A .netish wish!
-
... 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