Jason Bower's WebLog

Single .NET Framework Redist or multiple

If you had to choose between the following two options which would you choose and why?

Option A

A single 60 MB .NET Framework Redist Installation package that installs on all 32 and 64 bit platforms.

Option B

A 20 MB .NET Framework Redist that installs on x86
A 40 MB .NET Framework Redist that installs on IA64
A 40 MB .NET Framework Redist that installs on AMD64

I'm curious as to what people think about this and why each option is preferable.

Published Thursday, April 29, 2004 3:39 AM by jbower

Comments

 

Duncan Mackenzie said:

Most definitely I would choose Option A... as long as you could give me at least a URL for the 40mb redists... the vast majority of systems for most developers are going to fall into the 20mb category and considering how much complaining I hear about 20mb, I can't imagine people wanting 60mb if they could avoid it.
April 29, 2004 4:29 AM
 

Micael Baerens said:

Option B - because with the download in option A, at least two thirds of the space is "wasted".
April 29, 2004 4:58 AM
 

Andrew van der Stock said:

I'd prefer both choices; I know I'd download the 20 MB redist most of the time, but when I get my AMD upgraded to a Opteron after the new financial year, I will want the 64 bit redist before long.

What would also be good is a freebie CD to order if 60 MB is too hard or too expensive, although please chock it full of related freebies (such as OS service packs) and trialware.

Andrew
April 29, 2004 5:01 AM
 

Moshe Eshel said:

Obviously option A
Why?
Most users need only the x86, 64 bit is still a long time comming for home users

The same users, who are the install base, also typically have the slower internet connection - and would most appriciate the gesture...

Think about it, you want to introduce a rich client to customers through a web site, which is say 2 MB, and all they have to do is download a small 60 MB install to use it...
April 29, 2004 5:39 AM
 

Robert W. McLaws said:

I vote for unmentioned option C, which includes a web-based setup that detects your system and downloads and installs the files you need, a la IE6 setup.
April 29, 2004 5:48 AM
 

SimonT said:

Option B

Some of us poor sods are still on Dial-up and just cant get a broadband connection. Plus even work downloads are monitored and management bitch about traffic to internet all the time. (This has been a bit of a theme at several small companies I have worked for).

April 29, 2004 5:59 AM
 

Wally said:

The number one preference is Option A. By having everything together, you don't have to go searching. Option B is okay.

Wally
April 29, 2004 7:22 AM
 

Doug Reilly said:

Prefer B. The vast majority of folks are still using x86 boxes, so I imagine the bandwidth savings would be immense.

OTOH, having both available would not be a bad thing (if I were supporting a mixed bag of computers, the single download might be easier.
April 29, 2004 7:38 AM
 

Michael M said:

Both:
Option A for CD distribution and B for download. Like it or not some people are still stuck on modems. I can't imagine being stuck at that speed but we definately have customers who are.
April 29, 2004 7:50 AM
 

Phil Scott said:

I'd think option A is a must. I'd say the vast majority of apps running .NET are not being installed from an internet site. They are being deployed via group policy, off a CD-ROM or network share. 60mb is piddily-winks compared to the hassle that would be trying to automate a deployment to people throughout an office that very well could be a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit processors.
April 29, 2004 7:56 AM
 

Adrian Moore said:

Both:
Option A for CD distribution and B for download. By the time the 64-bit rush happens, you'll be peddling your next version of .NET, so its just overhead for most right now.
April 29, 2004 9:08 AM
 

Phil Weber said:

Option A, provided Microsoft blankets the planet with AOL-style .NET Framework CDs. Otherwise, Option B, and include a coupon for one month free broadband. ;-)
April 29, 2004 9:25 AM
 

Joe User said:

Option D:

1 20 MB x86 download
1 60 MB universal download

The reason is that it's faster to download for 99.995% of users than (A) and easier to create and manage than (B).
April 29, 2004 11:51 AM
 

James said:

Option A. Like NVidia's driver package, I like having one package, with a single version on it, that I know has everything I need. While different packages does reduce the storage size, it increases the versioning and compatibility scenarios that I prefer to avoid.
April 29, 2004 12:34 PM
 

Tom said:

I prefer option B, but option A can also make sense (CD distribution or download). But why would one download more than required if you sure know that you don't need it. Please, leave the possibility to download only what you need. Not all countries have unlimited bandwidth.
April 29, 2004 1:38 PM
 

Todd Spatafore said:

Option A because explaining to my dad that he can't upgrade his processor to AMD64 by simply installing a 40MB package will be so painful I'd have to move to an undeveloped country.
April 29, 2004 2:24 PM
 

Russ C said:

I prefer B. I write programs for OEM machines and it would be nice to minimize the footprint.
April 29, 2004 3:12 PM
 

JBower said:

What if we could have option B a single 60 MB setup package, but the web install would be smart and would only download 20MB on an x86 machine and 40MB on a 64bit machine. Would there be any reason to not create such a solution.
April 29, 2004 3:24 PM
 

Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk said:

I'd say option B is preferable.
April 29, 2004 3:36 PM
 

Koji Ishii said:

Both, and also, it'd be great is MS hosts a web page that automatically detects client platform and allows end-users to install apporpriate component.
MS always have the best information to do this and the best hosting environment. Making downloads easier will benefit not only us developers, but you MS as well I believe.
May 8, 2004 4:08 PM
 

John Alexander said:

How about rolling it into a service pack so we don't have to worry about redist...
This really needs to be handled as an OS upgrade. Period.

Regards,
John Alexander
May 10, 2004 3:10 PM
 

Ed said:

When will a 64bit version of the Framework be available? Or is it already - if so, where can I get it from?
May 19, 2004 8:25 AM
 

Jason said:

The v2.0 .NET Framework will support 64bit platforms. A beta version of the v2.0 Framework will be out in the near future. Unfortunately we are not allowed to provide any estimates on when the final version will be released.
May 19, 2004 11:26 AM
Anonymous comments are disabled

This Blog

Syndication

Tags

No tags have been created or used yet.

© 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use  |  Trademarks  |  Privacy Statement
Microsoft
Page view tracker