Dot net installer is a joke

[Michael Culley]

Ok, I've been using dot net for the last few months and have found it to be
awesome. But up until now I haven't made an install. I made my install and
decided to test it on a fresh install, of win95. Oops forgot about that. OK,
so tried a fresh install of win98. No good, I had to download ie5. This
requires users of 56k modems to wait approx a half hour just to have it fail
and start all over again. Then they have to install the framework which sits
at 100% done with '0 seconds remaining' for about 10 minutes with no hard
drive activity. The only reason I didn't push ctrl-alt-delete is because the
install of vs.net did they same thing so I knew what to expect. If any users
actually get through all this they can then finally install my app. What a
lot of f***ing around just so M$ can force people to use win98 and ie5+.
Sheesh.

PS. I know I'm going to get flamed to death by people who can't take
criticism of .net even when it is due, but I don't care.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com

[Bob]

In article <3d20294b@10.1.10.29>, m_culley@hotmail.com says...
> Ok, I've been using dot net for the last few months and have found it to be
> awesome. But up until now I haven't made an install. I made my install and
> decided to test it on a fresh install, of win95. Oops forgot about that. OK,
> so tried a fresh install of win98. No good, I had to download ie5. This
> requires users of 56k modems to wait approx a half hour just to have it fail
> and start all over again. Then they have to install the framework which sits
> at 100% done with '0 seconds remaining' for about 10 minutes with no hard
> drive activity. The only reason I didn't push ctrl-alt-delete is because the
> install of vs.net did they same thing so I knew what to expect. If any users
> actually get through all this they can then finally install my app. What a
> lot of f***ing around just so M$ can force people to use win98 and ie5+.
> Sheesh.
>
> PS. I know I'm going to get flamed to death by people who can't take
> criticism of .net even when it is due, but I don't care.
>
> --
> Michael Culley
> www.vbdotcom.com
>
Michael,

Anyone who uses a version of IE < 5.01 has serious security problems on their
machine, so whether they know it or not, you're doing them a favor.

Bob

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:29:56 +1000, "Michael Culley"
<m_culley@hotmail.com> wrote:

>PS. I know I'm going to get flamed to death by people who can't take
>criticism of .net even when it is due, but I don't care.

You don't deserve flames for telling the truth! The rot started to set
in when Microsoft introduced the PoS known as Windows Installer.
Before WI, installers such as Wise worked fine. You clicked the .Exe
and away it went. But then Microsoft decided it could make the
installation process several orders of magnitude more convoluted. And
because they can, they did! I remember some horrendous installation
where it kept downloading bits and pieces from the internet for ages.
Friggin' nightmare. They don't have a clue what ordinary users like
doing.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:26:14 -0500, Bob <no@spam.com> wrote:

>Anyone who uses a version of IE < 5.01 has serious security problems on their
>machine, so whether they know it or not, you're doing them a favor.

How did they manage to get to version 5 without fixing serious
security problems? Does version 6 have no problems? Is there a version
7 in the pipeline? What about versions 8 and 9 - when are they due?

MM

[james]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d207a91.2951489@news.devx.com...
>
> You don't deserve flames for telling the truth! The rot started to set
> in when Microsoft introduced the PoS known as Windows Installer.
> Before WI, installers such as Wise worked fine. You clicked the .Exe
> and away it went. But then Microsoft decided it could make the
> installation process several orders of magnitude more convoluted. And
> because they can, they did! I remember some horrendous installation
> where it kept downloading bits and pieces from the internet for ages.
> Friggin' nightmare. They don't have a clue what ordinary users like
> doing.
>
> MM

There are still 3rd party installers out there Mike. No one is forcing
anyone to use Microsoft's installer.
james

[Kunle Odutola]

"Michael Culley" <m_culley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d20294b@10.1.10.29...
> OK,
> so tried a fresh install of win98. No good, I had to download ie5.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/.../sample.asp?ur
l=/msdn-files/027/001/829/msdncompositedoc.xml

> This
> requires users of 56k modems to wait approx a half hour just to have it
fail
> and start all over again.

These same users often download IE5 and even larger applications if they
feel there is a benefit.

> If any users
> actually get through all this they can then finally install my app. What a
> lot of f***ing around just so M$ can force people to use win98 and ie5+.

You think the requirement for IE5 (replaced by IE5.01, 5.5, 6...) and
Windows 98 (WinMe/XP) is just to force people to use them?. Not related to
the fact that this products have not been discontinued or perhaps that .NET
in some ways depends on features only present in these versions?.

> Sheesh.

My thoughts exactly.

Kunle

[Michael Culley]

> You think the requirement for IE5 (replaced by IE5.01, 5.5, 6...) and
> Windows 98 (WinMe/XP) is just to force people to use them?. Not related to
> the fact that this products have not been discontinued or perhaps that
..NET
> in some ways depends on features only present in these versions?.

Are you kidding, of course it so MS can force people to upgrade. Billy gates
himself said that his biggest competition is not linux/apple and the like
but previous versions of windows. Too many people are sticking with windows
95 because, for alot of people, there is no reason to upgrade. So whats poor
billy to do? I know, lets give them a reason to upgrade, lets stop apps
working on win95.

Are you really telling me that it would have been impossible (or even
difficult) to get .net to work on win95?

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com

[Frank Oquendo]

Michael Culley had this to say:

> Are you really telling me that it would have been impossible (or even
> difficult) to get .net to work on win95?

Probably not but I, for one, am very grateful I'll never have to field a
tech call from a Win95 user.

--
http://www.acadx.com
"If you want to be somebody else change your mind"

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:34:00 -0500, "Frank Oquendo" <nospam@please.com>
wrote:

>Probably not but I, for one, am very grateful I'll never have to field a
>tech call from a Win95 user.

Probably not many needing to make those tech calls! Win 95 is still
being used, as is Win 98, because people don't like change for
change's sake. Mind you, the bugs leading to those tech calls you got
should have been fixed for free, not by paid-for upgrades to Win 98.
Yet another reason why folks won't upgrade. They're too darn worried
they may be buying themselves a whole heap more trouble, an even
bigger pig in a poke. Better stick with the piglet they know how to
handle already.

MM

[Kunle Odutola]

"Michael Culley" <mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d20d019@10.1.10.29...
> > You think the requirement for IE5 (replaced by IE5.01, 5.5, 6...) and
> > Windows 98 (WinMe/XP) is just to force people to use them?. Not related
to
> > the fact that this products have not been discontinued or perhaps that
> .NET
> > in some ways depends on features only present in these versions?.
>
> Are you kidding, of course it so MS can force people to upgrade.

Watch out for the black helicopters man.

> I know, lets give them a reason to upgrade, lets stop apps
> working on win95.

Your apps have stopped working on Windows 95?

> Are you really telling me that it would have been impossible (or even
> difficult) to get .net to work on win95?

Impossible? -- No.
Difficult? -- Yes.
Justified? -- No.
Particularly desirable (or desired by MS customers)? -- No.

Kunle

PS If you really want it. Seek out Rotor and port it to Windows 95.....or
go for Mono.....

[John Butler]

Michael

If you have a serious commercial app to deliver, you're better off using
serious installers like InstallShield or Wise. I use Wise myself, but
they're both great products and can provide a much better upgrade/install
experience for the user.

I presume your customers would be downloading everything you build over the
Internet? In which case...not nice indeed, as they face a 20MB+ download
before they get to see your app.

Wise or Installshield won't change that, but they can make the process more
intuitive and provide feedback while it all happens....

rgds
John Butler

[Michael Culley]

> Watch out for the black helicopters man.

Why is it in this NG that any criticism of MS is consider paranoid?

> Your apps have stopped working on Windows 95?

You know exactly what I meant.

> Impossible? -- No.
> Difficult? -- Yes.
> Justified? -- No.

Give me specific reasons why it is so hard to get windows apps to run on
windows95.

> Particularly desirable (or desired by MS customers)? -- No.

The fact is that some customers will go to a competitor because my app does
not run on win95. The fact is that this is a bad thing. I don't see why it
wouldn't be desirable.

> PS If you really want it. Seek out Rotor and port it to Windows
95.....or
> go for Mono.....

Can you explain this further?

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com

[Michael Culley]

> If you have a serious commercial app to deliver, you're better off using
> serious installers like InstallShield or Wise. I use Wise myself, but
> they're both great products and can provide a much better upgrade/install
> experience for the user.

I was hoping that this would have changed for .net

> I presume your customers would be downloading everything you build over
the
> Internet? In which case...not nice indeed, as they face a 20MB+ download
> before they get to see your app.

I was hoping they could download it from the internet but I might have to
circulate CDs. The ironic thing is that in order to make an autorun program
in a rad environment I will have to use something like delphi.

> Wise or Installshield won't change that, but they can make the process
more
> intuitive and provide feedback while it all happens....

This is probably what I will end up doing. I did it before using
InstallSheild for a combination DCOM/MDAC and VB6 app. It was quite alot of
work. We now use the NSIS installer which is free.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com

[David A. Rothgery]

Michael Culley <mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> > Watch out for the black helicopters man.
>
> Why is it in this NG that any criticism of MS is consider paranoid?
>
> > Your apps have stopped working on Windows 95?
>
> You know exactly what I meant.
>
> > Impossible? -- No.
> > Difficult? -- Yes.
> > Justified? -- No.
>
> Give me specific reasons why it is so hard to get windows apps to run on
> windows95.

I'm going to be non-specific because I'm not an expert on Windows
internals or the .NET framework internals, but...

1) For every OS that's supported, Microsoft has to put a huge amount of
effort into testing on that OS. Win95's market share is miniscule at
this point, and is no longer officially supported. At this point
Microsoft most likely considers the effort required to support Win95 to
be a net money-losing proposition.

2) There have been seven years of updates, patches, and new features
added to Windows since the Win95 launch (including those that were first
distributed with IE5, and later incorporated into Win98 2nd Edition).
AFAIK, there were significant API changes between Win95 and Win98. It's
quite possible that the .NET framework relies on things that are in '98
and can't be reasonably patched on to Win95.

3) A large percentage of PCs sold with Win95 are not capable of
reasonably running .NET apps.

--
Dave Rothgery
Picking nits since 1976
drothgery@alum.wpi.edu
http://drothgery.editthispage.com

[Michael Culley]

> 1) For every OS that's supported, Microsoft has to put a huge amount of
> effort into testing on that OS. Win95's market share is miniscule at
> this point, and is no longer officially supported. At this point
> Microsoft most likely considers the effort required to support Win95 to
> be a net money-losing proposition.

Of course they considered it a money-losing proposition - thats what I have
been saying.

> AFAIK, there were significant API changes between Win95 and Win98. It's
> quite possible that the .NET framework relies on things that are in '98
> and can't be reasonably patched on to Win95.

AFAIK there are not. I've used the API fairly extensively in VB and have
seen very minor changes. Can you give any more specific details.

> 3) A large percentage of PCs sold with Win95 are not capable of
> reasonably running .NET apps.

..net apps run fine on my p200 test machine at home and should run acceptably
on a p100. Anything slower isn't going to run windows very well anyway.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com