Re: .NET haters ought to get a kick out of this

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

Allright. Let me rephrase that. I didn't set out to debate the size of the
framework. I just added a comment to your point about the size of the
runtimes.
It's installed by default on most modern operating systems. It wasn't then.
And just to continue to split hairs :) The VB6 runtime is 1.3 meg, add in a
couple of controls and the installer and you're closer to 2 meg.

In any case my original point was simply about having the runtimes installed
to make a fair comparison.

"mayayana" <mayaXXyana1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1A5ah.3314$sf5.3031@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I wasn't debating the size of the framework,

I daresay that's exactly what you're doing. By the
time you reach the end of the following 2 paragraphs,
you've got the VB runtime at 2 MB that needs to be
installed (when actually it's 1 MB that's
dependably pre-installed on nearly all systems).
And you've got the.Net runtime shrunk to 4 MB, for all
practical purposes. By the time you're through with
the facts it sounds like a comparison betweeen the
two runtimes is splitting hairs. :)

That's exactly what I was referring to in saying
that .Net people make the problem worse by
downplaying it.


I was trying to make a point
that Karl ran the app without the framework installed and then said it
didn't work. (Yes I know he was being a bit tongue in cheek). You would
get
similar results without packaging the VB6 runtime. 2 meg was a pain then
just as 25 meg is a pain now maybe a bit more for some people.

There are .Net packers that embed only parts of the framework that are
actually used into the output exe so no framework needs to be installed.
The
smallest app I've seen was 4 meg. I know someone is going to complain
that
that's too big but I don't see much difference between a 2 meg Hello
World
app and a 4 meg Hello World app in today's terms.

"mayayana" <mayaXXyana1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VgZ9h.3083$sf5.1591@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But in all fairness you would get similar results if you ran a VB6
application without the runtime installed.
When VB6 first came out the runtime wasn't shipped on 9x and NT4.

That's not exactly "all fairness". When VB
first came out everyone shipped the runtime.
It was only 1 MB. Back then 1 MB was somewhat
inconvenient. It was a 4-5 minute download for
most people. But it was still nowhere near the
same problem that a 23-24 MB runtime poses now.
And VB installers installed it, so there was never
an incomprehensible message saying:
"MSVBVM60.DLL not found."

If the .Net runtime were similar then dotNetters
would just package it, too. But they can't because it's
far too big. And it's far too big because it's not
really a runtime. It's a VM. One might even go so far
as to say it's a miniature platform. The v. 2 runtime
unpacks (for me) to about 70 MB. 70 MB! My Win98
system folder is only 245 MB. It probably started out
as more like 150 MB. Yet I need another 70 MB to play
a trinket chess game.

The problem is compounded because dotNetters
are loathe to admit to downloaders that they'll
need to download a vast collection of support files,
so they generally downplay the issue, if they mention
it at all.

There was a discussion about that recently
on the shareware newsgroup. Someone had written
a small program that was already of questionable
size. (12 MB.) On the download page was just a note
under the main download link that said something like:
"This software requires the Microsoft .Net Framework."

The link to get the .Net Framework ( a remote
connection to MS) was in the form of a Microsoft logo.
I suspect that over 90% of the people
who see that page ignore the MS link because
they don't know what ".Net Framework" means,
and they don't care. They just want the software.

Then they download the .Net software (assuming
they have highspeed and don't mind downloading
12 MB.) Then it doesn't work. And that's the end of
that. They react exactly the way that Karl posted.

Hmmmm, all it does here is this:

---------------------------
Chess.exe - Unable To Locate DLL
---------------------------
The dynamic link library mscoree.dll could not be found in the
specified
path


C:\WINNT\TEMP\Rar$EX01.437;.;C:\WINNT\system32;C:\WINNT\system;C:\WINNT;C:\P
rogram Files\WinRAR; ...
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------

Oh well... <delete>
--
Working without a .NET?
http://classicvb.org/












.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deploying Windows app developed in .Net Framework
    ... If you add an Installer project, you can bundle the framework install with ... The app installer itself is not .NET. ... Because client machines, where app will be running, doesn't have ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: .NET haters ought to get a kick out of this
    ... There are .Net packers that embed only parts of the framework that are ... app and a 4 meg Hello World app in today's terms. ... And VB installers installed it, ... need to download a vast collection of support files, ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: .NET haters ought to get a kick out of this
    ... I wasn't debating the size of the framework, I was trying to make a point ... smallest app I've seen was 4 meg. ... And VB installers installed it, ... need to download a vast collection of support files, ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: 1.1 runtime required?
    ... There are breaking changes between releases, and if an app is affected ... There isn't really any DLL Hell here, why not just install the framework was ... Definitive Guide to Windows Installer ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes
    ... > He he, interestingly enough, that URL explicits my point. ... framework, I can, if I'm careful, make the assembly also work with the ... Installer happen only once, and unsurprisingly so, at ... versions of individual assemblies found on a machine. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)