From: Karl E. Peterson on
Paul Clement wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:45:57 -0800, Tom Shelton
> <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote:
>
> � >> � Not if it's a .Net product. My app depends on drag and drop
> � >> � deployment with no install. .Net solutions don't allow for that.
> � >>
> � >> for XP it's a one-time deployment.
> � >
> � > Last time I checked, "one" was more than "none"!
> �
> � Definately. And since most buisness are still using XP, then Vista or 7,
> � there is definately a possibility that you might have to install it...
>
> Or deploy it with other Windows Updates as many companies do.

There's that intellectual dishonesty I was talking about. Sure didn't
take long for a relevant example. There is no functional difference,
in the end, between "install" and "deploy" - HTH!

--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org


From: C. Kevin Provance on

"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:5v3tn5hsbjg2jtg1h2rjkkk4b7im7skvop(a)4ax.com...
| On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:39:24 -0700, "Tony Toews [MVP]"
<ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote:
|
| � >Good luck. It's 2010. It's time to move forward.
| �
| � Not if it's a .Net product. My app depends on drag and drop
| � deployment with no install. .Net solutions don't allow for that.
| �
| � Tony
|
| That might be true for XP systems if the .NET Framework is not installed
but it isn't true of Vista
| and Windows 7 where it comes pre-installed.
|
| Otherwise, for XP it's a one-time deployment.
|

Wrong. FUD. Off topic. Take it somewhere else evangelist.


From: mayayana on

> > Or deploy it with other Windows Updates as many companies do.
>
> There's that intellectual dishonesty I was talking about. Sure didn't
> take long for a relevant example. There is no functional difference,
> in the end, between "install" and "deploy" - HTH!
>

I was thinking of it as a very small fig leaf
covering some very large .Net naughty bits. :)


From: Tony Toews [MVP] on
Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote:

>� Not if it's a .Net product. My app depends on drag and drop
>� deployment with no install. .Net solutions don't allow for that.
>�
>� Tony
>
>That might be true for XP systems if the .NET Framework is not installed but it isn't true of Vista
>and Windows 7 where it comes pre-installed.
>
>Otherwise, for XP it's a one-time deployment.

Some folks are still running my app on Windows 2000. I just had a
simple request for an Access 97 specific feature. (Which only took an
hour to add.)

What about all the versioning problems? Or are there none with the
..NET Framework?

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
From: Paul Clement on
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:35:17 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote:

� > � >> � Not if it's a .Net product. My app depends on drag and drop
� > � >> � deployment with no install. .Net solutions don't allow for that.
� > � >>
� > � >> for XP it's a one-time deployment.
� > � >
� > � > Last time I checked, "one" was more than "none"!
� > �
� > � Definately. And since most buisness are still using XP, then Vista or 7,
� > � there is definately a possibility that you might have to install it...
� >
� > Or deploy it with other Windows Updates as many companies do.

� There's that intellectual dishonesty I was talking about. Sure didn't
� take long for a relevant example. There is no functional difference,
� in the end, between "install" and "deploy" - HTH!

Install, deploy, roll-out. I don't care which word or phrase you use because it doesn't change the
meaning of my statement. Nitpicking are you?


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)