* The Business of Software

A community discussing the business of software, from the smallest shareware operation to Microsoft. A part of Joel on Software.

This community works best when people use their real names. Please register for a free account.

Links:

» Business of Software FAQ
» The Business of Software Conference (held every fall, usually in Boston)
» Forum guidelines (Please read before posting!)

Movie:

"Make Better Software" is a 6 movie course designed to help you as you grow from a micro-ISV to a large software company.
Part 1: Recruiting
Part 2: Team Members
Part 3: Environment
Part 4: Schedules
Part 5: Lifecycle
Part 6: Design

Moderators:

Andy Brice
Successful Software

Doug Nebeker ("Doug")

Jonathan Matthews
Creator of DeepTrawl, CloudTrawl, and LeapDoc

Nicholas Hebb
BreezeTree Software

Bob Walsh
host, Startup Success Podcast author of The Web Startup Success Guide and Micro-ISV: From Vision To Reality

Patrick McKenzie
Bingo Card Creator

latest .NET penetration numbers.

I currently use plain win32, no mfc, no nothing.

I think .NET would be a productivity boost (C sharp). Thus, I have to target a .NET platform.

I know it`s been asked to death, but what are the penetration numbers for each of the .NET runtime editions.

I have an inherent feeling that .NET 2.0 would be the best compromise.

Thanks.
TiN
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
agree, it's been on the market for more than 2 years now and 3.0 (vista) & 3.5 (vs08) are supersets of 2.0 therefore highly compatible
uISv wannabe Send private email
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
>>I know it`s been asked to death

There you go.  Re-read the previous posts (about one a week) and you'll have your answer.
Benjamins
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
I'll repost my recent stats

~80% .Net 1+
~50% .Net 2+
~20% .Net 3+ (~17%  Vista)
~03% .Net 3.5+ (Skewed b/c I have 3.5...)

This is for a non-technical consumer market
Steve Send private email
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
So, just to make sure, that means if I target .NET 2.0, that would account to 70% percent of people running PCs.

I'm asking because I'm not sure if you posted cumulative percentages or not.
TiN
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
PC'c that are running Windows that is!
Floyd Price Send private email
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
"...highly compatible ..." <grin>.

That's like being highly pregnant.

The *worst* case scenario is if 99% of the app will run on one of the newere .net frameworks. Now you've got a situation where you'll have what looks like an intermittent bug.
Mr. Analogy Send private email
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
> So, just to make sure, that means if I target .NET 2.0,
> that would account to 70% percent of people running PCs.

No ~50%. Stats are ~50% 2.0+
Cyclops Send private email
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
 
2+ means able to run 2.0 or later apps, so 50% of my Windows visitors can run a 2.0 app, not 70%
Steve Send private email
Friday, February 08, 2008
 
 
A couple of thoughts that might not be obvious:

1. As mentioned on this thread, .NET 3.0 and 3.5 are SUPERSETS of 2.0. They are not "different versions" of the runtime the way 2.0 was fundamentally different from 1.1. Specifically, .NET 3.0 adds four features: Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), Windows Workflow Foundation (WF), Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), and Cardspace (Cardspace). Deciding whether to support 3.0 means deciding if THOSE FEATURES are valuable to you (the value of 3.0 or 3.5 features is a whole separate topic - I'm happy to participate). If they are not, then you are inherently doing 2.0. (Although when you install 3.0, you install something akin to ".NET 2.0 SP1".) And 3.5 adds still more features (LINQ, ASP.NET AJAX, and more).

2. One of the great features of Visual Studio 2008 is "framework multi-targeting". When you use Visual Studio 2008, you can tell it to support only 2.0 (or 3.0 or 3.5) features for a given project. So even if you are not ready to use 3.0 or 3.5 features, you can still use Visual Studio 2008. You don't need multiple versions of the tools to support existing and future projects.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Microsoft. My opinions are my own.
Patrick Foley Send private email
Saturday, February 09, 2008
 
 
Keep in mind that there are some people like me, who will not install a program if it requires .net.
Craig Welch Send private email
Sunday, February 10, 2008
 
 
Keep in mind that some people have prejudices. There will always be someone objecting to what you do or the design decisions you've made.

I would generally ignore these people as they will probably account for substantially less than 1% of your target market.

The vast majority of computer users will happily install whatever your program needs so long as they actually want you application in the first place.

I am personally more wary of non .NET applications as they are often not fully accessible to disabled users and hence are illegal in many countries.
.NET fanboy
Monday, February 11, 2008
 
 
Patrick, there should be a big giant * and caveat with the multi-targeting:

* If you compile againsta .net 2.0 on VS 2008 then you need to install .net 2.0 SP1 not "plain old" 2.0. We almost got burned badly by that (because the error on not obvious.

BTW, since you work for MS: it would be fantastic if .net apps had a small bit of code that could throw up a dialog box saying ".net not installed. Go here to install it" instead of the very very vague (and incredibly user-unfriendly message that comes up currently.)

More on the above problem at:
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?dotnet.12.592361.13
Mr. Analogy Send private email
Monday, February 11, 2008
 
 
I used to worry that people would care that our software is running under .NET, but then we released, and I didn't hear one complaint.

Just make sure that it's install-on-demand. People won't care.

If you're still concerned, check out Xenocode:

http://www.xenocode.com

You can box your app up so that you can run it from one portable .exe with the required .NET framework components built right in. That's what we do for Stylizer. It's working out very well.
Paul Young Send private email
Monday, February 11, 2008
 
 

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
 
Powered by FogBugz