.Net packaging/wrapper application?

[John]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Hi Jim,

Microsoft already purchased SoftGrid so I doubt that they
would purchase Thinstall or Xenocode.

SoftGrid is not free, however, so I don't think it is a solution
for a hobbyist. Perhaps in the future they will create a limited
version that is free of CAL or SA requirements

J

"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:e7Lcj.2819 3$Mu4.22146@big news7.bellsouth .net...

>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
>needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>
I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd
like something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.
>
This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as
a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite.
It would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end
user to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids
DLL and .Net Version Hell.
>
If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should
be it.
>
If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require
per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>
Thanks!
>
jim
>

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?


"Michael Nemtsev [MVP]" <nemtsev@msn.co mwrote in message
news:3d9fba1a22 2c98ca16fd2611e 560@msnews.micr osoft.com...

Hello jim,
>
jThat's quite interesting. Just how do you cover #4 with Windows
jInstaller? Is there a new function that will stop DLLs from being
joverwritten or that will accomodate differences in .Net versions
j(like when hotfixes are installed to patch .Net problems)?
>
no, it up to u how u are going to disturb this
I suppose u select the Xenodcode not only for this option?
jOr how about #5 (smaller distributions - remember that Windows
jInstaller REQUIRES the .Net runtimes be installed if they are not
jalready and that WI does not compress the executable like Thinstall
jand Xenocode).
>
there are some wrappers (like inno) which wrap WI functionality and
provide compression

But, with Inno (which is a really good installer), it is only compressed
until it is installed. With Thinstall or Xenocode the single exe is always
compressed and no install is needed to run the app - just copy the single
exe to the PC or any media installed in the PC (like a USB drive) and run
it. Nothing to install. Nothing to uninstall.

>
jAs far as #6 is concerned, Windows Installer actively blocks code
jthat would access files (as most code that is useful does) if it is
jrun from the network or insternet. The Thinstall/Xenocode wrapped
japps retain all functionality.
>
installer has no relation to assembly trust level - what blocks to run it
from network
u need to set the correct trust level

But, you must do this via control panel applets etc., right? Most people
don't know how to do this. That is why Microsoft's click and run stuff
never took off.

With Thinstall (not sure about Xenocode) you don't have any trust issues.
The executables simply run.

>
jAnd, (might as well mention it since we are comparing Windows
jInstaller and Thinstall/Xenocode) Windows Installer requires
jadministrator privileges to do most installs. Using Thinstall (not
jsure about ), you don't need admin permissions to run the
jexecutable (no matter its functionality) because nothing is every
j"installed" on the system (no registry entries needed, no install to
jrun). That'd be #7 - for those counting at home.
>
>
if nothing installed then how it works? :) I assume it installs smth but u
don't even noted this

Thinstall and Xenocode create virtual registry entries and virtual
directories that your app uses to run. These virtual objects are destroyed
when the app closes.

>
Actually Im against these kind of tools, because it works for the small
part of winforms application and if you decided to extend your app -
provide security, CAS and etc u can hardly predict how it affects yout
Xenocode wrapper app

I haven't used Xenocode, but as for Thinstall - Thinstall does not affect
the functionality of your application at all. If you want to enforce
security using the .Net classes in your app you can.

I'm telling you....Thinstal l-capability is the answer to distribution
issues, DLL/version hell issues, permission issues, setup issues and even
helps maintain security on the desktop. Why nobody is making an affordable
version for the masses, or has taken this on as an open source project is
beyond me.

The benefits are so great that NOT including this technology in .Net studio
is simply negligent.

jim

>
>
---
WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog:

http://spaces.live.com/laflour

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo
jj"Michael Nemtsev [MVP]" <nemtsev@msn.co mwrote in message
jnews:3d9fba1a2 22b18ca16f88319 2660@msnews.mic rosoft.com...
j>

>>Hello jim,
>>>
>>ok, what's from that list cant be done with Windows Installer? :)
>>except the point 3 the Windows Installed can do the same things,
>>maybe not so silently
>>>
>>---
>>WBR, Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog:
>>http://spaces.live.com/laflour
>>"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high
>>and we
>>miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo
>>jFor several reasons.....
>>jj1) An application is just the first step. I plan on coding
>>.Net
>>japplications . The request has to do with distribution of those
>>japplicatio ns - not coding the applications.
>>jj2) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from
>>a
>>jsingle EXE - no application need be installed.
>>jj3) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run
>>without
>>j.Net installed.
>>jj4) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode do not suffer
>>from
>>jDLL or .Net version hell.
>>jj5) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode are smaller
>>than
>>j.Net + Application installs.
>>jj6) Applications wrapped by Thinstall or Xenodcode can run from
>>a USB
>>jdrive or (if Thinstalled) be streamed over a network with no
>>jinstallati on whatsoever (not even copying the exe).
>>jjPlease read up on Thinstall and Xenocode at
>>http://www.thinstall.com/
>>jand http://www.xenocode.com/. Once you do, you too will wonder
>>just
>>jwhy we don't have this functionality in .Net.
>>jjjim
>>jj"ThatsIT.ne t.au" <me@thatsitwrot e in message
>>jnews:1E20AF5 C-0719-418A-B50F-3FE525B245DB@mi crosoft.com...
>>j>
>>>>Do you have Visual Studio 2005? If so why not make a windows
>>>>application ?
>>>>>
>>>>"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
>>>>news:e7Lcj. 28193$Mu4.22146 @bignews7.bells outh.net...
>>>>>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application
>>>>>(and any needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for
>>>>>your exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your
>>>>>exe). But, I'd like something that is actually affordable for a
>>>>>hobbyist programmer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and
>>>>>ship it as a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net
>>>>>applicatio n suite. It would simplify the shipping & installation
>>>>>and not even require the end user to have .Net installed or to
>>>>>install the application. It also avoids DLL and .Net Version
>>>>>Hell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies
>>>>>should be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not
>>>>>require per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>jim
>>>>>>

>
>

[Eliyahu Goldin]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this is

something that is missing in .Net studio.

Perhaps there is no enough demand for this sort of applications. Like
Michael, I don't see ability to run without dotnet as an important benefit.
As a customer, I would rather prefer to use a product that is as standard as
possible. This is important from troubleshooting perspective. If you have a
problem with dotnet, all web is yours. If you limit yourself to a specific
tool, you are bound to them for all support issues.

--
Eliyahu Goldin,
Software Developer
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]

http://msmvps.com/blogs/egoldin

http://usableasp.net

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

What is it with Microsoft MVPs that they do not read about a subject before
posting on it?

Thinstall and Xenocode change NOTHING about the .Net framework or your
application. They simply wrap all needed .Net functionality and your
executable and any dependent files (like DLLs or ActiveX controls or other
files that your .Net app needs) into a single executable file.

This means that your potential customer that is still on dial-up, the 25+MB
..Net framework may never get downloaded so your apps are worthless to them.

Are people still on dial up? Yep. The last hard figures I could find on
short notice said "It turns out that as few as 28 percent of American
households today have access to broadband Internet. That's according to
reporter Richard Hoffman in a Nov. 20, 2006 Information Week article, citing
data from Government Accountability Office." -
http://blog.tmcnet.com/wireless-mobi...onnections.asp.
And, while this report is now just over 1 year old, even if the # of
households with DSL doubled in 12 months (which is HIGHLY unlikely) that
means that 44% of households in the US are still on dial up.

As for your comparison of .Net prgramming to the use of Thinstall or
Xenocode, that only proves that you haven't read anything about either of
them.

MVPs.......God save us from Microsoft MVPs.

jim


"Eliyahu Goldin" <REMOVEALLCAPIT ALSeEgGoldDinN@ mMvVpPsS.orgwro te in
message news:OAxXAwJSIH A.5160@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

>Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this is
>something that is missing in .Net studio.

>
Perhaps there is no enough demand for this sort of applications. Like
Michael, I don't see ability to run without dotnet as an important
benefit. As a customer, I would rather prefer to use a product that is as
standard as possible. This is important from troubleshooting perspective.
If you have a problem with dotnet, all web is yours. If you limit yourself
to a specific tool, you are bound to them for all support issues.
>
--
Eliyahu Goldin,
Software Developer
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]

http://msmvps.com/blogs/egoldin

http://usableasp.net

>
>
>

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Jim,

>"It turns out that as few as 28 percent of American households today have
>access to broadband Internet.

I assume that you mean the USA households, however beside that is probably
in those 28% the people that are interested in applications. Those who only
use Interent to browse or to send mail don't need small packages, they
simply don't download.

By the way, this is are International newsgroups, this situation in the USA
does not really interest most of us. (Although I don't believe that this
figur is representative for areas as LA, NY, etc.)

Cor

[David Wier]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

I agree - with the obfuscation thrown in, the price definitely escalates.

David Wier

http://aspnet101.com

http://iWritePro.com - One click PDF, convert .doc/.rtf/.txt to HTML with no
bloated markup


"Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP )" <machin TA laceupsolutions .comwrote in
message news:uwliwCJSIH A.4684@TK2MSFTN GP06.phx.gbl...

Hi,
>
>
>
>
"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:PEMcj.2822 8$Mu4.12558@big news7.bellsouth .net...

>Kevin,
>>
>While I certainly appreciate your willingness to peck out those URLs,
>they are in no way whatsoever related to the functionality of the
>applications that I mentioned (Thinstall and Xenocode).

>

>Windows Installer does not wrap the executable and associated files into
>a single executable. Windows Installer does not allow a user to run a
>.Net application without having .Net installed. Windows Installer does
>not obfuscate the executable contents. Windows Installer does not allow
>you to create no-install applications that will run without being
>"installed" on the end users PC (simply copy the created executable and
>run - no .Net install & no application install needed).

>
Maybe that is why it's soo expensive :)
>
Kevin's suggestion is the best you could do with "free" tools.
>
You can always pack everything in a single compacted .EXE and do your
installation like that.
>
--
Ignacio Machin

http://www.laceupsolutions.com

Mobile & warehouse Solutions.
>

[Chris Shepherd]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

jim wrote:

I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>
I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exes)
and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd like
something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.
>
This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as a
single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite. It
would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end user
to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids DLL
and .Net Version Hell.

While there may be uses for it, I don't really see how bloating your app
by almost double the size to run it in a single EXE is of any practical
use to the majority of .NET developers. If you look at Xenocode's
example for Firefox, their "run-once EXE" is over 10 meg in size, while
the Firefox installer for the same version (2.0.11) is 5.7 meg in size.

You discuss people who aren't downloading the 25MB framework package due
to lack of broadband internet access, but I see no "try it" demos of any
..NET apps on either site. I'd be very interested in seeing what the size
of a .NET app actually is (they could do Paint.NET, it's free). Is it
actually any smaller than your compiled app + .Net framework compressed
would be?

As for why it wouldn't get done, I think it's of too limited practical
use. It might be handy, but honestly I can't really see a situation
where I would want to seriously put it to use.

Chris.

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've also
played with Xenocode a bit.

Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had fewer
strange problems.

I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but a
quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do! That
really does suck.

--
Chris Mullins


"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:e7Lcj.2819 3$Mu4.22146@big news7.bellsouth .net...

>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
>needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>
I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd
like something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.
>
This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as
a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite.
It would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end
user to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids
DLL and .Net Version Hell.
>
If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should
be it.
>
If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require
per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>
Thanks!
>
jim
>

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Chris,

At least Salamander doesn't have royalties associated with it.

I have contacted a company about producing similar software to Thinstall for
me to make available to hobbyist programmers with no royalties. So far,
they've said it will cost $2,000 to study the project and give me a price
and time estimates.

I'm considering it.

jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:OEA%23RKLS IHA.4712@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..

We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've also
played with Xenocode a bit.
>
Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had
fewer strange problems.
>
I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but
a quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do! That
really does suck.
>
--
Chris Mullins
>
>
"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:e7Lcj.2819 3$Mu4.22146@big news7.bellsouth .net...

>>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and
>>any needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>>
>I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
>exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But,
>I'd like something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.
>>
>This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as
>a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application
>suite. It would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require
>the end user to have .Net installed or to install the application. It
>also avoids DLL and .Net Version Hell.
>>
>If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should
>be it.
>>
>If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require
>per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>>
>Thanks!
>>
>jim
>>

>
>

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

So it turns out I was a bit confused:

The Xenocode product we've played with is PostBuild, which is licensed per
Developer and costs $499. There's no royalties associated with it.

http://www.xenocode.com/Products/Suite/Selection.aspx

.... it'll do the "deploy your app as a single .exe" just like you're looking
for.

--
Chris Mullins

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:OEA%23RKLS IHA.4712@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..

We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've also
played with Xenocode a bit.
>
Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had
fewer strange problems.
>
I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but
a quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do! That
really does suck.
>
--
Chris Mullins
>
>
"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:e7Lcj.2819 3$Mu4.22146@big news7.bellsouth .net...

>>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and
>>any needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>>
>I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
>exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But,
>I'd like something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.
>>
>This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as
>a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application
>suite. It would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require
>the end user to have .Net installed or to install the application. It
>also avoids DLL and .Net Version Hell.
>>
>If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should
>be it.
>>
>If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require
>per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>>
>Thanks!
>>
>jim
>>

>
>

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@co mcast.netwrote

But, to be honest, I see them as
having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
don't really see any need at all.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.

The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this a
must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation of
the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.

.... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper or
something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software before
they've even run a line of your code.

It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly, the
reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
know of.

.... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot button
for me.

--
Chris Mullins

[Peter Duniho]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:04:21 -0800, jim <jim@home.netwr ote:

Wow! A little reading goes a long way people.

I agree!

Here's some reading that I think would help you:

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Usenet/Etiquette/

Especially those links that lead to:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/

http://infohost.nmt.edu/tcc/help/news/idiot.html

Paying close attention to the sections specific to cross-posting.

Frankly, not even counting your rude behavior toward people who are just
trying to help, the lack of focus in this thread is a great example of why
it's such a bad idea to post to so many broadly unrelated newsgroups.

If you want specific, relevant advice, stick to posting to specific,
relevant newsgroups. If you can't do that, don't complain when the advice
you get doesn't seem specific or relevant enough for your tastes.

Pete

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?


"Chris Shepherd" <chsh@nospam.ch sh.cawrote in message
news:OCFwl3KSIH A.4684@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

jim wrote:

>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and
>any needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>>
>I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
>exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But,
>I'd like something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.
>>
>This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as
>a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application
>suite. It would simplify the shipping & installation and not even
>require the end user to have .Net installed or to install the
>application. It also avoids DLL and .Net Version Hell.

>
While there may be uses for it, I don't really see how bloating your app
by almost double the size to run it in a single EXE is of any practical
use to the majority of .NET developers. If you look at Xenocode's example
for Firefox, their "run-once EXE" is over 10 meg in size, while the
Firefox installer for the same version (2.0.11) is 5.7 meg in size.

The major reasons for using this type of application are (1) to end DLL/.Net
version hell, (2) to not make the end user have to install version 1.0, 1.1,
2.0, 3.0 & 3.5 of the .Net framework to run .Net apps, (3) to insulate your
app from decompiling as is easy to do even with most obfuscation, (4) to
allow more users to run your app because Thinstall apps do not require admin
permissions to run whereas admin permission is required to do most app
installations and (5) people like easy - easy sells - and nothing could be
easier than copying an exe and running it.

You discuss people who aren't downloading the 25MB framework package due
to lack of broadband internet access, but I see no "try it" demos of any
.NET apps on either site. I'd be very interested in seeing what the size
of a .NET app actually is (they could do Paint.NET, it's free). Is it
actually any smaller than your compiled app + .Net framework compressed
would be?

Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try and
test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself.

As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it to
6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone.

>
As for why it wouldn't get done, I think it's of too limited practical
use. It might be handy, but honestly I can't really see a situation where
I would want to seriously put it to use.

How about in distributing portable applications for use on USB drives? Or
distributing apps to people that may not have admin permissions to install
applications? Or simply making an application as simple as copying the exe
and running it?

It isn't for everybody.....b ut I think it improves the distribution and
maintenance of .Net apps for most people.

jim

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Chirs,

You're right. It seems to take a little more work than Thinstall, but for
the no royalties part I can stand the extra work.

I was looking at their Virtualization tools.

Thanks for pointing out PostBuild! That's something I can swing.

jim


"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:evnNmbLSIH A.3316@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

So it turns out I was a bit confused:
>
The Xenocode product we've played with is PostBuild, which is licensed per
Developer and costs $499. There's no royalties associated with it.
>

http://www.xenocode.com/Products/Suite/Selection.aspx

>
... it'll do the "deploy your app as a single .exe" just like you're
looking for.
>
--
Chris Mullins
>
"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:OEA%23RKLS IHA.4712@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..

>We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've
>also played with Xenocode a bit.
>>
>Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had
>fewer strange problems.
>>
>I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but
>a quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do!
>That really does suck.
>>
>--
>Chris Mullins
>>
>>
>"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
>news:e7Lcj.281 93$Mu4.22146@bi gnews7.bellsout h.net...

>>>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and
>>>any needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>>>
>>I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
>>exes) and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But,
>>I'd like something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist
>>programmer.
>>>
>>This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it
>>as a single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application
>>suite. It would simplify the shipping & installation and not even
>>require the end user to have .Net installed or to install the
>>application . It also avoids DLL and .Net Version Hell.
>>>
>>If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies
>>should be it.
>>>
>>If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require
>>per copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>>>
>>Thanks!
>>>
>>jim
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Chris,

I fully agree with you there.

If Microsoft is puttting all of its eggs in the .Net basket, why isn't .Net
(a) included with every Microsoft product and (b) made a top priority
download for the nightly updates done by most end users?

If it was so distributed by MS, the distribution costs for .Net apps woudl
be minimal and there would be a lot more of them out there.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:urmcgeLSIH A.5136@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@co mcast.netwrote
>

>But, to be honest, I see them as
>having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
>off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
>don't really see any need at all.

>
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.
>
The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this a
must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation
of the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.
>
... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper
or something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software
before they've even run a line of your code.
>
It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly,
the reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and
doesn't install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product
that I know of.
>
... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot button
for me.
>
--
Chris Mullins
>