I've written an analysis on the viability of .NET-based software as portable apps. It analyzes the compatibility issues between different versions of the framework and which operating systems it's bundled with. It also includes a handy chart so you can easily see what .NET versions to appear where.
http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/dotnet_portable_apps/
The short answer is: .NET apps can definitely not be considered portable in a general sense as your chance of encountering a PC in the wild with .NET installed on it is pretty low. Your experience as an individual will vary greatly, of course, but, for general users, .NET apps can simply not be considered portable apps.
UPDATE (August 23): I added in a screenshot to the article of Windows Update running from a fully patched Windows XP SP2 machine to demonstrate how .NET shows up.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
John,
Your page indicates that .Net does not come with WindowsXP SP2,
yet the site you link to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
indicates that it does come with XPSP2,
"It is included with Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista, and can be installed ..."
and
".NET Framework 1.1
This is the first major .NET Framework upgrade. It is available on its own as a redistributable package or in a software development kit, ... This is the first version of the .NET Framework to be included as part of the Windows operating system..."
I have .Net 1.1 on my home machine which came with SP2 pre-installed.
I'm pretty sure I never installed it [.Net] myself due to the size and lack of need.
My machine at work was upgraded to SP2 from SP1 and does not have .Net
Perhaps Machines that have SP2 pre-installed do have it, but not those that upgraded.
Tim
(\__/)(='.'=)(}>
Things have got to get better, they can't get worse, or can they?
I know that Microsoft was originally going to include it with the SP2 update but ended up not doing so (probably under pressure from enterprise users). It's actually included on the SP2 CD under a folder called DOTNETFX.
I don't think it's included with a pre-built SP2 disc, but I can check later.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I just did a fresh install of Windows XP SP2 (not upgraded) and it does not install .NET Framework. It does include some .NET on the DVD within: \cmpnents\netfx\i386\netfx.cab. I assume this is the .NET patch files in case it was already installed and the user was performing an upgrade with this DVD.
So, it's been verified that .NET is *NOT* included with Windows XP SP2 (upgrade or fresh install) and I've updated the Wikipedia page to that effect.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Confirmed.
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov
You said a while back to some "Portable Mono, that's a different story". If some .NET applications are compatible with Mono, could it ever be made portable? Have you ever looked into it?
______________________
Signature...What Signature?
It's way too early in Mono's cycle to even consider it (have you looked at it?). Just check out the screenshots for an idea of how early it is with things like Paint.net. So, basically, there's no reason to even consider it yet.
Besides that, there's the patent bomb (wikipedia link) that's part of the .NET framework. Microsoft has several patents on it. The ones covering the core... the only part that's a 'standard'... are made available royalty free. But the patents on Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc are NOT available and those parts of .NET are not standardized (they're proprietary). So, sooner or later, Microsoft will drop a patent bomb on it. Novell will still be able to distribute Mono as a closed source, proprietary product, though, as they're forcing all contributors to assign copyright to them for all Mono bits.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I see. Interesting thing there with the patents.
______________________
Signature...What Signature?
Cool. Great article, but the site is a bit lame
----
Ryan McCue.
Blog.
So all that Airbus-delay trouble over here in Europe is because of YOU!
Simeon.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
he already knows that
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.” - Richard P. Feynman
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Note the
----
Ryan McCue.
Blog.
So all that Airbus-delay trouble over here in Europe is because of YOU!
Simeon.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
For the curious (or the disbelievers) I added in a screenshot of Windows Update for a fully-patched Windows XP SP2 machine to show how .NET is presented:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/dotnet_portable_apps/dotnet_on_win...
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Very interesting article.
About Mono...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Software_developed_with_Mono
I think it`s already not bad. Not worth to make portable?
@John:
"Plus, it is a closed source, commercial product, so, legally, we couldn't do it, anyway. So, we're left with just analyzing what PCs already have it and what PCs can have it added."
Well, you could work around that if you just tell the user to install different versions of .net locally. After that your program will copy the necessary files to the portable device.
On that way the only further problem would be "NET is heavily tied to the Windows operating system". It this really impossible to solve?
It uses Windows components that require admin rights to add in. There's no way around that.
And mono only supports .NET 1.1. Most Windows .NET apps are now done in 2.0 and would require conversion to work with Mono. And Mono is going to fall victim to the Microsoft patent bomb in Windows Forms if it gets popular enough, so I certainly wouldn't risk developing anything important in it.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I noticed there's no place for comments on your article itself, so I decided to post here.
I don't understand enough about this as of yet, but what about Portable.NET?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable.NET
http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/
Surly if .NET can be made portable to other operating systems, it can be then ported back to windows thus allowing it to be portable. The logic is there.
Also in the news today, Mono!
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/07/0051238
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
The Mono project has many of the same goals as the Portable.NET project.
Note: Mono v2.0 was released 2 days ago, your article was written over a year ago, perhaps there's a chance it may just be crazy enough to work now...
http://go-mono.com/forums/#nabble-to19282319%7Ca19282319
You Decide
self.path = path if self.path == None else self.path
Based on the link provided.
1. Mono can be shrunk down to around 18mb uncompressed, which could even be shared between applications.
2. I'm pretty sure Mono's license is GPL, meaning you have permission to distribute.
At first, I thought you were saying it is not possible, but now I seem to think you're saying it can be done.