How can I deploy a C# application if users don't have .NET installed?

Question

I have a C# program which I want to make available to my users, but the problem is that it requires .NET framework version 4.0. This is a problem because it was released pretty recently (April 2010) and a lot of people probably don't have it. To make matters worse it takes a while to download and install the framework (~10 minutes).

Is there any way I can install just a part of the framework I need? If that isn't possible can I compile my code down to a native binary for specific systems

eg. x86 32-bit, x86 64-bit, etc.

I've looked at a company called 'spoon' http://spoon.net/ but that looks like it just emulates apps on a server (sort of like citrix). What can I do to resolve this dilemma?

Petrology

What if they don't have the framework installer installer? =P – Calamite

Yes, you can include the framework installer bundled with your installer.See this msdn post for details – Thirtyone

If your users are technology-oriented, then they might have .NET 4. – Bonney

Answer 1

Anyone who wants to run your program needs the appropriate version of the .NET Framework installed. There's no way to work around this. It honestly amazes me how often this question gets asked. You can't compile .NET code down to any kind of a "native binary", and you can't distribute only the portions of the framework that you need. If all of this was important to you, you should have chosen a different development platform in the beginning.

Your only option is to bundle the .NET Framework along with your application's installer. The way to make this easiest on your customers is to use Visual Studio to create a setup project that will automatically install the .NET FW if they don't have it already, and then install your application, all in a single step process.

Visual Studio has built-in support for creating such a setup project, and most of the dirty work is handled for you. File -> New Project -> Other Project Types -> Setup & Deployment -> Visual Studio Installer. Then, pick either the "Setup Project" or "Setup Wizard" option, and follow the instructions.

The only thing to keep in mind since you've developed for .NET 4.0 is that there are two versions of this framework: the full version and the "Client Profile". The Client Profile is an attempt to do exactly as you mention and install only the portions of the framework that are used by the typical application. You have to first figure out of this is a deployment option for you. If your program uses classes that are not available in the Client Profile, you need to install the full version. Otherwise, you can consider installing the Client Profile, which is the default for all new projects targeting .NET 4.0 in VS 2010. Check the "Target Framework" settings for your application, under the project Properties. If it's not set to Client Profile already, try changing it and see if it will compile. That's the quickest way to tell if this deployment option is available to you. But there's only about a 15% difference in size between the two frameworks, so it isn't really that big of a deal if you must deploy the full version.

Either way, the setup project will automatically determine and bundle the correct version for your app. Definitely don't make the user download and run the .NET installer separately. Use the setup project and do this for them automatically. If you don't have VS or don't want to use the one it provides, investigate alternatives, like Inno Setup, which also support deploying and installing the .NET runtime with an app.

Wheezy

Thanks Cody. I guess there's no way around it. The general consensus is to move the project away from C# as it's really not usable at this point for most users and go back to C++. The additional (40mb) size of the installer and the install time is just too much of an overhead. I'm surprised Microsoft doesn't push the .net framework as a critical update. – Petrology

FYI when you make a setup through Visual Studio 2010 which lists the .net framework as a dependency it just tells the user they need to install it and opens a webpage where they can download the file. – Petrology

@Daisetsu: It's really not that much of an overhead. And remember, if you develop with any modern version of VS, you'll still need to include an updated version of the C Runtime. I suppose it's smaller than .NET, but I can't imagine this really makes that much of a difference when it's included with your app. There's no real way to avoid dependencies altogether; the key lies in making the installation painless and transparent for the user. It's not a critical update, and Windows is not a .NET Framework delivery channel. – Wheezy

@Daisetsu: Okay, that's what it does by default. That doesn't mean you can't override the behavior. Plenty of apps automatically install the .NET FW upon installation, if required. It's easy enough for you to do it, too. – Wheezy

what about .net core? – Lillalillard

Answer 2

In many cases you do not need the entire .NET Framework 4.0 and can use the much smaller .NET Framework Client Profile. You can then use an installer to bundle the client profile installer with your app into a single deployment.

You cannot run a .NET app without the framework. If this is a deployment issue for your customers, you should consider either a Click-Once installer (web-based automated installation and updating) or porting the app to Silverlight.

Telson

How is porting the app to Silverlight going to solve any problems? Then they'll just be required to download and install Silverlight. And it's very possible that they'll have .NET 4.0 without having Silverlight. You've just shifted the dependency elsewhere, rather than eliminating it completely. – Wheezy

It is a useful option because the install base of Silverlight is nearly 70%, whereas the install base of .NET 4.0 Full is far lower, assuming the poster's customers are typical users. Generally, avoiding a heavy duty installation while staying within the .NET world is exactly what Silverlight was intended for. – Telson

Do you have any documentation of that? Both are pushed out with Windows Update, there's no reason to assume that more people have Silverlight installed than have the client framework. I've yet to come across a website (other than Microsoft's) that required me to install Silverlight, yet there are tons of apps that I use everyday that require the .Net FW. The Silverlight charter says nothing about avoiding a "heavy duty installation". It's just as heavy duty as the rest of the framework. You're confusing marketing jibe with reality, and not providing any statistics to back it up. – Wheezy

Hmm, I see you've edited in a link to some statistics. That site doesn't say that the number of people who have .NET 4 is "far lower" than the percentage of people who have Silverlight. I'd wager that almost everyone who has Silverlight has .NET 4.0 installed as well. And I'm suspect of those statistics anyway. Heavy Internet users that it's likely to be measuring are not necessarily the same people that your application targets, just like typical SO members are not your typical users. And still, 60% is not everyone, so it hardly frees you from having to worry about this. – Wheezy

Well first of all, the link in my prior comment shows the install base at 70%. Second, it is an explicit goal of Silverlight to be a more nimble installation. This is reflected in it's deployable footprint of about 4 MB versus 48MB for .NET 4. My point was not that Silverlight is a panacea, merely that it was intended for RIA and may be worth considering. – Telson

I don't understand the point of your sarcasm. The logic stands to consider the platform that allows for the best customer experience. From here it is shown that install bases for .NET 4 Full and Client are about 6% and 28% respectively. The source claims these are stats from the website driverguide.com. I do not necessarily trust their accuracy fully, but it is inline with my expectations. – Telson

Because you're correcting me over 10% difference that I don't think is at all relevant. I don't believe that number for a second. There's no way there's that much difference between the number of people who have Silverlight 4.0 installed and the number who have .NET 4.0 installed. Your expectations are bunk, and like I mentioned before, still don't solve the root problem, unless you're willing to write off 30-40% of your users (if you believe the first set of statistics that you've linked to, which I still question). Good luck with this approach, though. – Wheezy

I have thus supplied more evidence supporting my expectations than you have for your disbelief of them. Further, I have no idea where you are deriving any intent to "write off" users; each of the proposed frameworks (.NET Full, Client Profile, Silverlight) require installations without which would exclude customers. – Telson

Answer 3

For the sake of completeness, there is also the possibility for .NET Core release deploy Self-Contained Deployments (SCD) nowadays. When you create a self-contained deployment, .NET Core tools automatically include the latest serviced runtime of the .NET Core version that your application targets.

Deploying a Self-contained deployment has two major advantages:

• You have sole control of the version of .NET Core that is deployed with your app. .NET Core can be serviced only by you.

• You can be assured that the target system can run your .NET Core app, since you're providing the version of .NET Core that it will run on.

Here is a small guide from Scott Hanselman.

Lancewood