A .netish wish!
-
RichardM1 wrote:
3 minutes is fine, as long as it tells you that is how long it will be
I agree. As long as it doesn't do one of those 1 seconds remaining kind of thing that seems to take 30 minutes to finish :rolleyes:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
How come if the last 10% only takes 90% of the time, the last 1% takes 99%?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
most of what gets downloaded is crap, hence it behaves like crap
-
But given that most .NET 1.0 apps should run with just 3.5 installed, why would you need that ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Hooo, if only that were true! I've encountered libraries from a major manufacturer that *require* .Net 1.1 and won't run if .Net 2.0 is the only framework present. I don't know how they did it (or why come to that) but persuading customers that they must have both frameworks is sometimes a little tricky. And retrofitting 1.1 doesn't always work -- depends what sort of a mess the workstations are in... Just to ease matters, I'm not developing for 3.0 or 3.5 just yet -- waiting for the said manufacturer to catch up.
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
It doesn't really matter that much because what Christian was saying is that if say you wrote an application targeting .NET 2.0 then all you'd have to ensure is that at least 2.0 is installed on your machine.
Aha! I understand it. I know if we now start downloading .netfx 3.5 we have all old versions, but that looks like to be obvious only to programmers. If an installer sends user to .net download page, or a programmer asks user to download appropriate framework (Say I tell him 3.5) there are still users that don't understand it and search and find multiple versions. I wish there was one package being called say .netFrameWork that had latest version plus all previous and a permanent download link and was appropriate for all machines so users even don't think about it. Aside from that someone might really doesn't like to install 3.5 to get version 2.(size or installation time) So separate versions might help an installer to work more quickly on some machines.
"In the end it's a little boy expressing himself." Yanni
modified on Monday, December 8, 2008 3:40 PM
Hi! You can try sending them to http://www.microsoft.com/NET/[^]. Although I can't remember who said it or where I read it, there is a link on that page entitled "Install it now ->" that will download a setup file directly (no redirect to MS downloads or anything) that will always be the latest version of the .NET Framework. Does that help? I know it doesn't cover bootstrappers or CDs, but it's half the solution. Schmuli.
-
I wish there was one installer package containing all .net frameworks (from 1 to latest) for all windows Oss(32 bit x86, 64 and ia64) redistributable and free that automatically installs updates needed for the computer it runs on(Updates for available versions and installing new ones). In an advanced panel maybe it let's user selects which versions to install. Now I need a dreaming smiley here.
"In the end it's a little boy expressing himself." Yanni
Just thank God you don't have to deal with JAVA and all the mess is their version system, compatibility problems, etc. Even for JAVA developers the versions cause pain, specially because the backwards compatibility is not good.
-
... and it should download in 3.2 seconds. :-D
He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named can probably sell it to you.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Hi! You can try sending them to http://www.microsoft.com/NET/[^]. Although I can't remember who said it or where I read it, there is a link on that page entitled "Install it now ->" that will download a setup file directly (no redirect to MS downloads or anything) that will always be the latest version of the .NET Framework. Does that help? I know it doesn't cover bootstrappers or CDs, but it's half the solution. Schmuli.
There is a link to "Install now" that downloads the bootstrap version, I guess, and during running it probably downloads .net framework 3.5 needed files. What I'm talking is not having latest version. It looks like I cannot say what I want clearly. It's difficult for me to do it in English, sorry. This is what I know: Available setups are redistributable, bootstraps and client. Redistributable: Latest version of this setup installs previous versions(No choice here). It's heavy (3.5 is nearly 200MB) Bootstrap: A small setup (2~4MB) that detects what's needed for a particular version on a system and starts downloading it or installing it from CD(I was not aware of the latter). Client(Don't know official name): It's an almost lightweight setup(20-50MB) that has a particular version. (Best choice for me so far if I'm targeting a special version.) Problems: 1. For any particular version of a framework there are multiple packages. We have all three(Redistributable, bootstrap and client) for almost all frameworks(1, 2, 3, 3.5). Add to these series service packs and SDKs. This causes confusion for the end user(customers). 2. There is no way to understand what exactly is missing from all packages(separately) unless one downloads and installs all setups in their version order or uses a redistributable with larger version number. For instance installing .net framework 3.5(client version) does not grantee that it will have all of the files that .net framework 1 installs. (I actually doubt if it ever has any other version files other than it's own) 3. Redistributable versions don't let us chose what to install, since they are designed for a particular version. They are large and it takes time to download and install them. My wish: Regardless of the latest version, what if there was one installer that always contains all available versions. All the files, separately. If a customer installs it completely he knows he has all the files that all .net applications need up to that date(Like latest redist). A vendor to be able to choose which versions to be installed and vendor can easily include this file in her setup. For professionals they select versions they are sure the computer needs (based on the softwares they use), not everything(Like individual client versions). I hope this is clear now. :) [edit]Fixed a typo.[/edit]
"In the end it's a little boy expressing himself."
-
He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named can probably sell it to you.
Software Zen:
delete this;Nah, he's dealing iPods, iPhones...
-
There is a link to "Install now" that downloads the bootstrap version, I guess, and during running it probably downloads .net framework 3.5 needed files. What I'm talking is not having latest version. It looks like I cannot say what I want clearly. It's difficult for me to do it in English, sorry. This is what I know: Available setups are redistributable, bootstraps and client. Redistributable: Latest version of this setup installs previous versions(No choice here). It's heavy (3.5 is nearly 200MB) Bootstrap: A small setup (2~4MB) that detects what's needed for a particular version on a system and starts downloading it or installing it from CD(I was not aware of the latter). Client(Don't know official name): It's an almost lightweight setup(20-50MB) that has a particular version. (Best choice for me so far if I'm targeting a special version.) Problems: 1. For any particular version of a framework there are multiple packages. We have all three(Redistributable, bootstrap and client) for almost all frameworks(1, 2, 3, 3.5). Add to these series service packs and SDKs. This causes confusion for the end user(customers). 2. There is no way to understand what exactly is missing from all packages(separately) unless one downloads and installs all setups in their version order or uses a redistributable with larger version number. For instance installing .net framework 3.5(client version) does not grantee that it will have all of the files that .net framework 1 installs. (I actually doubt if it ever has any other version files other than it's own) 3. Redistributable versions don't let us chose what to install, since they are designed for a particular version. They are large and it takes time to download and install them. My wish: Regardless of the latest version, what if there was one installer that always contains all available versions. All the files, separately. If a customer installs it completely he knows he has all the files that all .net applications need up to that date(Like latest redist). A vendor to be able to choose which versions to be installed and vendor can easily include this file in her setup. For professionals they select versions they are sure the computer needs (based on the softwares they use), not everything(Like individual client versions). I hope this is clear now. :) [edit]Fixed a typo.[/edit]
"In the end it's a little boy expressing himself."
FYI - When you download .net 3.0 or 3.5 from microsoft (which ever download it is) it will install .net 2.0 and 2.0 SP1 onto the PC before installing the extenstion for 3.0 and 3.5. I think the latest 3.5 install contains 3.0 SP1 as well. Im not sure about that. .NET 1.x is obsolete and sould not be used. Please note that there are two versions of .net 1.x, 1.0 and 1.1. They cannot be installed side by side. If you install 1.0 first then install 1.1, 1.0 is removed. This is from my experience. .NET 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 can work side by side because 3.0 and 3.5 are just extensions to the .net 2.0 framework. Hope this helps If I am wrong on any of the points above, please correct me. ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbers demand your money or your life. A wife wants both. Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.
-
FYI - When you download .net 3.0 or 3.5 from microsoft (which ever download it is) it will install .net 2.0 and 2.0 SP1 onto the PC before installing the extenstion for 3.0 and 3.5. I think the latest 3.5 install contains 3.0 SP1 as well. Im not sure about that. .NET 1.x is obsolete and sould not be used. Please note that there are two versions of .net 1.x, 1.0 and 1.1. They cannot be installed side by side. If you install 1.0 first then install 1.1, 1.0 is removed. This is from my experience. .NET 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 can work side by side because 3.0 and 3.5 are just extensions to the .net 2.0 framework. Hope this helps If I am wrong on any of the points above, please correct me. ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbers demand your money or your life. A wife wants both. Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.
MAVLegend wrote:
When you download .net 3.0 or 3.5 from microsoft (which ever download it is) it will install .net 2.0 and 2.0 SP1 onto the PC before installing the extenstion for 3.0 and 3.5
I doubt. While I'm sure redistributables do, I've seen applications that claim they need .net 2 while there is client version of .net 3 already installed. It is possible for that fault to be a problem in that particular application setup that I encountered. I'm not an expert in the field of .net so I cannot surely say what's the problem. Now even if all kind of setup packages for all .net frameworks install previous versions as well and can coexist safely, is there anything wrong with my wish? It's not that hard to have a setup that does it, even I might create one for myself, and it helps having more options available. If a system admin notices he only needs .net 2 on one machine and 3 on another and both 2 and 3 on a third machine(say even because of a faulty setup) why don't give him the option when everything it needs is already freely available?
"In the end it's a little boy expressing himself." Yanni