Just released my first .NET based product
-
Mr.Prakash wrote: No, my machine is not ready for .NET Why not? I have never heard about it breaking anything ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
I machine is quite old now, tried installing VS.NET and made my machine crawl like a snail. so Thats why my machine is not ready for .NET :-)
P.R.A.K.A.S.H
-
I machine is quite old now, tried installing VS.NET and made my machine crawl like a snail. so Thats why my machine is not ready for .NET :-)
P.R.A.K.A.S.H
Err, the .NET framework is not the same as VS .NET. The .NET framework will not make your computer slow, as its not loaded when you dont run any .NET based applications... - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
-
Now this is going to be interesting to see how many people that will not use it because it installs .NET 1.1 on their computer... Any idea? Do your costumers care about what your program install? My end users are normal users, not developers or anything. If you wanna see what it's all about, take a look here: http://shotkeeper.net/[^] And please, if you have any comments on my website, feel free to tell me :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
OK here's how it works... *snicker* Already Installed: .NET 1.1 and .NET German Language Pack (OS is W2K, german) The small installation cmpletes nicely, but running the app i get an error message along this lines 8translated to english):
.NET OLE DB Provider (System.Data.Oledb) requires at least MDAC 2.6
2.53.6200 is installedThe Application does NOT exit, after three messages I see the main screen, however, most actions end up with the same error message and do nothing. DL'ed the full install, selected full install. Install tells me that .NET 1.1 is already installed, so it won't be installed, but does not seem to install MDAC 2.6. Applicaiton behaves the same. Full install, deselecting .NET framework. (I get a message that it's already installed and won't be uninstalled by deselecting it - weird). Though MDAC is selected it doesn#t seem to get isnatlled. App behavior is the same. If you'd like more informaiton, feel free to ask. (I guess I could fix it by DLing MDAC 2.x from MS directly, but if you want other informaiton first, be my guest)
Flirt harder, I'm a Coder
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
OK here's how it works... *snicker* Already Installed: .NET 1.1 and .NET German Language Pack (OS is W2K, german) The small installation cmpletes nicely, but running the app i get an error message along this lines 8translated to english):
.NET OLE DB Provider (System.Data.Oledb) requires at least MDAC 2.6
2.53.6200 is installedThe Application does NOT exit, after three messages I see the main screen, however, most actions end up with the same error message and do nothing. DL'ed the full install, selected full install. Install tells me that .NET 1.1 is already installed, so it won't be installed, but does not seem to install MDAC 2.6. Applicaiton behaves the same. Full install, deselecting .NET framework. (I get a message that it's already installed and won't be uninstalled by deselecting it - weird). Though MDAC is selected it doesn#t seem to get isnatlled. App behavior is the same. If you'd like more informaiton, feel free to ask. (I guess I could fix it by DLing MDAC 2.x from MS directly, but if you want other informaiton first, be my guest)
Flirt harder, I'm a Coder
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenHmmm, strange. I'll try to recreate the error on my test (virtual) pc's :) But thanks a lot for letting me know, I guess my installer needs a bit of debugging. Go ahead and get MDAC from MS, then it will work, at least, I have enough info to check it out my self. Thanks :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
-
Now this is going to be interesting to see how many people that will not use it because it installs .NET 1.1 on their computer... Any idea? Do your costumers care about what your program install? My end users are normal users, not developers or anything. If you wanna see what it's all about, take a look here: http://shotkeeper.net/[^] And please, if you have any comments on my website, feel free to tell me :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
First of all I didn't have a chance to install application. (I don't want Framework on this PC) So opinion based only on screenshots: UI style: something wrong with tabs on tab controls. They have solid grey background. Original XP design has gradient filling on tabs. It is gone. Some purpose? Tab Control and the way it is designed looks good on dialogs. On the views as here http://shotkeeper.net/images/mainwin.gif , it is better to use other idiom for tabs. Something like tabs on top of source code views in VS 2003. PS about database: to remove dependencies from DB installed on client machine consider including e.g. embeddable Perst Database (http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/perst.html). Regards, Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com http://blocknote.net
-
First of all I didn't have a chance to install application. (I don't want Framework on this PC) So opinion based only on screenshots: UI style: something wrong with tabs on tab controls. They have solid grey background. Original XP design has gradient filling on tabs. It is gone. Some purpose? Tab Control and the way it is designed looks good on dialogs. On the views as here http://shotkeeper.net/images/mainwin.gif , it is better to use other idiom for tabs. Something like tabs on top of source code views in VS 2003. PS about database: to remove dependencies from DB installed on client machine consider including e.g. embeddable Perst Database (http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/perst.html). Regards, Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com http://blocknote.net
c-smile wrote: UI style: something wrong with tabs on tab controls. They have solid grey background. Original XP design has gradient filling on tabs. It is gone. Some purpose? Thats the way they look when using winforms. c-smile wrote: On the views as here http://shotkeeper.net/images/mainwin.gif , it is better to use other idiom for tabs. Something like tabs on top of source code views in VS 2003. Thanks for your opinion, but I like it the way it is now. I might change it though, if enough people mention it ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
-
Err, the .NET framework is not the same as VS .NET. The .NET framework will not make your computer slow, as its not loaded when you dont run any .NET based applications... - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
VS.NET also installs the framework rite, I dont know how it works with the OS but for sure, after the installation of the Framework it got verrrry slow, keeping my harddrive busy most of the time... plus my harddrive runs out of space :-) Humm will give it a try again.
P.R.A.K.A.S.H
-
c-smile wrote: UI style: something wrong with tabs on tab controls. They have solid grey background. Original XP design has gradient filling on tabs. It is gone. Some purpose? Thats the way they look when using winforms. c-smile wrote: On the views as here http://shotkeeper.net/images/mainwin.gif , it is better to use other idiom for tabs. Something like tabs on top of source code views in VS 2003. Thanks for your opinion, but I like it the way it is now. I might change it though, if enough people mention it ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
The tab controls look right to me. I have no problem with the design; of course, I prefer clarity and simplicity. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Mr.Prakash wrote: No, my machine is not ready for .NET How's the Model T Ford holding up? Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
Marc Clifton wrote: How's the Model T Ford holding up? :):):):-D That was a classic. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Hmmm, strange. I'll try to recreate the error on my test (virtual) pc's :) But thanks a lot for letting me know, I guess my installer needs a bit of debugging. Go ahead and get MDAC from MS, then it will work, at least, I have enough info to check it out my self. Thanks :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
Using just about any of System.Data will require MDAC 2.6 or later (we had a problem with that as well). I'm not able to find any reference to an MDAC merge module distributed by MS, but a number of websites (including InstallShield's) have MDAC merge modules for various MDAC versions available for free download. Including this in your setup msi should take care of it. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
Now this is going to be interesting to see how many people that will not use it because it installs .NET 1.1 on their computer... Any idea? Do your costumers care about what your program install? My end users are normal users, not developers or anything. If you wanna see what it's all about, take a look here: http://shotkeeper.net/[^] And please, if you have any comments on my website, feel free to tell me :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
Anders Molin wrote: My end users are normal users Idiots will install anything you tell them to. Just look at the success of SPAM-based worms... I architected a solution that is currently being deployed in medium- and large-sized companies. Installation of the .NET Framework has been our biggest draw-back. Since I've designed a mostly touchless deployment (the next version will be completely touchless, except for the one-time code group installation), we only have to worry about getting the Framework installed. For users with administrative privileges on their machines, this really isn't a problem. For larger companies where the wannabe gods...er, IT staff have tight reign on the machines (even for developers that typically need a little extra freedom), they have to get involved. There's where the laziness shows. Most don't even have anything bad to say about the Framework (mostly because they spend theirs days playing Civ3 or something and don't learn anything new), they just don't want to have to do anything. Think I'm joking? Think again. I told my boss this would be a problem long before we released our product. Like always, he doubted me (he wrote a couple programs over 15 years ago, so he knows what he's talking about). A few months ago, "doubting Thomas" re-iterated what I said - that IT was pushing back because it requires a slight bit of work. As more and more companies upgrade their systems though (wait...we still have companies on Win95 who can't use our products), this shouldn't be a problem. Just try to make the setup process as simple as possible for now (like bootstrapping the installation and don't require prompts to install .NET).
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
VS.NET also installs the framework rite, I dont know how it works with the OS but for sure, after the installation of the Framework it got verrrry slow, keeping my harddrive busy most of the time... plus my harddrive runs out of space :-) Humm will give it a try again.
P.R.A.K.A.S.H
-
Now this is going to be interesting to see how many people that will not use it because it installs .NET 1.1 on their computer... Any idea? Do your costumers care about what your program install? My end users are normal users, not developers or anything. If you wanna see what it's all about, take a look here: http://shotkeeper.net/[^] And please, if you have any comments on my website, feel free to tell me :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
Nice self portrait.... Seiosuly, I don't do phototography but I have a friend who does, I'll pass the link on in case he is interested. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Now this is going to be interesting to see how many people that will not use it because it installs .NET 1.1 on their computer... Any idea? Do your costumers care about what your program install? My end users are normal users, not developers or anything. If you wanna see what it's all about, take a look here: http://shotkeeper.net/[^] And please, if you have any comments on my website, feel free to tell me :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
Will contribute with this : - a photo library manager : unless there is something that makes it unique, why would someone even give it a try? try download.com, and get tens of thousands photo album managers. Let's get it clear, a category tree control is not something that adds up in the value chain. When it comes to maintaining a library of photos, what counts a lot is the ability to sync up over time. This is my thought about it, and this does not prevent me from saying, at the same time, that I have tested your app and it works well indeed. The only issue so far has been the slowness of the scrollbar with huge categories. - deployment time and the .NET framework : in your download page, you could avoid the "If you already have MDAC 2.6 or later and Microsoft .NET framework 1.1 installed, get this one, 0.5MB" sentence, which is really the reason why someone would refrain from giving the software a try, and test the browser agent string if it's IE. The user agent string carries all .NET run-time versions installed on the client machine. I guess this can help bring a better "user experience". - deployment time : the problem with MSI files is that users may not have Windows Installer 2.0 and, if they happen to not have it installed already, they'll have to install an installer before they can install your app ! And then reboot before they proceed, otherwise it wouldn't be that funny. Tip of the day : if your setup is based on MSI files, and you want to avoid your customers as much pain as possible, make sure to use a MSI creator that spits Windows Installer 1.0 MSI files. In other words, refrain from using the VS.NET 2003 Setup deployment project wizards. - deployment time : the size of the .NET framework. 23MB+ only to install a 500kb app. Yeaah baby, everything looks well balanced! - deployment time : I see you have a config file in the profile / app data / NimoSoftware / shootkeeper folder, unfortunately, this config file doesn't bind the app against a particular .NET run-time version. For that reason, whenever the user upgrades his .NET run-time, your app might not work anymore. The worry is of course, that the user (or your customer if you sell the app) can do it any time, and without letting you know about it. - deployment time : the idea that those issues will be solved as soon as the OS will come with the .NET run-time is soooooooooooo wrong! The user's .NET run-time will never be the same than the developer's .NET run-time and side-by-side does not work that well in practice. Don't beli
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: teenp0rn.com You misspelled p0rn, it's spelled pr0n :-D Rickard Andersson Here is my card, contact me later! UIN: 50302279 Sonork: 37318
-
why were you looking for .NET platform in porn sites??? :confused:
P.R.A.K.A.S.H
-
Now this is going to be interesting to see how many people that will not use it because it installs .NET 1.1 on their computer... Any idea? Do your costumers care about what your program install? My end users are normal users, not developers or anything. If you wanna see what it's all about, take a look here: http://shotkeeper.net/[^] And please, if you have any comments on my website, feel free to tell me :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
How can you say a program is "small" when it requires you to install a 25mb runtime? .NET is for sheep. ------- sig starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 "You won't like me when I'm angry..." - Dr. Bruce Banner Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- sig ends
-
The tab controls look right to me. I have no problem with the design; of course, I prefer clarity and simplicity. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Thanks - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
-
Using just about any of System.Data will require MDAC 2.6 or later (we had a problem with that as well). I'm not able to find any reference to an MDAC merge module distributed by MS, but a number of websites (including InstallShield's) have MDAC merge modules for various MDAC versions available for free download. Including this in your setup msi should take care of it. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: Including this in your setup msi should take care of it. I do include MDAC 2.8, but something went wrong for peterchen :~ - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
-
Anders Molin wrote: My end users are normal users Idiots will install anything you tell them to. Just look at the success of SPAM-based worms... I architected a solution that is currently being deployed in medium- and large-sized companies. Installation of the .NET Framework has been our biggest draw-back. Since I've designed a mostly touchless deployment (the next version will be completely touchless, except for the one-time code group installation), we only have to worry about getting the Framework installed. For users with administrative privileges on their machines, this really isn't a problem. For larger companies where the wannabe gods...er, IT staff have tight reign on the machines (even for developers that typically need a little extra freedom), they have to get involved. There's where the laziness shows. Most don't even have anything bad to say about the Framework (mostly because they spend theirs days playing Civ3 or something and don't learn anything new), they just don't want to have to do anything. Think I'm joking? Think again. I told my boss this would be a problem long before we released our product. Like always, he doubted me (he wrote a couple programs over 15 years ago, so he knows what he's talking about). A few months ago, "doubting Thomas" re-iterated what I said - that IT was pushing back because it requires a slight bit of work. As more and more companies upgrade their systems though (wait...we still have companies on Win95 who can't use our products), this shouldn't be a problem. Just try to make the setup process as simple as possible for now (like bootstrapping the installation and don't require prompts to install .NET).
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: Just try to make the setup process as simple as possible for now (like bootstrapping the installation and don't require prompts to install .NET). Exactly :) And I do know exactly what you are talking about when it comes ti the IT departments :| - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
