johndoe________________

Hello. I have a small problem. I wrote a simple program on my vista machine and I created the exe for the program. But when i distibute the program there is a tiny problem. The program requires the net framework 3.5 to be downloaded. my program is about 100 kb. It is very small program but .net framework 3.5 is about 120 mb and most people dont have it installed on their computer(xp machines dont have it). For a program which does a little task like this nobody wants to download such a huge pocket, that's for sure.

What am i supposed to do Isnt there a way to run the program without .Net Framework or is there any solution to run it with a less costly way I really need your help.

Thanks in advance.



Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

JohnWein

Use Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition and convert your program to native code.





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

johndoe________________

Thanks for the answer JohnWein. But can you please elaborate it a bit. The code I have written is in C# language. Is it possible to compile it in a c++ compiler I also have visual c++ express edition but my program contains windows forms. How is it possible to convert it What do you mean by converting it to native code

Cand you please tel me what you mean step by step
Thanks




Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Matt

No. C# cannot be compiled in a C++ compiler.

If you are using the Visual Studio 2008 Beta2, you can set the .NET framework to ship your application with. This can be found by right clicking the solution and selecting "properties" and setting the .NET framework.

If you are using Visual Studio 2005, you will automatically compile for the .NET framework 2.0, which is required by the CLR 2.0 runtime used by C#.




Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Ken_L

The .Net frame works is a requirement for a computer to run an application in .Net. You cannot convert a C# app to native code with a C++ compiler.

Here are you ONLY choices

1 - Install the .Net framework on the client computer

2 - write an ASPX (asp.net) application and point your clients to the web site that hosts your new web app

3 - Write your application in the compact .Net framework. The compact framework is much lighter, you can install it on your client along with your app. HOWEVER you lose almost ALL the functionality the .Net 3.5 framework offers. That is not to say you cannot develop your app to do eveything you need/want it to do.

4 - write your application in traditional C+ or VB6 - But then it is not a.Net app.






Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Jaume

Hello, this is jaume from spain; sorry my bad english.

-------

This is just my issue; I wanted to ask for it too, so i write here about it.

It has been always a very high issue. I work with .Net Framework 2.0, mostly Web App; but I would like do comercial applications with win forms. I have done one comercial app, in VBA access; but i want to do one more complex, so it would be better do it with Visual C# .NET

Does not microsoft thought about this matter I don't think solution is ASP.NET, Even Ajax... It's still much better and easy to program a Win app than a Web app; and also much more appropiate deppending of the app type.

You can't ask users(customers) they need to download .NET framework. User: , he will not understand and so won't download your app. Also if you include it in an instalation, the file will be very heavy, and user don't like to download a simple app with 30 MByte.

I think we need a instalator wich do follow:

.pack only your app

. When user run setup, Check if framework is instaled, and if not, download framework from microsoft servers

. Install framework in a hide way for user. Not to say framework is installing, user will not understand.

. And Last install your app.

does it exists Why microsoft don't include .NET framework 2.0 or higher in Win XP ; I think it's a big mistake

Thank you very much





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Matt

ClickOnce is a technology integrated into Visual Studio which does just this - it turns your project into an installer which does things like downloading .NET if it has not been installed.

Please note that on Windows Vista (TM) the .NET 2.0 Framework is installed as standard.

Please also note that if the .NET framework were not included in your project, you would have to code everything yourself (you could use no functions like int.Parse or String.Substring or String.IndexOf or System.Drawing.Image), so before you condemn Microsoft for not providing you with this option, perhaps you should thank them for building those libraries for you to use for free.




Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Jaume

Thanks Matt,

I didn't know it. Sorry.

How can I use this tecnology

Do i have to download anything

Is it a installer wich i have to download

It's possible to use from express edition

Thank you very much.





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Jaume

I've found this URL, in spanish.

http://www.elguille.info/NET/vs2005/clickonce_pub/ClickOnce.aspx

Thanks.





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Jaume

IT'S Wonderful

Sorry and thanks Microsoft.





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

IsshouFuuraibou

As for the original problem, if your application doesn't use any of the new features of 3.5, then you should be able to compile it for 2.0. Most of the 3.5 is expansions to the 2.0 core. However if you use any of the new features of 3.5 (type inference, LinQ, etc) then you're clients must have 3.5 installed, otherwise your application wouldn't know how to work.





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Chris Dunaway

IsshouFuuraibou wrote:
Most of the 3.5 is expansions to the 2.0 core.

I don't believe this is correct. .Net 3.0 are extensions to the 2.0 core and include WF, WPF, and WCF. But 3.5 is the next version of the framework (which includes Linq, type inference, etc.) and not just extensions to 2.0

Cheers.

Chris





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

IsshouFuuraibou

Linq is built upon the same technologies of 2.0. I don't see the problem, you can't access WPF without 3.0 even though the core is still 2.0. It's the "Redbits" vs "Greenbits" explanation, at least what I remember from blogs, articles, and the msdn event about linq.

https://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx PostID=2041912&SiteID=1
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2007/06/12/net-framework-3-5.aspx

Our goal with the .NET Framework 3.5 was to make it very easy for customers to adopt while providing some really interesting new value. The "easy to adopt" comes from what we call the "Redbits".. There we are using the same core bits as .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 (we just rolled in an SP1 to fix customer reported issues and such)... there should be no breaking changes there and these SPs will be made available on windows update for everyone with 2.0 and\or 3.0...

The new value comes from the "greenbits" that are brand new assemblies.








Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

Chris Dunaway

The point I was trying to make is that .Net 3.0 was just the additional assemblies for WF, WPF, and WCF added on. you are essentially using .Net 2.0. .Net 3.5, which includes Linq, etc. is not just 2.0 with some additional assemblies. They are separate versions of the framework.

Microsoft should have versioned the 3.0 stuff to something like 2.1 and made Linq, etc. v 3.0. That would have made more sense.

Chris





Re: Visual C# Express Edition I don't want Net Framework to be downloaded !!!

IsshouFuuraibou

I agree with you on the naming, but from what I understand 3.5 isn't a major change, yes the addition of Linq and other things are significant, but the bulk of the framework wasn't changed to accomadate these things. There were some more additions and alterations in 3.0, mainly for security, but the addition of WF, WPF, and WCF is a significant but again not core-changing technology. I wished that Microsoft avoided the versioning confusion with the framework. One question is why 3.5 wasn't called 4.0 if it is a significant change from 3.0. I'll do some testing on VS 2008 Beta 2 later tonight.