Just released my first .NET based product
-
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
-
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[^]
-
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[^]
-
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[^]
-
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
Trollslayer wrote: Nice self portrait.... Yup, hehe :) Never thought about it that way ;P Trollslayer wrote: I'll pass the link on in case he is interested. Thanks :) - 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
My program is small, the .NET framework is not ;) - 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: Considered web hosted gallery managers like nGallery.org? After all, sharing photos is often what you are willing to do, so I guess web hosting fits that purpose. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: 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 Well, not tens of thousands, only 79 ;) And only 2 on Tucows... Anyway, I do know there are many out there, as I have tried a lot of them. My problem was that I never found any that worked with my prefered workflow. I guess I'm not the only one that work the way I do, so I wrote ShotKeeper ;) Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: that I have tested your app and it works well indeed. Thanks :) About the scroll slowness... How big categories? About the installer, I dont use msi, I ude Inno Setup for this one. I know the .NET framework does use MSI, but my install works on a new installed Win98, so no need for rebooting before installing :) Yeah, web based stuff is for something different. When I get home from a photo shoot, with maybe 300 shots, I'll import those, and go through them and delete those that are not good enough. Then I'll put them into some categories, and I'm done. That would be way slower to do in a webbased app ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: Considered web hosted gallery managers like nGallery.org? After all, sharing photos is often what you are willing to do, so I guess web hosting fits that purpose. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: 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 Well, not tens of thousands, only 79 ;) And only 2 on Tucows... Anyway, I do know there are many out there, as I have tried a lot of them. My problem was that I never found any that worked with my prefered workflow. I guess I'm not the only one that work the way I do, so I wrote ShotKeeper ;) Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: that I have tested your app and it works well indeed. Thanks :) About the scroll slowness... How big categories? About the installer, I dont use msi, I ude Inno Setup for this one. I know the .NET framework does use MSI, but my install works on a new installed Win98, so no need for rebooting before installing :) Yeah, web based stuff is for something different. When I get home from a photo shoot, with maybe 300 shots, I'll import those, and go through them and delete those that are not good enough. Then I'll put them into some categories, and I'm done. That would be way slower to do in a webbased app ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!" ShotKeeper, my Photo Album / Organizer Application[^]
Anders Molin wrote: Well, not tens of thousands, only 79 Well, you get the idea.. :-) Anders Molin wrote: I guess I'm not the only one that work the way I do, so I wrote ShotKeeper May be it would be great to make it more apparent then, flash tour? One thing I like is the detail zoomer. Anders Molin wrote: About the scroll slowness... How big categories? 1000. Photos average 100kb each. Anders Molin wrote: Then I'll put them into some categories, and I'm done. That would be way slower to do in a webbased app I am ready to believe there are good scenarios, using myself an organizer for local photos. Was only pointing the obvious "pic share" one (as in textamerica.com)
-
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
-
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
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: How can you say a program is "small" when it requires you to install a 25mb runtime? Well, it IS small compared to the runtime.
I compile MFC statically into my apps and *they're* small compared to the .NET runtime. My point is that I consider the runtime to be part of the app, just like I would consider the MFC DLL's to be part of any app that needed them. If I wanted to require a huge runtime, I would have long ago started programming in VB. I work real hard to keep .NET off my system at home. I think the only way to succeed at that is to buy a Mac (since Linux will not be desktop ready for a LONG time). ------- 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
-
Anders Molin wrote: Well, not tens of thousands, only 79 Well, you get the idea.. :-) Anders Molin wrote: I guess I'm not the only one that work the way I do, so I wrote ShotKeeper May be it would be great to make it more apparent then, flash tour? One thing I like is the detail zoomer. Anders Molin wrote: About the scroll slowness... How big categories? 1000. Photos average 100kb each. Anders Molin wrote: Then I'll put them into some categories, and I'm done. That would be way slower to do in a webbased app I am ready to believe there are good scenarios, using myself an organizer for local photos. Was only pointing the obvious "pic share" one (as in textamerica.com)
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: May be it would be great to make it more apparent then, flash tour? Yeah, something like that. We will get something on the site, but have been too busy right now... - 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
