What is the .NET 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 market share?

[alexey_r]

I am wondering if it makes sense to write a donationware application using WPF or LINQ yet...

[Lashiec]

If it's a nice application, I'm sure people will get .NET 3.x to use it, though I guess its "market share" (I don't think Mono for Windows could qualify as a competitor ) is at least decent with all those .NET apps out there that require the framework, and Vista installations increasing each month.

[Dormouse]

Some people refuse to have anything to do with any .Net application. And that will be 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 etc etc.

I think the others would be prepared to upgrade their version of .Net if needed for an application they wanted.

[mouser]

Some people refuse to have anything to do with any .Net application. And that will be 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 etc etc.
I think the others would be prepared to upgrade their version of .Net if needed for an application they wanted.

i think that's right.  though you might rephrase the second part as saying that people who are happy using .net applications will happily upgrade their .net whenever a new version is out and is needed by one of the .net programs they use.

there is probably a 3rd group of people who are novice users who will happily use a .net application if it runs out of the box, but will NOT be willing to or able to figure out how to install .net if that is required.

the thing we don't know is how many people fall into each camp.

[alexey_r]

Well, anybody who refuses to do anything with .Net can forgo my application easily enough (and suffer for this ).
But given the 200MB download size for 3.5 people just _might_ be reluctant to download it for a small application...

Basically, I've seen plenty of freeware/donationware programs requiring .NET 2.0, but I can think of none requiring even 3.0.
To be quite honest, the most important consideration for using WPF in this application for me is just to learn it
And some things can be added in the future much easier with WPF as well, but none of them are planned for the first version.

[Lashiec]

Basically, I've seen plenty of freeware/donationware programs requiring .NET 2.0, but I can think of none requiring even 3.0.

-alexey_r (August 05, 2008, 03:43 PM)

There are a few, the most prominent of them is Yahoo! Messenger, a specific version for Vista anyway, which is still in beta.

[Dormouse]

I'm not sure what they are, but I got 3.0 for something & then upgraded to 3.5 to see if it solved a Circle Dock problem.

[alexey_r]

Ok, so there are some... nice to know.

[mouser]

once you decide to use .net i don't know why you wouldn't use the most recent version with the newest fancy features.

[alexey_r]

See above: 200MB install for 3.5 (less after the Service Pack comes out EDIT: didn't know how small it was, see below) (22 for 2.0, 50 for 3.0).
2.0 is installed already on all XP SP2 computers (and maybe SP1 too, don't remember), 3.0 on all Vista computers.

Sure, if I was writing the program for myself only, or for .Net programmers only, I'd be using the latest version without any hesitation;
but I'm not.

[alexey_r]

.NET 3.5 SP1 introduces a new setup package option for developers building .NET client applications called the ".NET Framework Client Profile".  This provides a new setup installer that enables a smaller, faster, and simpler installation experience for .NET client applications on machines that do not already have the .NET Framework installed.

The .NET Framework Client Profile setup contains just those assemblies and files in the .NET Framework that are typically used for client application scenarios.  For example: it includes Windows Forms, WPF, and WCF.  It does not include ASP.NET and those libraries and components used primarily for server scenarios.  We expect this setup package to be about 26MB in size, and it can be downloaded and installed much quicker than the full .NET Framework setup package.

Well, this makes the decision a lot easier

[mouser]

finally.

[kyrathaba]

there is probably a 3rd group of people who are novice users who will happily use a .net application if it runs out of the box, but will NOT be willing to or able to figure out how to install .net if that is required.

My understanding (which may be in error, in which case I hope to be corrected) is that if you use the Standard or Professional version of Visual Studio for development, there is an option to detect during installation whether or not the user's computer has the required version of .NET installed and, if not, give them the option of allowing the installer to direct the user to download the appropriate framework.  I don't think it's possible for the framework to be contained directly within the installer because the installer would have to be humongous! 

The thing is, there aren't a huge number of diehard *nix-using Windows-haters out there.  Microsoft is deplorable in some ways, but it has become fashionable to bash the company.  I myself enjoy doing so from time to time, even.  But that doesn't change the fact that most of the world uses Windows.  And those who run *nix often have a dual-boot option and sneak some time on Windows when they're locked in their closet and none of their diehard friends will know about it.  So... given the great amount of work MS has done to permeate its ubiquitous operating system with the Framework, the ever-increasing number of .NET applications in the wild, and the fact that *nix systems aren't far from having the ability to run .NET apps (nod to Mono), the only real reason any non-programmer would refuse to have the Framework installed is sheer stubborness.

Note: I mean the above to be taken a bit tongue-in-cheek (although there is some nugget of truth therein, I believe), so please moderate any flames directed this way... 

[Ehtyar]

All good conversation don't get me wrong, but are there any actual figures on adoption of .net? Perhaps also in comparison to comparable frameworks? I'd be very interested to see some.

Ehtyar.

[mahesh2k]

the only real reason any non-programmer would refuse to have the Framework installed is sheer stubborness.

You mean installing Framework of about "200MB install for 3.5 " is Stubbornness and not the inept of MS of not slicing it down?   

So What about the users running on Dialup or No internet at all? What about Users which can't get on Framework in anyway? How they'll install application?

[Ehtyar]

Indeed there is a member on the irc channel still struggling along on 64k. Is he being stubborn in not installing a 200mb framework?

Ehtyar.

[mahesh2k]

Indeed there is a member on the irc channel still struggling along on 64k. Is he being stubborn in not installing a 200mb framework?

Plus, you can add the fluctuations of data transfer on 64kb line and many times installer getting nervous and not moving further  What about that?

One more point to note that if you bundle the framework with application then what will be the size of that app? and how much you're going to compress it? and if you're developer on that 64kbps line how you gonna upload it to web?  .

[CWuestefeld]

Not exactly what you want, but here's the only authoritative, purely objective information I can find:

• More than 120M copies of the .NET Framework have been downloaded and installed using either Microsoft downloads or Windows Update
• More than 85% of new consumer PCs sold in 2004 had the .NET Framework installed
• More than 58% of business PCs have the .NET Framework preinstalled or preloaded
• Every new HP consumer imaging device (printer/scanner/camera) will install the .NET Framework if it’s not already there – that’s 3M units per year
• Every new Microsoft IntelliPoint mouse software CD ships with the .NET Framework

http://blogs.msdn.com/scottwil/archive/2005/03/09/391199.aspx

[kyrathaba]

But arguing against .NET's size simply because a minority of people are still on dial-up and 200Mb would be a prohibitively large download is like arguing that a classroom's curriculum be dumbed down to the least academically gifted student in the room.

Those people who must rely on slow internet connections will necessarily want to opt for something smaller than a .NET Framework d/l and install.  But for most of us, nowadays, who have either DSL or the emerging fiber-optics (even faster), the .NET Framework download isn't that big a deal, IMHO.