>> All I know is that we used to use one bit of software that required 
>> the .NET 1.1 runtime,
> 
> So the fact they're up to 3.5.x doesn't signal that maybe something 
> different is going on nowadays?  Damn, if everyone using Linux or 
> something said "Gee, when I tried it 5 years ago, it was a PITA to 
> install, so I never looked at it again" it never would have gotten off 
> the ground.
> 
> .NET comes with Windows nowadays. If you don't have it on there already, 
> chances are you don't have an internet connection fast enough to 
> download a program, either.

Really? That's interesting. So how do you explain the fact that I keep 
having to manually install it?

Oh, wait - you probably meant it comes with Vista.

>> which basically meant you had to wait 25 to 30 minutes for the runtime 
>> to install 
> 
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to put it on a CD and install it?

I *did*.

The 25 to 30 minutes was just thrashing the HD back and forth.

>> I always wondered why the hell anybody would 
>> develop software this way...
> 
> Because you only have to do it once, and it's a pretty nice infrastructure.

In other words, it makes things easier for the developers, not the end 
users.

Post a reply to this message