Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Number of people with CLR installed

I'm not sure I'm surprised by the high percentage of people Joel found to have the CLR installed, now that it is part of Windows Update.  Whenever I go there I install everything - if only to stop it nagging me about the same update next time around.  The same with the automatic updates, there doesn't seem to be a way to say "no thanks, and don't ask about that one again", so I just accept them all.  Surely most regular users will do the same?  Also, isn't the run time now included in the latest service packs?

David Neale
Monday, October 21, 2002

I always carefully review the updates I install through Windows Update but then that's probably because I'm on a 56K dial-up connection as much as any other reason.

I don't think the CLR is included with Windows XP SP1 and Windows 2000 SP3.

John Topley
Monday, October 21, 2002

I think that until there is a compelling reason to install the .NET framework, the number of people doing so will be in the minority. Those with broadband might accept it through the Windows update (but how many people actually pay attention to the Windows update at all?)

What will be a compelling reason? An application that they really want, of course! Probably one that has it on the CD, which probably comes from Microsoft, such as the next version of Office, or even Windows itself.

Of course, corporate users will roll it when their IT people decide to.

I think Microsoft will have to take the lead here. Until they get .NET onto the desktops there's little point in software companies releasing applications that require it.

"Let's see, your app is 600K but I need a 20MB download to make it work? No thanks."

There is also a danger users would feel cheated if they download an app and can't make it work without a huge download.

James
(who does have the framework installed)

James Shields
Monday, October 21, 2002

the Dotnet runtime will be more prevalent than AOL cd's.  Give it a little time.  It is going to be like IE, an integral part of the system.  The biggest difficulty I see is having a user base all at the same level of the runtime and with the same securtiy patches.  MS may break your code with an update tot the runtime or security patches to it.

not doing dotnet
Monday, October 21, 2002

"the Dotnet runtime will be more prevalent than AOL cd's.  Give it a little time."

Don't be so sure. My company's app logs system type of the users back to our db, and a significant percentage of them still use Win95 and a lot of them still don't even have the Winsock 2 update issued in 1996. A full 52% use Windows 98 or earlier. You might be surprised at how many people just don't install updates on their machines.

Troy King
Tuesday, October 22, 2002

One of the best sites for this is the google zeitgeist page.
Its at http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html they show Win95 as having a four percent market. (personally I was surprised at the market share Win2K is showing) Linux is down there with 1%, kinda shows the true market share it has on desktops.
Even Dennis Ritchie uses NT to post usenet, (Assuming I've read his Mozilla header right) so I really do feel that targeting Windows as an app developer is the right way to go.
Personally I think the number currently is low, but I'd assume that IE7 will include it and that will quickly bounce the numbers up, for me this isn't a problem as we ship on CD anyway.

Peter Ibbotson
Tuesday, October 22, 2002

IMO in about 2 years it will be as common as kernel32.dll. is now.

20 meg! Big deal.

Alberto
Tuesday, October 22, 2002


Yup, it IS a big deal. Actually, two or more hours for a lot of people (against my own perception, there are many more dial up users than broadband). And many of these dial-up users have to pay in a per-minute basis.

Leonardo Herrera
Tuesday, October 22, 2002

>Don't be so sure. My company's app logs system type of >the users back to our db, and a significant percentage of >them still use Win95 and a lot of them still don't even >have the Winsock 2 update issued in 1996. A full 52% use >Windows 98 or earlier.

But what are the chances that these people buy a significant amount of software anyway?

JB
Tuesday, October 22, 2002

In regards to concerns with microsoft breaking compatibility with the .NET runtime, from my understanding the newer versions run side by side with the old version. 
So if your application was compiled against the version 1.0.3705 of the runtime, then you don't have to worry about the user installing version 1.1 and it breaking compatibility.

Now a problem that might popup is that you compiled against 1.1 and the user only has 1.0.  You'll need to make sure that the user gets the latest version, and there's the rub.

And I SWEAR that when I installed XP Sp1 it came with the .NET runtime automatically.  I was going to try installing XP again and applying just the SP and seeing what happens but I'm out of town teaching this week without access to anything fun.  The FAQ says that the .NET runtime is optional with XP, but it appears if you accept the defaults it appears, to me at least, you get the sucker.

And of course, it doesn't matter if the user gets it with Office XP .NET 2004 or whatever, because they'll need to figure out if they have it or not to know if they should download the 26k file or the 21mb version of an application.  Anyone who would know if they have the .NET framework or not, would also probably have it already installed. 

What would be nice is a setup program that does not include the .NET framework but does a check for it on the system when the install starts.  If the installer can't find it, then it downloads it.  Anyone have any suggestions for such a beast?

Philip Scott
Wednesday, October 23, 2002

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home