.NET vs Java (Windows service development)
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Delay Methods
Next: VB Community Transition
From: Karl E. Peterson on 23 Jul 2010 12:11 DickGrier pretended : > No, I use is occasionally. Take a look at your XP(s). Do you have SP3 > installed? Is the .NET framework present? If not, there is something funny > going on. ..NET is not a part of XP/SP3. It's an optional Windows Update item. Here's a couple screenshots of a fairly clean XPMode VM, used just to build VB6 stuff: http://www.mvps.org/temp/CleanXP-SP3a.gif http://www.mvps.org/temp/CleanXP-SP3b.gif This was just downloaded and built a couple-few months ago. For the most part, it's up to date on updates. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Mayayana on 23 Jul 2010 14:10 | Of course, I'm speaking for myself. For whom else should I be speaking? | You said: "I think you are being stubborn. The dependency already is there" ..."I've never deployed the .Net framework." It's there in your world, but not in everyone's. I wouldn't have spoken up if you had said that it's not an issue *for you*. But you didn't. You just said it's not an issue. Tom does the same thing. People who work in corporate environments get used to their limited world and then make general statements that simply don't apply to SOHo PCs, or even to all corporate situations. |Try running a Windows PC without the .NET framework installed, | and see what application set you get, and what is cannot be used. Then, | decide if you really want to continue to use Windows, of move somewhere else | (where there are equivalent dependencies -- this is the way of the world). | Again, IMO. | As I said in an earlier post, I don't have any .Net or Java installed. I have OpenOffice installed, but I've installed the no-Java version. Whatever is missing is not something I need. (I'm hoping the OO people will eventually get their act together and clean out the Java dependency before I do need it.) What would I need .Net for? Paint.Net? Symantec bloatware? I'm looking at this not just from the point of view of someone using VB, but also as a non-corporate end-user. On the infrequent occasions when I look for software and find that something needs .Net, I just keep looking. It doesn't make sense to install 70-300+ MB of bloat with possible security issues down the line, just to use a single program. (And if it was written in .Net that implies either 1] the author is an MS partner writing extreme bloat or 2] the author is a beginner who probably doesn't even know about the framework requirement.) Among friends and family, most are using XP. Some may have .Net installed. I don't know of anyone who does offhand. If I were writing .Net software for public release, therefore, I'd have to assume that the runtime may need to be installed, especially if I were using greater than .Net 2. (At my own website, which gets a lot of tweakers and corporate admins looking for scripts, most people using IE have .Net 3.5 installed. But a fair number have only .Net 2. Very few have .Net 4. .Net v. 2 is 5 years old now. Are all you DotNettiacs just stopping with the 2005 version? That might help explain why you don't think the framework needs to be installed.) | Here is a suggestion... Go to Control Panel and uninstall all versions of | the .NET framework that you find. Have you done that? | No need. It's already clean. :) You really are living in an isolated environment if you think that Windows isn't worth using without .Net, or that the framwork dependency is a non-issue. Looking at my installed software, on XP SP3, I've got VS6, several editors, OO, Paint Shop Pro 5, GIMP, IrfanView, ImgBurn, DVD Flick, some ZIP programs, hex editors, HTML Help Workshop, VLC Media Player, Foxit, OCR software, Filezilla, Firefox, K-Meleon, a firewall, a downloader program for large files, several Sysinternals programs, and probably a dozen other small utilities. (Defragger, installer unpackers, TweakUI, etc.) ....None of them needs .Net. I also have a very good boot manager/disk imager/partition utility called BootIt. I bought it when I needed to upgrade from Partition Magic/Drive Image. It fits on a floppy and cost me $35. The DorNettified Drive Image costs more, is over 40 MB, and does far less than BootIt. (Imagine trying to write something low-level like that in .Net?! :)
From: Tom Shelton on 24 Jul 2010 13:39 Mayayana submitted this idea : >> Of course, I'm speaking for myself. For whom else should I be speaking? >> > > You said: "I think you are being stubborn. > The dependency already is there" ..."I've never > deployed the .Net framework." > > It's there in your world, but not in everyone's. I wouldn't > have spoken up if you had said that it's not an issue *for you*. > But you didn't. You just said it's not an issue. Tom does the > same thing. People who work in corporate environments get > used to their limited world and then make general statements > that simply don't apply to SOHo PCs, or even to all corporate > situations. > Oh, enlighten us great Mayayana... Shower us with your wisdom and knowledge that we may share your vision... In case you didn't detect that, the above was sarcasam. I sure would like to know what makes you think you are the one with the wide perspective. From what I can see, you are small time independant software vender. Nothing wrong with that, I in fact admire you for having the courage to make a go of it - and to succeed at it. But, I don't exactly think that gives you some extra special view of the software industry beyond maybe your limited customer base. In fact, reading your website and some of your rants here - especially regarding security - proves to me the exact opposite. >> Try running a Windows PC without the .NET framework installed, >> and see what application set you get, and what is cannot be used. Then, >> decide if you really want to continue to use Windows, of move somewhere >> else (where there are equivalent dependencies -- this is the way of the >> world). Again, IMO. >> > > As I said in an earlier post, I don't have any .Net or > Java installed. I have OpenOffice installed, but I've > installed the no-Java version. Whatever is missing is not > something I need. (I'm hoping the OO people will eventually > get their act together and clean out the Java dependency > before I do need it.) > It will not be removed. It is the basis for OOo's automation api. Besides, Java came from Sun, Start Office came from Sun, OOo comes from the Star Office code base. So, dream on. > What would I need .Net for? Paint.Net? Symantec bloatware? > I'm looking at this not just from the point of view of someone > using VB, but also as a non-corporate end-user. On the > infrequent occasions when I look for software and find that > something needs .Net, I just keep looking. It doesn't > make sense to install 70-300+ MB of bloat with possible security > issues down the line, just to use a single program. > (And if it was written in .Net that implies either 1] the author > is an MS partner writing extreme bloat or 2] the author is > a beginner who probably doesn't even know about the framework > requirement.) > Again with the arrogance - and from a VB developer no less. You are sounding just like those C/C++ guys that used to down VB all the time. > Among friends and family, most are using XP. Some > may have .Net installed. I don't know of anyone who > does offhand. Of course not, how would you unless you were to inspect there machine's. In fact, I'm sure most of them wouldn't know either - or actually care. But, my suspicion is that, if you were to inspect those machines you would find that many of them DID already have it installed. > If I were writing .Net software for public > release, therefore, I'd have to assume that the runtime > may need to be installed, Of course, just like it used to be practice to assume the vb runtime be installed... Duh. It's part of the standard installer to check and run the .NET installer boot strapper. > especially if I were using greater > than .Net 2. Greater then 2.0 - you will likely have to install yes. > (At my own website, which gets a lot of > tweakers and corporate admins looking for scripts, most > people using IE have .Net 3.5 installed. Told ya. > But a fair number > have only .Net 2. Yep. > Very few have .Net 4. of course, it was just released. > .Net v. 2 is 5 years > old now. Are all you DotNettiacs just stopping with the > 2005 version? No. VS2008 and VS2010 let you target the 2.0 runtime. In fact, .NET 3.0 and 3.5 are simply extensions to the 2.0 libraries. They all use the same core runtimer. .NET 4, is the first new runtime since 2.0. Of course, if you target 2.0 you can't use some of the new libraries - those make up WPF, WCF, WF, and Linq stuff. But, you can still use all of the new language features. > That might help explain why you don't think > the framework needs to be installed.) > >> Here is a suggestion... Go to Control Panel and uninstall all versions of >> the .NET framework that you find. Have you done that? >> > > No need. It's already clean. :) > You really are living in an isolated environment if you > think that Windows isn't worth using without .Net, or that > the framwork dependency is a non-issue. > It is a non-issue. For most people it's about a 5 minute deal to isntall over the internet. And, the new client profile starting with 3.5 sp1 is something like a 28MB install package. But go ahead, keep exagerating the size. It's the lamest argument you have on a modern PC, but, OK. > Looking at my installed software, on XP SP3, I've got VS6, > several editors, OO, Paint Shop Pro 5, GIMP, IrfanView, ImgBurn, > DVD Flick, some ZIP programs, hex editors, HTML Help > Workshop, VLC Media Player, Foxit, OCR software, Filezilla, > Firefox, K-Meleon, a firewall, a downloader program for large > files, several Sysinternals programs, and probably a dozen > other small utilities. (Defragger, installer unpackers, TweakUI, > etc.) > ...None of them needs .Net. > Good. > I also have a very good boot manager/disk imager/partition utility > called BootIt. I bought it when I needed to upgrade from Partition > Magic/Drive Image. It fits on a floppy and cost me $35. The > DorNettified Drive Image costs more, is over 40 MB, and does > far less than BootIt. (Imagine trying to write something low-level > like that in .Net?! :) LOL... I guarentee you that it would be easier to write something low level like that in .NET then VB.CLASSIC. -- Tom Shelton
From: Mayayana on 24 Jul 2010 14:25 | > It's there in your world, but not in everyone's. I wouldn't | > have spoken up if you had said that it's not an issue *for you*. | > But you didn't. You just said it's not an issue. Tom does the | > same thing. People who work in corporate environments get | > used to their limited world and then make general statements | > that simply don't apply to SOHo PCs, or even to all corporate | > situations. | > | I sure would | like to know what makes you think you are the one with the wide | perspective. I make no claims. Perhaps you could read what I actually wrote (above). It seems clear enought to me. |> OpenOffice installed...Java dependency | | It will not be removed. It is the basis for OOo's automation api. Ah. Thanks. I wondered about that. Hopefully I'll never need to install it.
From: se on 25 Jul 2010 13:47
> In fact in my previous postings I have specifically invited others here in > the group to download your code from your own provided link and to check > it out with those size of bitmaps on their own machines. I cannot be > fairer than that. Unfortunately (mostly through my own fault I will admit, > because of my overly aggressive arguments with micro$oft and with dotnet > evangelists) I seem to have run out of friends here in the group over the > last couple of years and so nobody has yet responded (and my enemies are > hardly likely to report a crash!), Yeah... man You're making yourself enemies !. > but hopefully some people will respond eventually. > Mike |