Microsoft NET. framework

[boki]

Is there any way to pack framework in application,if yes how :?:

[tayspen]

You can use a program called Qsetup. it makes setups that you can customize. One of the opptions is adding the framework. Instuctions on how to do this and the download can be found here.

[Toulinwoek]

A program called Setup Factory does the same thing, but in my opinion, with a bit more elegance than QSetup. QSetup also has different versions, and all of them don't support this feature, whereas Setup Factory has only one version . I'd suggest trying both of them out. However, Setup Factory costs about $100 more, but can be customized more, so that would have to be considered.

BTW, at this time, Setup Factory, which uses plugins for this function, doesn't have a plugin for .NET framework 2.0. But since the filename (dotnetfx.exe) is the same for version 1.1 or 2.0, it might not be a problem. I can't imagine that a plugin won't be available very soon, though.

[boki]

Thx im gonna check it out :cheesy: :cheesy:

[boki]

Can i perform that with Inno setup :?: :?:

[tayspen]

Honestyly i have used inno setup but not for long. so i am unaware of some of its functions. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can give you a better answer :cheesy:

[Toulinwoek]

I'm not too sure either. What little I have done with Inno proves to involve too much scripting. This might allow finer control (or maybe not, I don't know), but in the end, I just want to build an installer. The more that process can be automated the better, to me anyway.

[plazmo]

uhh

vs.net has a build in installer wizard. have you tried this yet?

file>new>project>setup and deployment projects>setup wizard

it cant be any easier

[Toulinwoek]

uhh

vs.net has a build in installer wizard. have you tried this yet?

file>new>project>setup and deployment projects>setup wizard

it cant be any easier

That feature does not exist in all versions. For example, the Express Edition doesn't have it. It has a publish feature, but that doesn't have the flexibility of those programs mentioned. Of course, if one is willing to sacrifice features to save cost (some of these setup builders are expensive), one might go ahead with what's provided in the IDE.

[tayspen]

That feature does not exist in all versions. For example, the Express Edition doesn't have it. It has a publish feature, but that doesn't have the flexibility of those programs mentioned. Of course, if one is willing to sacrifice features to save cost (some of these setup builders are expensive), one might go ahead with what's provided in the IDE.

True, i have teh beta version of C# 205 and it does not have it. That is why i use Qsetup.

[boki]

In QSetup the instructions are to put dotnetfx (read tutorial for more info),but i have only 2.0 SDK so they will have to download the rest of setup....its the same thing if i told them to download it from MSDN....

[Toulinwoek]

I think you would not want to force your user to have to download the framework separately. You can just package the .NET framework redistributable with your setup.
The only potential problem I see is whether QSetup is yet able to check for .NET 2.0 (it can check for 1.1).
This is where I think Setup Factory has an advantage over QSetup; enabling dependencies like this (.NET, MDAC, Jet, etc) is accomplished by using plugins. I would think someone would write a .NET 2.0 plugin quicker than Pantary would release an updated version of QSetup. Of course, I could be wrong, plus Setup Factory is $100 more expensive than QSetup!

[plazmo]

I think you would not want to force your user to have to download the framework separately. You can just package the .NET framework redistributable with your setup. The only potential problem I see is whether QSetup is yet able to check for .NET 2.0 (it can check for 1.1). This is where I think Setup Factory has an advantage over QSetup; enabling dependencies like this (.NET, MDAC, Jet, etc) is accomplished by using plugins. I would think someone would write a .NET 2.0 plugin quicker than Pantary would release an updated version of QSetup. Of course, I could be wrong, plus Setup Factory is $100 more expensive than QSetup!

one thing i would also suggest is only program in 1.1 till 2.0 is fully supported. i think you can change c# express to only work with 1.1

[boki]

I dont need it i usually prefer to create applications in 1.1 :rolleyes:

[boki]

Hmm would it be legal to burn framework on cd?

[plazmo]

Hmm would it be legal to burn framework on cd?

no, the framework is free

[Toulinwoek]

Isn't the .NET 2.0 framework being released along with the rest of VS2005? If so, we're looking at just about 2 months. I haven't found a way to allow C# Express to use 1.1, but then I haven't really looked for it. The system requirement said it had to have 2.0 so I just went with it. I don't think I'd go back if I could anyway, since I'm so new to all this; I wouldn't want to suddenly find some of my favorite classes gone or different.

And yes, it is legal to put the framework on CD. It might provide some convenience to your users (keep them from having to do the download).

[tgreer]

Just because the .NET Framework is "free", doesn't necessarily mean it's legal for you to distribute it. You need to research the issues by going to the Microsoft website. This is excerpted from a page on MSDN:

Note If you choose to use the Dotnetfx.exe or redistribute it with an application created by you, you must have a validly licensed copy of the Microsoft .NET Framework SDK (or Visual Studio .NET) and any use or distribution of Dotnetfx.exe is subject to the terms of the end user license agreement you received with the Microsoft .NET Framework SDK (or Visual Studio .NET). If you do not have a validly licensed copy of the Microsoft .NET Framework SDK (or Visual Studio .NET), you are not authorized to use or distribute Dotnetfx.exe.

[boki]

ok thank you for help...im dissapointed:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[tayspen]

boki check PM