 | |
Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?
Dotnet General Discussions microsoft.public.dotnet.general
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application? -
12-28-2007
, 04:55 AM
| Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did, they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not. |
both deal with
a) persistance of data/settings
b) loading of dynamic classes at runtime?
Can you force either to not wrap certain bits of the application up? If so, how?
Shak
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
"jim" <jim (AT) home (DOT) net> wrote in message news:bGTcj.37701$N67.22302 (AT) bignews5 (DOT) bellsouth.net... Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did, they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not. I've not read the websites, apologies, but just out of curiosity how do these both deal with a) persistance of data/settings b) loading of dynamic classes at runtime? Can you force either to not wrap certain bits of the application up? If so, how? |
Check out the Chapter entitled "Isolation Modes" at
http://thinstall.com/help/ThinstallVS.pdf . It explains it much better than
I can here.
jim
#13
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
jim wrote: 2, You don't need to install all those versions of the framework. If a user has any kind of recent OS installation (XP SP2 or higher) they already have a framework installed. Really? When did that start? I am not aware of the framework being installed as a security update or as a part of SP2? That's been one of my pet peeves - why wasn't it? I must be mistaken about XP, but I know Vista has the framework installed. |
automatically install newer versions of the .NEt framework as they are
released. Same problem, different version.
Quote:
|
At most you need 2.0/3.0/3.5. Unless you or your company wrote 1.0 or 1.1 apps. |
corporate environment) will want to use applications regardless of the .Net
framework version. That means that users that want the capability to run
any app written for their version of Windows will need to have every version
of the .Net framework installed.
To my knowledge, there is 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5. That's just over 1.04
GB of uncompressed installations for the .Net framework (assuming a regular
uncompressed size of 208,625,088 bytes as was the case for installing .Net
2.0 on my VM).
Quote:
|
Yes, then you only need 1.0/1.1. It's only problematic in not up to date OSes, and if you are targeting old PCs you probably shouldn't be writing stuff in .NET anyway. Sound logic.....people with older PCs should just get the hell off the internet. I like that! (But I wonder what they would think about it. Hmmmm.... ) What I said and your response are vastly different. I simply suggested you should use a different language for development if your target environment has little to no support for recent updates/the .NET framework. My onus was on the developer, not on the user. |
developer.
Quote:
|
4, Installing an application does not require administrator privileges in any way. Installing an application which needs to access certain parts of the filesystem or registry may require installation privileges, which are available to Power Users. Most useful applications write some data to the registry and do manipulate files (although not necc system files). I have rarely found programs useful that are so simple as to not use the system registry or manipulate files on my systems. Note the *certain parts* in the point you replied to. Anyone can write files to the system, there's a specific spot for it for each user in fact. It's more *where* you can write files to that are controlled by security. |
to use the program that s/he wants to use. They don't care (or even know)
about security issues. If they are challenged with a security dialog, they
will just keep hitting "yes" until they get what they want (which, btw, is
why Vista's UAC is a miserble failure).
As a hobbyist coder, I wnt to code apps that are on par with the system and
environment of my users (the general PC-using public) and to make using my
apps as smooth and seemless as possible. That does not include talking them
through how to get around security restrictions when a simple product like
Thinstall makes security a moot point (for 99.9% of users).
Quote:
|
Using this and #5 as a point *for* Thinstall and its ilk seems odd, since most commercial software nowadays installs. I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal tension. Yes, but trying to get around restrictive administrative policies such as not installing software is probably a breach of the AUP of the organization you work for. Most AUPs I've read/written include copying files which do not alter the windows registry or install to a permanent location as "installation". |
you should work when at work.
I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose.
That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's
house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a
true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that
will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC).
Quote:
|
5, Yes, it may make running the software easy, but how trivial is updating the software, keeping track of (and securing) temporary data caches, etc., etc..? You don't work with the general public, do you? Which is exactly my point. This is why the majority of software comes in installable form and maintains itself by checking for updates. |
general public by their very nature.
Quote:
|
Actually it was smaller the last time we tested Thinstall. I will try and test it again and get you Paint .Net to try for yourself. Smaller than what? Than Paint .Net + the .Net framework. Which wasn't even the discussion at hand. I'm not saying Paint.NET should be used as the basis for comparison, in fact, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. What I'm saying is that I would like to see Paint.NET using Thinstall vs Paint.NET and the .NET framework. |
MUCH smaller than an installation of Paint .Net that requires the install of
the .Net framework.
Quote:
|
As a simple test, we made a "hello world" windows form and compiled it to 6MB. That beat the 24+MB download of the .Net framework alone. And what was the size of your hello world EXE plus the framework compressed into one file? Just over 24MB. (The .Net install is already compressed.) Then how does Thinstall manage to provide full framework functionality in 6MB? |
for the particular application. Or, it did the last time I used it.
Quote:
|
Not only that, you're missing the obvious point that the 24MB framework download is just once, then there's just application updates. 24MB one-time vs 6MB every time there's any kind of update/new version? On some software that could be weekly. Plus, it's not a 1:1 like Xenocode/Thinstall are, since the framework can/will get used by other applications as well. |
consideration is for my applicatio to be as seemless and worry free as
humanly possible. As the developer, I am not concerned with what other
applications use or must install on the users PC. My goal is an orgasmic
experience with my software...period.
And, I so not wish to limit my users from using my software from USB drives
either. Thinstall can wrap the 208+ MB .Net framework plus an app like
Paint .Net into a 47 MB executable that can be executed from almost anywhere
on any PC. (See http://thinstall.com/demos/dnet20/ for this example.)
Quote:
|
Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did, they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not. Well, mostly not. |
way....
You design and
Quote:
|
It isn't for everybody.....but I think it improves the distribution and maintenance of .Net apps for most people. Distribution and ease of access, maybe, but I don't see how it improves maintenance at all. Streaming and replacing or updating single EXEs on a streaming server or on each desktop is infinitely easier than running updates (or, God forbid, uninstalls & re-installs) on each desktop. I don't see how [replacing one file] is "infinitely easier" than [replacing multiple files]. |
community as a whole, the fewer files that upi have to distribute the fewer
things there are to go wrong (i.e. be stomped on by an antivirus app or
anti-Xware app or accidentally deleted by a user or PC cleaning app, etc.).
Quote:
|
I currently care for 18 small businesses and 300+ PC users, and I'll take the short road every time, if the users get the same end result. If you care for all these users' PCs, can't you ensure their PCs have appropriate .NET framework versions? |
I write for the general public. And, while my 300 users may be fat and
happy, I want 3,000,000+ users fat and happy - without having to administer
their PCs.
Quote:
|
If it's of use to you, power to you for being able to use something like this. I was not disputing that in any way, shape, or form. I'm simply suggesting not everyone believes the same, especially since there aren't many threads clamoring to have an all-in-one package like you're suggesting. |
closed system (like a corporate environment) where they can control the
client machines to the nth degree.
But, for my needs in writing and distributing software to the masses, being
able to distribute a single executable and not worry about having a
framework installed or having some other app overwrite my DLL or ActiveX
component with a newer version is a God-send.
Quote:
|
Again, I think it has its place, but for me it wouldn't be anything more than a nifty feature I might use once or twice. Especially since the framework is on everyone I know's PC anyway. |
jim
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Shak" <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote in message news:5tjvjnF1e1mp9U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net... "jim" <jim (AT) home (DOT) net> wrote in message news:bGTcj.37701$N67.22302 (AT) bignews5 (DOT) bellsouth.net... Now, I haven't tried to make a portable app in some time, but when I did, they basically required you to change your app to fit into the portable app scheme. Thinstall\Postbuild do not. I've not read the websites, apologies, but just out of curiosity how do these both deal with a) persistance of data/settings b) loading of dynamic classes at runtime? Can you force either to not wrap certain bits of the application up? If so, how? The short answer is "yes". Check out the Chapter entitled "Isolation Modes" at http://thinstall.com/help/ThinstallVS.pdf . It explains it much better than I can here. |
http://thinstall.com/demos/dnet20/.
It comes in eventually at about 47 MB.
Older versions of Thinstall were not as heavy as the newer Thinstall
Virtualization Suite 3.0. Older versions only included the library
components of .Net needed to run the app. It seems the Thinstall V Suiute
is grabbing a lot more than it used to.
jim
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal tension. Yes, but trying to get around restrictive administrative policies such as not installing software is probably a breach of the AUP of the organization you work for. Most AUPs I've read/written include copying files which do not alter the windows registry or install to a permanent location as "installation". I'm not talking about using software at work that is restricted. Clearly you should work when at work. I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose. That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC). |
turning around and failing to even read what you yourself wrote amazes
me. Enjoy your stay at the troll motel.
Chris.
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
jim wrote: I guess that depends on your Windows permissions and network admin's anal tension. Yes, but trying to get around restrictive administrative policies such as not installing software is probably a breach of the AUP of the organization you work for. Most AUPs I've read/written include copying files which do not alter the windows registry or install to a permanent location as "installation". I'm not talking about using software at work that is restricted. Clearly you should work when at work. I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose. That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC). Ripping on MS MVPs for not reading what they're replying to and then turning around and failing to even read what you yourself wrote amazes me. Enjoy your stay at the troll motel. |
an excuse.
jim
#17
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose. That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC). |
apps, my man.
Quote:
|
Those installable apps are restrigcting themselves when dealing with the general public by their very nature. |
they don't run on anything other than Windows machines.
Quote:
|
What I was saying is that an executable of Paint .Net using Thinstall is MUCH smaller than an installation of Paint .Net that requires the install of the .Net framework. |
Quote:
|
But, for my needs in writing and distributing software to the masses, being able to distribute a single executable and not worry about having a framework installed or having some other app overwrite my DLL or ActiveX component with a newer version is a God-send. |
God-send.
#18
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
I am talking about being able to use your software anywhere you choose. That mey be at home, at school, at an internet cafe, at your friend's house - anywhere. Being able to simply run software without requiring a true installation (where directories are created and registry entries that will NEVER be removed are placed on the PC). That's why I haven't started a new "Windows Application" in 5+ years. Web apps, my man. |
replacement for a true desktop application.
Slow, clunky and an interface that is a bastardization of HTML.
Although .Net is primarily aimed at web based applications (as it's slowness
will testify to), and even taking into consideration that web apps are about
the only apps that you can truly secure, I still abhor them.
Quote:
|
Those installable apps are restrigcting themselves when dealing with the general public by their very nature. So are your Win32 apps. They don't run on Macs, they don't run on linux, they don't run on anything other than Windows machines. |
of the power that I need. (Or, at least I have not seen it yet.)
Quote:
|
What I was saying is that an executable of Paint .Net using Thinstall is MUCH smaller than an installation of Paint .Net that requires the install of the .Net framework. And web apps require *NO* installation of any software whatsoever. |
the exception of running activex controls from the web) is a substitution
for wrtiting desktop applications - especially desktop apps that do intense
work.
Quote:
|
But, for my needs in writing and distributing software to the masses, being able to distribute a single executable and not worry about having a framework installed or having some other app overwrite my DLL or ActiveX component with a newer version is a God-send. For my needs, writing and not even having to distribute software is the real God-send. |
being slow and if you don't mind not being able to use the app when offline
and if you don't have anything really intense to do or want to monitor the
desktop (as a lot of my apps do).
jim
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
That almost makes me want to cry. Web apps (IMHO) are a pathetic replacement for a true desktop application. |
years behind the curve. I have no problem with that. As I mentioned in your
other thread, Delphi will be great for you.
Quote:
|
I still want an APPLICATION. No web based platform that I have seen (with the exception of running activex controls from the web) is a substitution for wrtiting desktop applications - especially desktop apps that do intense work. |
scanning is probably not an ideal candidate for a web app (though many web
sites do offer it via an ActiveX control or some such), but I would maintain
that you can write very complex and useful applications for the web.
QuickBooks Online is a pretty good example.
Quote:
|
Web based software is fine for simple stuff - and if you don't mind the UI being slow and if you don't mind not being able to use the app when offline and if you don't have anything really intense to do or want to monitor the desktop (as a lot of my apps do). |
able to use it from anywhere, and from any OS, and if you don't want to
install anything, and you want your data backed up by the vendor, and you
have multiple users in remote locations around the world, and........
I predict that this internet thing is gonna be big.......
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
"jim" <jim (AT) home (DOT) net> wrote in message news:Rr9dj.31822$Mu4.13870 (AT) bignews7 (DOT) bellsouth.net... That almost makes me want to cry. Web apps (IMHO) are a pathetic replacement for a true desktop application. Well, you are welcome to your own opinion. Sounds like you want to stay 5-10 years behind the curve. I have no problem with that. As I mentioned in your other thread, Delphi will be great for you. I still want an APPLICATION. No web based platform that I have seen (with the exception of running activex controls from the web) is a substitution for wrtiting desktop applications - especially desktop apps that do intense work. Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "intense work". Virus scanning is probably not an ideal candidate for a web app (though many web sites do offer it via an ActiveX control or some such), but I would maintain that you can write very complex and useful applications for the web. QuickBooks Online is a pretty good example. Web based software is fine for simple stuff - and if you don't mind the UI being slow and if you don't mind not being able to use the app when offline and if you don't have anything really intense to do or want to monitor the desktop (as a lot of my apps do). Web based software is fine for most stuff - especially if you want to be able to use it from anywhere, and from any OS, and if you don't want to install anything, and you want your data backed up by the vendor, and you have multiple users in remote locations around the world, and........ |
most.
The web apps offer portability, no install at all, and reach. The desktop
apps offer faster UIs (unless it is .Net - like in Symantec's case), the
ability to do low level stuff and better graphics capabilities.
I am looking into Adobe Air also. It seems to me that Microsoft missed the
boat with Click and Run apps when they locked down the functionality based
on where the .Net app was launched from.
Quote:
|
I predict that this internet thing is gonna be big....... |
jim
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.