.NET Compact Framework Redistributable Available for Download

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=78974b4d-1bc6-4f29-8bd5-5ad5a37c7408&DisplayLang=en">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=78974b4d-1bc6-4f29-8bd5-5ad5a37c7408&DisplayLang=en</a><br /><br />"The Microsoft® .NET Compact Framework 1.0 Redistributable includes everything you need to run .NET Compact Framework applications, including the Common Language Runtime and the .NET Compact Framework class library."<br /><br />It is a 3.2MB download. System Requirements:<br />• Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP<br />• Supported Device Operating Systems: Pocket PC 2000, Pocket PC 2002, Windows CE .NET 4.1 and higher

[Mike Temporale]

Okay, so the install package is 3.2 meg, but does anyone know how much space is required on the device? I've heard 1.5 meg, but that was befor the release. (I waskind of hoping they shaved it down a little)

[mscdex]

Ok... now where to find .NET CF applications? :?

[nobody]

Is there any CF application at all?

[codesmith]

I have a PPCPE (T-Mobile) connected....the install says "Supported Device Not Detected" Any one else having issues?

[mscdex]

I have a PPCPE (T-Mobile) connected....the install says "Supported Device Not Detected" Any one else having issues?

Well, I'd install it, but until I know for sure that there are .Net CF applications to try it out with or to use it with, I'm not even going to bother downloading it.

[Ed Hansberry]

Well, I'd install it, but until I know for sure that there are .Net CF applications to try it out with or to use it with, I'm not even going to bother downloading it.
Yeah, this is for developers mainly. You'll know when you have an app that requires this - it will say that the .NET CF is necessary. I didn't mean for us mere mortals to go download and install this. :mrgreen:

[Norbert Aquende]

Is this available to to the Smart Amazing Phone Smartphone 2002?

[CUShane]

Ok... now where to find .NET CF applications? :?

I've already released 2 applications based on the .NET CF. They are available at www.s-church.net . The apps are Pyramid Solitaire and Clock Solitaire.

[tewmgd]

Is this available to to the Smart Amazing Phone Smartphone 2002?

There will be a version for the Smartphone ... in 2003, read in this chat

http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/embedded/embedded_092602.asp

[David McNamee]

Okay, so the install package is 3.2 meg, but does anyone know how much space is required on the device? I've heard 1.5 meg, but that was befor the release. (I waskind of hoping they shaved it down a little)

About 1.5 MB is correct.

[Foo Fighter]

$1,000 for VS.NET dev package? There goes any chance small third party developers will be writing .Net apps! :evil:

[Kevin Daly]

$1,000 for VS.NET dev package? There goes any chance small third party developers will be writing .Net apps! :evil:
Yes, that has been pointed out.
The best hope (slim as it is) is that we can persuade MS that it would be in their interests to make smart device programmability available with the single language versions of VS.NET, which as I've said before are actually quite cheap.

Time for some concerted and targeted whining, methinks.
There are after all times when even you best friend has to tell you you're making a mistake....
8)

[Kevin Daly]

It occurs to me that Microsoft are unlikely to sell a lot of extra copies of Visual Studio .NET so that people can develop for the Compact Framework.
They are, on the other hand, going to lose a lot of highly talented potential Compact Framework developers who either can't afford or are unwilling to pay the price of an up-level edition of VS.NET.
So even from a purely mercenary standpoint, I don't understand how the current marketing strategy benefits them.
0X

[Scott R]

It occurs to me that Microsoft are unlikely to sell a lot of extra copies of Visual Studio .NET so that people can develop for the Compact Framework.
They are, on the other hand, going to lose a lot of highly talented potential Compact Framework developers who either can't afford or are unwilling to pay the price of an up-level edition of VS.NET.
So even from a purely mercenary standpoint, I don't understand how the current marketing strategy benefits them.
0X
Here's what I think that MS is thinking:
1) Most 3rd party commercial software is developed in C++. MS still supports (?) embedded Visual C++ which is available for free. I imagine that this is the tool that most 3rd party developers use to develop PPC apps (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
2) VB is a RAD language/IDE which has a large user base in corporations.

So, I think MS is looking at this situation and wants to maximize the profit by focusing on enterprises here. That being said, this could hurt them more long-term as it could slow adoption of .NET among hobbyists who will stick with using C++.

Scott

[Dom]

"Supported Device Not Detected"
Me too on O2 XDA.
Guess we just wait for the service patch ?
:0)))
Dom

[Dom]

"Amazing Phone Smartphone 2002"
Hardly Amazing is it ;0) And then there is Orange's service which is the worst we have ever experienced from any company, anywhere !
Dom

[Will T Smith]

Microsoft has always made a dev kit (APIs w/ no IDE) available for free. I would suspect that they will do so for .net CF.

As others have mentioned, it would be very wise to bundle .net CF in the $99 single language packages. I really feel that PocketPC is a better platform for a hobbyist since they can run their programs ANYWHERE they go. Plus, hobbyist programs tend to be somewhat smaller by nature which makes them perfect for handheld devices.

[baralong]

Based on this page Top 10 Reasons to Upgrade to Visual Basic .NET 2003 (http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/productinfo/vbasic03/topten/upgrade.asp) (the related C# page is dead) I was initially hopeful with point (1)
Develop for Devices
With Visual Basic .NET 2003, you can now construct applications for a variety of mobile devices, including PocketPCs, TabletPCs, mobile phones, and more.*
Untill I say the asterisk and below it says
*Device-based development is available as part of Visual Studio .NET 2003 Professional, Visual Studio .NET 2003 Enterprise, and Visual Studio .NET 2003 Enterprise Architect editions.


Doesn't look good for the small time developer. Although with Get A Free Viewsonic V37 Pocket PC With VS .NET 2003 (https://vstudio.joleschgroup.com/) (US and Canada only :cry:) perhaps it takes some of the sting out of it.

[mscdex]

Ok... now where to find .NET CF applications? :?

I've already released 2 applications based on the .NET CF. They are available at www.s-church.net . The apps are Pyramid Solitaire and Clock Solitaire.

How did you create .Net CF applications? I thought it wasn't available until VS.NET 2003 comes out? Is the program you have, that creates .Net CF programs, free?

[CUShane]

Ok... now where to find .NET CF applications? :?

I've already released 2 applications based on the .NET CF. They are available at www.s-church.net . The apps are Pyramid Solitaire and Clock Solitaire.

How did you create .Net CF applications? I thought it wasn't available until VS.NET 2003 comes out? Is the program you have, that creates .Net CF programs, free?

With the MSDN subscription I have, I have access to the RC1 version of VS.NET 2003. RC1 contains the final version of the .NET CF and Microsoft released a "Go Live" license which allows you to release CF apps based on the RC1. There are freeware compilers for C# for .NET but they don't compile for the CF.

[digital-doc]

The redistributable is useless by itself. You need to buy .NET CF for $$$

[Kevin Daly]

The redistributable is useless by itself. You need to buy .NET CF for $$$
Not true. The redistributable is .NET CF.
The bit that costs the serious money is Visual Studio .NET 2003 (Professional Edition and upwards), that includes the development tools.
While I have been and continue to be highly (and repetitiously) critical of Microsoft's decision to only support CF development in the upper-end versions of Visual Studio .NET, it is a simple fact that for a person who uses applications but has no intention of developing them, the redistributable is very far from being useless, since it will enable them to use what other people create.
In that sense it is no more useless than the .NET redistributable is for the average non-developing Windows user.
(While I cannot understand what it is like to have no urge to develop software, I do understand and am eternally thankful that this is in fact the way most sane and normal human beings are, since it is they who give me money to pay for all my disgusting and reprehensible habits).
0X

[Ed Hansberry]

The redistributable is useless by itself. You need to buy .NET CF for $$$
Not true. The redistributable is .NET CF.
The bit that costs the serious money is Visual Studio .NET 2003 (Professional Edition and upwards), that includes the development tools.
True, but downloading and installing the redistributable is a bit like an end user downloading and installing the VBRUNx.DLL Visual Basic runtime files but has no app to run with them. They will just take up space.

[Kevin Daly]

True, but downloading and installing the redistributable is a bit like an end user downloading and installing the VBRUNx.DLL Visual Basic runtime files but has no app to run with them. They will just take up space.

That's true to a degree, but it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation - there's more of an incentive to develop CF software when the redistributable is already out in the wild - it would be best just to be able to distribute your application without having to distribute a big scary runtime with it (the analogy with the VB runtime is quite appropriate here) - but I accept that that is unlikely to be the situation at this stage.
I think things will really kick off once it starts coming pre-installed on new machines (I think as of now manufacturers should at least include it with their companion CD ROMs).
...Because the CF is much more important than it seems to those who just view the whole thing as equivalent to VB6 on Windows - the truth is that the need to use C++ for most serious work acts as a bottleneck on Pocket PC development (there are some things for which life is too short...actually I happen to believe that cricket is another one but that's a minority viewpoint), and the Compact Framework should unleash a great deal of development talent - which is why I'm so frustrated with the policy on Visual Studio .NET

[stevehiner]

(While I cannot understand what it is like to have no urge to develop software, I do understand and am eternally thankful that this is in fact the way most sane and normal human beings are, since it is they who give me money to pay for all my disgusting and reprehensible habits).
0X

So I'm not alone in the world! Sounds like we are cut from the same cloth, so to speak. I've been playing with the .NET CF for quite a while now (since the first SDE beta for .NET 2002) and I agree that it's release will unleash a huge amount of software. I'm already making plans to start on a serious .NET CF app sometime around the night of April 24th.

Everyone needs to be aware of the fact that the .NET CF will, overall, result in a huge savings in storage space. Sure you have to install a 1.5MB framework but you'll save space every time you install a .NET CF application since so much of the functionality is built into the framework installation.