views:

561

answers:

4

It's hard enough to find reliable numbers as to general adoption of the .NET framework. This questions concerns an even more specific case: what's the situation among home users?

I am wondering wether .NET is a good choice for a desktop application when targetting home users?

Assuming the application in question is a small-medium sized app (download, install & run), and the size of the framework is considerably larger, having the user download and install the framework just for the sake of that application seems like a big thumbs-down.

I know that Vista ships with .NET 3.0 out of the box (2003 ships with 1.1, but it's a server version), but that's just not enough considering that XP still has over 60% market share, including non-Windows systems (Accroding to hitslink.com, as of May this year).

Here's another thing: I almost can't think of any home-user targetted software that uses .NET (There's Catalyst, what else?). Why is that? Is this a clue that the framework isn't really that popular among home users?

+1  A: 

If you're targeting Windows XP and someone has run windows update, then majority have it.

Windows vista came with it pre-installed.

Jack Marchetti
As far as I know, .NET is a recomended update, but not a required one (so it won't automatically be installed)
OB OB
YOu're probably right, but I know it comes pre-installed with Vista.
Jack Marchetti
+1  A: 

I can't tell you the penetration of .NET in general but I can tell you that we have a specialty application used by very unsophisticated users that uses .NET. We just integrated it with the installation (installing only if needed) and have had absolutely no trouble whatsoever.

I am no fan of Microsoft in general (their decisions with respect to SQL Server Express border on abusive to their developer population) but they did seem to get .NET right. Credit Anders Heljsberg, not Microsoft.

Mark Brittingham
What SQL Server Express decisions are you referring to?
Simon Svensson
Well, we had the MSDE (essentially SQL Server 2000's version of SQL Express). When Vista came out, the MSDE was specifically prevented from working - you *had* to change to the SQL Express. That meant that an enormous investment in CDs as well as the installation software had to be re-done to handle Vista. Now, they come out with Vista 64 and guess what, SQL Express doesn't run on it unless you get 64-bit SQL Express. EVEN THEN - the installation is different and doesn't work right in MOST cases.
Mark Brittingham
-CONTINUED - I attempted to diagnose the problems with SQL Express 64 using the 64-bit version of SQL Management Studio. Only Vista 64 told me that the software - the MICROSOFT 64-BIT SOFTWARE - couldn't be installed as it appeared to be a "security risk". Now, I'm left with obscure connectivity issues and customers who are pissed off that our software won't work on their bright, shiny new 64-bit computers. I simply cannot express how much I've come to dislike Microsoft for this kind of behavior. I will *never* start a new development project on or for Windows again.
Mark Brittingham
A: 

Media Center is built with .NET Framework and Windows XP MCE has it out of the box.

Mehrdad Afshari
Do you have any statistics for MCE market share?
OB OB
@OB OB: No. And even if I had, the .NET that comes with it is considered "crap" (I'm not sure if it's 1.0 or 1.1 but it's certainly one of those) ;) But it's nevertheless a home-targeted software built with .NET.
Mehrdad Afshari
+4  A: 

I recently worked on a product that was targeted to .NET 3.5. Out of hundreds of beta testers, I can probably count on one hand the number that already had .NET 3.5. The rest had to sit through the absolutely painful .NET 3.5 install from microsoft (~30 minutes, and most of the time the progress bar stays near 0 so people think it is broken).

Matt Bridges