Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Does Windows XP Sp2 *automaticallY* include .net?

Hi,

I've heard lots of rumors that .net framework will be in the Windows XP SP2 update automatically.  But, I heard that about SP1 and it wasn't true. .net was a OPTION.

Anyone read anything about that?

The real Entrepreneur
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Nope.  Tough luck desktop dev.

Krag
Thursday, March 04, 2004

I'm not being sarcastic, I really am curious.

I've always heard that as time goes by, less and less users will be without .NET, so the whole can't-run-my-app-until-you-download-100-Meg or whatever will become a non-issue.  *When* is that supposed to start happening?  Is that a Longhorn thing?

Grumpy Old-Timer
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Not including it in SP2 makes me wonder if .NET 1.X is all about Fire & Motion until Longhorn appears...(and so on and so forth.)  Microsoft wants to make inroads in the enterprise application space (ASP.NET, etc) - so why make it *too* easy to deploy desktop apps with .NET?

GiorgioG
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Isn't it easy to deploy desktop .NET applications: via CD, or LAN? Arent the only people who are worried those who want to distribute electronically to home users who have dial-up connections?

Christopher Wells
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Because many...many...businesses have sales staff that travel around and need access via dialup.

GiorgioG
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Yes, it's easy to distribute the framework as long as the size (about 25MB) isn't a problem.  Also, it's only a one time hit -- after the framework is installed, it's there for every program that needs it.  E.g., if you need to support traveling employees, just install the framework before they go on the road.

Robert Jacobson
Thursday, March 04, 2004

"Also, it's only a one time hit -- after the framework is installed, it's there for every program that needs it.  "

If installing the .net framework is so trivial, why doesn't microsoft make it mandatory? They'd get MUCH faster adoption of .net programming if they did.

The real Entrepreneur
Thursday, March 04, 2004

And...






I really don't want to rehash this ongoing argument.

Simply put: any additional burden you place on the customer will lower sales and cost you money (and good will).

YOu have to include .net in your download whether they have it or not, because if they do NOT have it, they're going to be confused and probably give up. (Most people can't even remember WHERE they downloaded your file to, much less remembering ... oh yeah, I have to go back to the website, find file xyz, etc. etc.)

Yes, there are ways to make the above simpler. However, they involve a lot more moving parts (dynamic downloads from the web which run afoul of firewalls and antivirus software).

And, no, I don't think we'll get a point where 90% of users have .net until maybe around 2010.

I still have alot of customers on win 95 and one or two on windows 3.1. 

And then, there's the problem of which VERSION of .net they have.  With .net covering sooo much code, we're going to get a lot of updates of .net.

So... do you develop agains the latest version of .net?  Which very few people will have?

Or do you dev vs. 1.0 and test agains 1.1, and 1.2 and 1.3, etc.)


Honestly, I've been hearing the "oh, Microsoft will put the runtime in the next version of Windows" for about 9 Y E A R S now. It's wearing thin. 

Hopefully Longhorn will actually have .net in it.  But that's 2 years (at least) off.

The real Entrepreneur
Thursday, March 04, 2004

<< if you need to support traveling employees, just install the framework before they go on the road. >>

This is much harder than it sounds.

First of all, salesreps are hardly ever in town.  They're on the road, hopefully making sales.  Getting them to come in just for a software update is a "non-starter".  If you're *lucky*, they all come in once per quarter, and will leave their laptops with you for a while.

So deploying a .NET application would seem to require a lot of advance planning; more than usual, I mean.

Grumpy Old-Timer
Thursday, March 04, 2004

You have to know who your customers are before you decide you can't ask them to download a 25MB framework.  Your business decision should revolve around that.

In our case, our products are distributed via CD, but we will give customers advanced download links.  With our first .NET desktop app I custom designed a setup launcher that looks to see if .NET is installed.  If not, it looks to see if I can install it.  If not, it will launch the MS site to download it, and won't continue until it's installed.

We did this because our customers could care less about what the platform is, or what they need to get to run the software.  They're doing research, so the software needs to be fast and accurate.

To date, we have had no complaints about downloading the framework for those who download in advance (of course, we ship the framework on the CD).

The point is, know your customers before making the decisions.

As a side note, when we analyze our website's browser stats (what browsers are looking at the site), we are seeing a good number with .NET installed (>30%)

Walt
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Entrepreneur,  I largely agree with you.  It's a PITA that Microsoft didn't include the framework with the original Windows XP, much less SP1 and (apparently) SP2.

OTOH, for my work, the many benefits of .Net outweigh this drawback.  Obviously, your cost-benefit analysis for .Net could be very different.

Robert Jacobson
Thursday, March 04, 2004

"Hopefully Longhorn will actually have .net in it.  But that's 2 years (at least) off."  More than that.  The word is now we get XP Reloaded as in interim release, I sh!t you not, that's what they are calling it.  Great, Windows ME.

I know, if the runtime download is no big deal, why not insist users have ALL security patches applied as well?  Then after only 5 days of being online via dialup they could try your little office utility demo thingy.

"It's a PITA that Microsoft didn't include the framework with the original Windows XP, much less SP1 and (apparently) SP2."  What's the point with all the updating you'd have to do you might as well get fresh anyway.

Mike
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Mike,

What's your source for the Longhorn delay and XP reloaded?

PS - Maybe it should be XP: rebooted ? :-)

The real Entrepreneur
Thursday, March 04, 2004

Here you go Real
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5165966.html

I think if they call it reloaded it will be a mistake, as pretty much everyone has windows reloaded at one time or another;)

Mike
Thursday, March 04, 2004

"It's a PITA that Microsoft didn't include the framework with the original Windows XP."

That would've required a time machine, which Microsoft R&D hasn't perfected yet. :-p (Windows XP released October 2001, .NET 1.0 released January 2002)

As for SP1, .NET is included in XP SP1, but only the CD version. The download version doesn't include it. When OEMs got new versions of the XP install image w/ SP1 slip-streamed into it, .NET was an optional component that they could elect to install or not.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Friday, March 05, 2004

Just a thought...

Everyone is always talking about making their new apps backwards compatible with people running Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.  I hate to say it, but these are the people that don't upgrade and don't buy new software as evidenced by the fact that they are running an operating system that is almost 10 years old.  If you're planning on releasing a .net product, chances are that it's a new product, and not an upgrade of an exisiting product, and these people aren't going to buy it anyways.

If your product is indeed a mature product, and for some reason you saw a benefit in porting all of your existing code to .net (certainally it's not cost effective in the short or medium term and maybe not the long term if its really a mature product) then I guess you have legitimate concerns.  Although, I wonder if you're not worrying about the wrong problem.

Elephant
Friday, March 05, 2004

I suspect one reason MS isn't shipping the framework with the SP is for fear of being lambasted with another competiter lawsuit.
Another reason could be they feel 1.0 and 1.1 were "early adopter" releases and they will not go into serious deployment mode until 2.0.

Just me (Sir to you)
Friday, March 05, 2004

> people running Windows 3.1 and Windows 95

I think that The real Entrepreneur's market might be more like: I bought my mum her first computer, 15 months ago. It runs XP. She's learned to use email and some word-processing, but hasn't the expertise to e.g. plug in a new printer (i.e. to know about installing software); and even I might find a 25 MB download daunting over her dial-up connection.

Can you consider letting people order the software on CD, as well as via download?

Christopher Wells
Friday, March 05, 2004

Have you ever known your mum, no, make that any "mum" (which I shall use as a generic term for elderly female that has no clue plugging in the USB printer) buying software?

Just me (Sir to you)
Friday, March 05, 2004

I digressed: I think TRE's concern is people who *do* buy software but who have a dial-up connection.

Ease of installation would be important too, but second to the problem of getting the software in the first place.

I failed to download the XP service packs for her, for example (the connection reset, an hour or so into the download).

Christopher Wells
Friday, March 05, 2004

"people running Windows 3.1 and Windows 95....these are the people that don't upgrade and don't buy new software as evidenced by the fact that they are running an operating system that is almost 10 years old"


Actually, the way it works is this:

Grandma might be willing to spend $500 on software, but not if they ALSO need to spend $500 on a new PC.  But, wait, thier grandson has an old Windows 95 PC sitting in his garage. He's be happy to bring it over to grandma's and plug it in for her.

Viola.

BTW, technologically unsophisticated customes willing to pay much much more for software than techies IF IT IS EASY TO USE.

Read "Crossing the Chasm".  Early adopters aren't too demanding, but it needs to be cheap. Late adopters are willing to pay a lot but it has to work well and be EASY to use.


The barrier that .net poses isn't simply one of download TIME. It's that this causes a cognitive disruption.  They have to stop MY install, then install .net (possibly answering IT'S questions and having minor snafus) then get back to MY program).  There's also the issue of needing IE 5. (I know IE 5 included on Win 2000+).

BOTTOM LINE:  .net has no real benefits to me. My software is fairly simple. No need for complex inheritance schemes, etc.  But it has to be EASY TO USE.

The only way to find out if my .net concerns are real is to make a huge investment:  writing .net programs, coming up with all the workarounds to make installing it painless, etc. 


Anyway... I really didn't want to rehash this thread again. I don't mind discussing it, but it's been done to death.

Thanks!

The real Entrepreneur
Friday, March 05, 2004

BTW, XPSP1 does include .NET, it's just not installed by default.

I think dotnetfx is a pretty silent install, so at least that part can be done with little cognitive dissonance: your installer just says "please wait", installs .NET in the background, then says "ok, i'm doing something else, please wait some more."

mb
Friday, March 05, 2004

"Grandma might be willing to spend $500 on software, but not if they ALSO need to spend $500 on a new PC.  But, wait, thier grandson has an old Windows 95 PC sitting in his garage. He's be happy to bring it over to grandma's and plug it in for her."

In my experience the grandma would buy a bundle at a local PC store (computer+the software installed), or if it is the leftover from the grandson the grandson will also have taken care of installing a *cough* copy *ahem* *cough* on the machine.

Just me (Sir to you)
Monday, March 08, 2004

Just sir wrote : "In my experience the grandma would buy a bundle at a local PC store (computer+the software installed), or if it is the leftover from the grandson the grandson "


1. Our software is highly specialized.
2. It's for stroke survivors, so grandson's don't have it.

The real Entrepreneur
Monday, March 08, 2004

real,

if it is that critical (I'm thinking possibly critical alarm type stuff here) maybe it would be wiser to advice them NOT to run it on past MTBF harware running Windows95?

Just me (Sir to you)
Thursday, March 11, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home