<sigh/>
On just about every developer forum I have been on I have seen 'complaints' regarding the need to download a RunTime for .NET
I have been writting 3D .NET applications for several years now. My setup compressed is 250MB (with .NET and DirectX), without it is ~ 210MB. That is not a very big difference and as such I package the required Redistributales with my setup.
And if you distribute on CD it is even less of an issue, include the Runtime on the CD.
Lots of programs nowadays also require IE 5.01 or better installed. That is not a trivial download either. Or WindowsXP sp2 if it isn't already installed.
The same issue used to occure with VB5/6 runtimes, and MFC 4.2 and so on. Most languages require a runtime of some sort to be on the end-users machine.
For the 'Creators Club' the users have to have GSE installed anyways. For windows, use one of the setup packages (including the one that comes with Visual Studio) to create a single file setup that includes the Frameworks Redistributable (which I am sure MS will be providing)
cheers,
Paul
My frustration about the runtime is that it does not come as a automatic update or part of a service pack 2. Let’s say you make a quick application in C# or VB it’s a simple application a megabyte or less, if your user has the runtime it’s a quick download and installation. There have been times I waited to install a program because I did not want to download and install the runtime.
Easier redistribution of XNA Framework games on Windows is definitely on our radar. The exact solution depends on a lot of factors and will not be part of the first release of XNA Game Studio Express. As another thread mentioned, ClickOnce might be interesting and is something we'll investigate but a complete solution will likely need to wait for the Pro edition of XNA Game Studio.
We definitely understand that the utility and value of the Framework for developers targetting Windows is inversely proportional to the ease of deployment. ![]()
Paul
Glad to hear someone at Microsoft recognizes this issue, though based on past events I'm pretty skeptical that any really good solution will emerge for this issue any time soon. C# would be an absolute no-brainer for Windows indie development of all types (not just games) and IMO the #1 reason it isn't far more widely used is because of deployment issues. Given 2 small apps or games that are otherwise similar, one which installs easily and is a 2 megabyte download and one which is difficult to install (possibly requiring reboots) and is 27 or more megabytes, it is pretty clear which a user would choose to download, and with good reason. The .NET team has done a fantastic job of reducing development time and complexity but (so far) all too often it is all-for-naught because the deployment issues are too much of a pain to expect users to deal with if you're doing online/downloadable deployment.
I'll be happy when Vista is widely deployed as this will mitigate the problem to a large degree, but for now it sucks.
gmcbay,
Have you looked at the Microsoft Component Installer? If you're willing to accept that your users need to be connected to install, does it solve some of your issues with .NET installation?