.Net 1.1 versus .Net 2.0

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.

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 part of
the user agent string).

--
Patrice

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> a écrit dans le message de 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.
>

I don't understand why this is a concern? Why not package the framework
along with your application? I mean, if your app is going to have an
install package, why not just make it install .NET 2.0?

I don't believe the install of .NET requires a reboot. Even if it did,
it's not the worst thing in the world, is it?

--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com

"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: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.

"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.

I have never in my life run an installation package and decided to uninstall
it because it required a reboot.

Download size is understandable - but you have an install program anyway.

Unless you are writing a virus, I don't think you should need to worry about
it

--
LTP

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.
>

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.
---------------------
"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com> wrote in
message news:uwVos5VcHHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I don't understand why this is a concern? Why not package the
> framework along with your application? I mean, if your app is going to
> have an install package, why not just make it install .NET 2.0?
>
> I don't believe the install of .NET requires a reboot. Even if it
> did, it's not the worst thing in the world, is it?
>
> --
> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
> - mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com
>
> "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.
>>
>
>

Thanks for that. I'll check it out.

Robin S.
------------------------
"Patrice" <http://www.chez.com/scribe/> wrote in message
news:ec$bu1VcHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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 part
> of the user agent string).
>
> --
> Patrice
>
> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> a écrit dans le message de 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.
>>
>
>

"Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP )" <machin TA laceupsolutions.com> wrote in
message news:%23atT$KWcHHA.2416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> "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.
>
> 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.
>

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

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.

>
>> 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.
>

Thanks,
Robin S.

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.
>>
>
>