I have created a new application on C# 2010. After creating a Setup file I came to know that for installation purposes user must have a dot net framework. Is there any way I can get rid of installing dot net framework on a user computer. Each time I try to install my application on the user computer it redirects to install the dot net framework. Any suggestion?
Well that's a problem; because of the design of .NET applications.
Here's some references for you:
Visual C#
"C# (pronounced "C sharp") is a programming language that is designed for building a variety of applications that run on the .NET Framework." [first sentence]
Intro to C# and .NET
As the comments on the question attempt to imply, the .NET Framework is required in order to execute .NET applications.
You have two choices, really:
Require that users have the .NET Framework installed. This is the most common choice, for reasons that will become clear in a moment. It's not unheard-of to have such requirements. It's similar to requiring that a user have Windows installed in order to run your Windows application.
Distribute the .NET Framework with your application installer. This is possible, but less often used because the .NET Framework is large compared to the average application. However, if you must do this, then the option is at least available. Some quick Googling brought me to this helpful blog post.
This isn't possible. C# is built on the .NET framework, so any C# app requires that a version of .NET be available. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#History, you can see what .NET framework versions are available in various versions of Windows. The short story is that XP doesn't include anything, Vista includes 3.0, and Windows 7 includes 3.5. If you build for one of these versions, then on those OSes, your users won't need to install anything extra. Using the Client Profile instead of the full .NET can also help reduce or eliminate installs your users will need to do.
Unfortunately No. Its not possible.
To explain it simple terms.
Suppose if you have written only 1 Line of code where you would have simply declared an int variable, who will tell OS that it should create a space in memory?
That framework does exactly that creates basic environment to run your app in a System.
OOPs says about Real-world modeling and Relationships, so let me give you one from it.
Think yourself to be the C# app and Mother Nature/Environment(Greenry) to be .Net Environment.(.Net is called an Environment)
Can you survive without mother nature? From first second that you are in this world, you breathe. Who provides you that oxygen. MOTHER NATURE
While creating installation bundle you can add dot net frame work exe file as prerequisites, then while installing your application it can check whether the system having .net framework or not. if it is not installed it your application can install the frame work.
When you are using managed languages to writing applications you agreed to use their vm, c# codes compiles to IL which needs dot net framework for executing.
.net framework by default exists on windows 7,8,8.1 and 10 and I don't think that this is a challenge.
but if you insist on it so there is a way by using Mono, just remove features that does not support in mono from your project.
first install mono and cygwin, then copy your exe and mono.dll file to a folder, be sure that your file name is not long because in some cases bundling faild,now you can start bundling using mkbundle command.
after bundling finished you have a exe file that can run without .net framework
hope this help you
I have the same issue and want the app to setup using the existing dot net framework version (4.6), because the app setup requires 4.7.2 version that the PC doesn't meet the requirements
Related
I'm a student and at the moment i'm doing an internship at a company. This internship is about analysing a project. For this project I have made a demo to show to the Marketing director. The demo I have made is a simple project created in Visual Studio 2010 in c# with Windows Forms and a connection to an Access database.
So now i have to show this demo to this director in a presentation but after this presentation the director wants the project on his computer so he can try and use it. The problem is now that the computers here in this company don't have .NET framework 4.0 and the computers are so protected over here that we can't install anything new. To install something you have to go through a procedure that takes weeks.
I have looked al over the internet but all i find is how to install the .NET framework.
Is there any possible way that I can create an standalone exe without the need to install .NET framework? Please help!
If you want to execute an application that is developed using Net Framework 4, you will need to have installed .Net Framework 4 on client computer.
Your application is compiled in CIL (Common Intermediate Language), so it needs to be interpreted by the framework engine.
It is the same if you want to execute a Java program. You will have to install the Java Machine.
The only way you don't need to install frameworks is programming native applications with C, C++.
C# now supports this with .NET Native.
Instead of compiling to intermediate language, it will compile to native code and run with statically linked .NET libraries. Therefore, there will be no .Net Runtime requirements for end-users.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/dn642499.aspx
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn584397(v=vs.110).aspx
Only works for Windows 10
You can't build a C# executable without .NET Framework. Even if some resources indicate that you can, that only works in theory.
But you could use an older version of .NET Framework like .NET 4.0. If this doesn't work for you, you have to choose a language like C++ which doesn't require CLR at all.
Update 2018:
Do not target .NET 2.0 or 3.5. It's not compatible with the 4.x version. However, .NET 4.0 targeted binaries work with .NET Framework 4.0, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and so on. So to reach maximum compatibility, compile with .NET 4.0. You will have to accept that some features will not be available, however, your binary will run virtually anywhere.
(2018: By now, .NET 2.0 - 3.5 has much lower distribution than 4.x)
Delphi is your solution, deploy native bin executables
YES, THIS IS POSSIBLE!
At least 3 ways exist:
1.you can check all OSes that you planning to run your app and build with such version of .NET. As Windows have a built-in framework libs.
Vista -.NET v3.0 -- All service packs
Windows 7 - .NET v3.5 -- All versions and service packs
Windows 8 - .NET v4.0 [Best choice if you are not sure]
Windows 8.1 - .Net v4.5
Windows 10 - .Net v4.6
as they are already pre-installed by default -- no extra install will be needed.
2.For windows 10 you can compile it into native code (but not into CIL) with ".NET Native". This is means that there are no .Net Framework will be needed for apps.
3.There is Turbo Studio (earlier Spoon and earlier XenoCode) that can wrap everything that your app needs and runs it in as a standalone.
From their site:
Turbo Studio
Run .NET Without .NET. Easily embed runtime dependencies such as .NET, Java, and SQL directly into virtual applications. Launch reliably on any desktop, regardless of underlying component installs.
You can use Mono and statically link you program, so your program don't need .NET CLR runtime and act as standalone program.
Mono Project
In more modern versions of .NET such as 5 and 6 and even with releases of .NET Core it had become a supported scenario to produce what is referred to as a single-file executable as well as a self-contained application.
As I understand it, these technologies take place of and build upon some of the capabilities that had been in the Mono development stack for a while now. Typically I've seen this feature used for applications which would be deployed to servers such as web sites and microservices however it could be used for scenarios such as the one that the original poster illustrates.
Using the .NET SDK publishing (producing the executable) for a single-file executable can be done using a command as the one below which comes directly from the documentation.
dotnet publish -r win-x64 -p:PublishSingleFile=true --self-contained true
For more details see Single file deployment and executable in the Microsoft .NET documentation site.
To be honest, it really isnt a problem nowadays. the .NET framework is found on almost every single computer nowadays, and you can even make a installer with Advanced Installer that silently install the .NET framework on your computer when you are installing the programme.
I have created a C# 2010 application and now when I install it on user application it asks for complete dot net framework. Is it possible if I can only put required dll files with my application instead of installing complete dot net framework on user machine ?
No it is not possible
The .NET framework is more than just assembly to copy on the target computer. It is a more complex infrastructure that interact with the OS when an executable is loaded and, if it contains IL instruction, it compile it just in time in order to have it running. So non chanches in order to me to have it working without a .NET framework setup, that can be done in a separate step, or by creating a Setup for your app with the proper framework version indicated as a prerequisite.
An overview of the framework can be found here, but many more others are available in the net, you should read it to understand why is not a just matter of functions you need or not.
You may choose to target .NET Framework Client Profile. That would decrease download size of .NET files. See this link for more details on subject: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912.aspx#targeting_the_net_framework_client_profile
No, this is not possible. In order to install and run an application targeting the .NET Framework, the user must have the appropriate version of the .NET Framework installed on his/her computer.
If you want to make things easier, you should distribute your application with a setup program that ensures the .NET Framework is automatically installed along with your app. There's no reason the user should have to download and install the .NET Framework themselves. You can even create a setup program right from Visual Studio, so there's no excuse not to use one. It also makes managing dependencies and versioning conflicts much easier.
If you're really worried about the size of your dependencies and are targeting .NET 4.0, you can require only the Client Profile, which is a subset of the .NET Framework optimized for client applications. You'll have to set your project's Properties to target the .NET 4.0 Client Profile, and ensure that you're not using any of the assemblies it omits.
I hardly recommend wasting too much time on this, though. At last count, the Client Profile was only about 15–16% smaller than the full version—not an amount that makes much difference on the fast Internet connections found in most parts of the world today. And even less of a problem if you distribute on real media.
If you're absolutely dead-set on delivering an application without any dependencies (as comments to other answers suggest), you've got a hard road ahead of you. For starters, you'll need to drop .NET and C# entirely, and switch instead to an unmanaged language like C or C++. That's a very different programming environment than C#. Even if you're the best C# programmer in the world, there's going to be a significant learning curve to pick up C++.
And that still doesn't solve all of your problems. C++ applications compiled using a modern version of Visual Studio will still require that the appropriate version of the C Runtime Library be installed on the user's machine. This is, of course, a much smaller package than the entire .NET Framework, but you can't count on it always being there, so you'll need to install it along with your application.
Moreover, unlike the .NET Framework (which has WinForms, WPF, Silverlight, etc.) there is no GUI library bundled with C++. And if you choose any GUI library other than the native platform API (for example, Qt, which is quite popular for reasons that I still find inexplicable), that gives you an additional dependency. You mention Google's applications a couple of times as a model. Google Chrome targets the Win32 API directly and has written a bunch of their own code to draw their custom GUI on top of that base framework. That's really the only way you're going to eliminate dependencies entirely. And delay your app to market for a significant period of time.
I am very much worried that i have seen many applications which i download from internet and they run without installing .net framework or java run time on windows seven, the confusion is, if it is so then in which language all these applications are built? if it is VB6 then it is very old, why latest software are using it, and did Microsoft not build Windows seven in any .net framework, for example if they build it in 3.5 then why it requires to install 3.5 .Net framework to run application.
Also let me know which db these apps usually use.
They could be built using C or C++, or any number of other languages with no runtime libraries (or whose runtime libraries are built into the OS). They may also just use .NET and assume that clients have the .NET framework installed. Finally, they may actually check for the .NET framework and prompt the user to install it if it isn't there, but since you already have it installed you don't see the prompt.
As for which databases they use, it is common to see applications use SQL Server CE or Express, Berkeley DB (BDB), or any number of other small-footprint databases. There is no clear winner in that area, just like in programming languages.
Mostly, Windows 7 has the built-in .NET framework 3.5 So, it automatically runs the application developed in .NET, where as few earlier version of Windows OS, the user didn't have the needed framework in built. It needs to be installed separately.
How can I check what objects, tools, variables, anything... are used from .NET 2.0 in a C# application.
How can I get a C# application run without .NET 2.0 ?
UPDATE:
sorry, I didn't clarify enought. Here's my situation: I have developed a pretty simple application in C#: embeded browser which displayes static webpages with an option of searching inside of these html pages. I'm using simple textbox, buttons components for this.
The application will be distribuited for people wich have very old PCs, even with windows 95. I would like the app to be runable on it, or at least on win 98, without telling the people to install .NET 2.0, as the users don;t really have PC usage skills :) .
I'm using a dataGridView as well.
You can have a look at this : http://www.remotesoft.com/linker/
"The mini-deployment tool puts
together the minimum set of CLR
runtime files and dependent assemblies
that can be simply copied to a single
folder on a target machine, and your
application runs as if the whole
framework is installed. Since the
installation is isolated into a single
folder, there will be no conflicts
with future .NET installation. When
linking is used for the dependent
assemblies, it will further reduce the
file size."
You may need to clarify a bit more.. do you want the app to run without .Net at all? Or you want it to run in .Net 3.5 without .net 2.0 bits?
If its the latter, then simply don't reference assemblies that are compiled in .net 2.0 (check the properties on the reference you have added). If its the former, then its really not feasable. Yes its possible, but it means deploying parts of the framework with your app, but then, you'd be deploying all the bits, including the 2.0 bits.
Your're question really needs more information though, it doesn't make much sense currently. Sorry. =)
To make sure it runs without .NET 2.0, compile it with the .NET 1.1 compiler.
But this seems like not a good idea. I'd recommend revisiting your requirements.
Win98 wasn't shipped with .NET. Using .NET v1.1 won't get you much more platform penetration than .NET 2.0, if any.
IT looks like windows 98 supports the .net framework. See this answer for details:
OS Compatibility for various .NET Framework versions
You cannot run a .NET application (i.e., that uses the CLR) if you haven't installed the corresponding .NET Framework binaries (i.e., that contains the CLR) directly or indirectly.
Period.
I want to develop a small utility for windows and I prefer doing that in c# because it is easier (I'm a java developer).
The utility will be available for download by many people and I assume some of them will not have the .net framework installed (is this assumption correct, say I target win xp and above?)
My question is: can a c# application be compiled in a way that it will not require the .net framework installed?
Normally, you will need the .NET Framework being installed on the target system. There is no simple way around that.
However, certain third-party tools such as Xenocode or Salamander allow you to create stand-alone applications. See this related question:
Is there some way to compile a .NET application to native code?
As these solutions are not straight-forward and require commercial products I would recommend you to create a simple Visual Studio Setup and Deployment project. In the properties of the project you should include the .NET Framework as a pre-requisite. The setup.exe created will then automatically download and install the .NET Framework prior to installing your application.
No, it will need the .Net framework installed. Note though that you will need only the redistributable version, not the SDK.
A minor aside - but in this scenario, consider developing the utility in Silverlight - it has a much smaller footprint and is supported on a number of operating systems. This might allow you to get the coverage including people who don't already have .NET.
If you need "normal" .NET, then "Client Profile" is perhaps an option.
You can probably also include the .net framework installer in your application.
In a related question, Can you compile C# without using the .Net framework?, it's mentioned you could do this using mkbundle from mono. I haven't tried it myself so I can't comment on if it's the way you should go, but you may want to consider it.