

PS: your CEO probably believes that 10 'junior' - dime a dozen - programmers
writing 10,000 lines of code each are better than 2 'seasoned' - hard to
find, easy to retain if kept interested and viod of decision as mentioned -
programmers writing 5,000 lines of code each! More lines code = better
product ... or this maybe your managers 'yard stick' for evaluating you and
your peers.

Good luck.



"Smokey Grindel" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eFt8cCfcHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just to let you know, if you deploy to vista machines .NET 2.0 is
> installed there by default! which is nice for once to finally have it
> installed by default
>
> "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.
>>
>
>

Hi,

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message
news:9eGdnQYCa8LNRZfbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com. ..

>
> Yes, you will have to reboot regardless of whichever one you install.
> However, if the computer already has .Net 1.1 and that's what you require,
> the user won't have to reboot. So if the penetration of .Net 1.1 is
> widespread, it's better to do 1.1

I have been isntalling the framework for a while now, and I dont remember
ever having to reboot to install the framework

I believe that the machine will only need to be rebooted if it's doing
something with IIS. For what it's worth, I have only had to reboot one
server when installing .Net 2 when I needed to put SQL Server 2005
Express on it.

RobinS wrote:
> Not to me, it's not. See my general response to my original post.
>
> Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can
> install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway.
>
> Robin S.

RobinS wrote:
> 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.

This is not going to be an answerable question, Robin. It was a lot like
the original VB runtimes. Most users really didn't know if they had it
or not. It's the same with .Net. Most users don't really know if they
have it or not... This is especially true for the general public. If you
had an IT department at your client's site, then they would probably know...

"Andy" <andyj@med-associates.com> wrote in message
news:1175171058.109456.233830@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
> On Mar 28, 6:14 pm, Peter Bromley <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 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,
>
> Vista ships with .Net 3.0 actually..
>

..Net 3.0 is .Net 2.0 plus some extra stuff. So the fact that MS has sold 20
million consumer copies of Vista may help me.

Robin

Hi,

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> writes:

> Apparently you have to reboot after installing .Net 2.0 before you can
> install your own software. That's what I'm told, anyway.

We are distributing a software package that downloads the .NET 2.0
runtime if required (after a user prompt). The download & install works
without problems on our testing farm (most of them virtual machines), no
reboot is required. We are using NSIS, not MSI, but I do not know if
that would make any difference.

Best regards,
Martin