How to create a app in Visual Studio 2005 that doesnt require .net 2.0

[tarquel]

Hi all

I'm just wondering whether its possible to create a standalone app in Visual Studio 2005 that doesn't require .net 2.0 in order for the app to launch?

As the app is gonig to be used on old systems that include 98 / ME and 2k, having to install .net 2.0 first will defeat the point of things really - especially on old machines where installing .net 2.0 on them wont particually help the system.

Sorry if i have posted this in another thread btw - i meant to make a new thread most likely.

Cheers

Nath.

[MagicAndre1981]

what projecttype did you select?

[tarquel]

I haven't yet... im about to start it

Using the 2005 EE versions of C++ and VB btw.

I'm just after a simple windows standalone app - all it will do is run programs/setup installers that are located on in the same directory or higher up than it.

Even if the app required VB6 runtimes [like a VB6 project - had the same prob there] that wudn't be so bad, as they are more light weight and I would just need to find a way for the machine to install them automatically if they are needed.

Any thoughts wud be really welcome thanks.

Cheers

Nath

[LLXX]

According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/ the Express version does support "native" (i.e. non-.NET) application production. Since Express is just a reduced version of the full Visual Studio, I believe it can do the same as well.

Edit: For some reason, the newer compilers tend to produce more bloated code. If you want smaller programs, use an older version of the native C++ compiler.

Edited August 17, 2006 by LLXX

[tarquel]

any idea how tho? lol I think that if u use the winforms to create the gui objects and stuff, it wont be native.

Annoying because thats the easiest way for me to make it how i need to [as im new to the coding side of stuff].

EDIT: just looked at the link - i notice this: "Build 32-bit native code applications designed for Windows using the Windows Platform SDK" so i'm installing it... in hope

Cheers

Nath

Edited August 17, 2006 by tarquel

[RogueSpear]

While I certainly can appreciate all of the time saving aspects to programming under .NET 2.0, it sure does make for some really fat and slow code. I started programming back in the 80's and only got back into it starting with VBscript/JScript and more recently, using VB2005 to make AutoImage. Developing in a managed environment certainly is easier, but ****.. AutoImage shows as using 23MB in Task Manager. There is simply no excuse for that at all. The same with nLite. And I noticed with both of those applications, it takes a good long while for both of them to load on a fairly up to date PC.

I may be on the lookout for a good old fashioned C++ environment before too long. It may be more time consuming to develop utilities, but at least they'll be a little lighter on their feet.

[MagicAndre1981]

I prefer .NET 2.0, its cooler than JAVA and gives you more possibilities in programming as you have with C++ and MFC or with Win32API.

And please, forgett VB

[cyprod]

I've never used the express edition, but in the acedemic version you can't do it using C# or J#, but if you choose for a new VC++, click the plus to open up the menu and select MFC if you'd like to create an MFC project (MFC is sort of a precurser to .NET, not as nice IMO) or win32 project (win32 isn't actually a framework like .NET and MFC are, it's just using the straight win32 API, very useful for system level programming). Hope that helps

[RogueSpear]

And please, forgett VB

VB or C#.. not much difference during runtime. You know, that funny little thing called the CLR.

[LLXX]

And please, forgett VB

VB or C#.. not much difference during runtime. You know, that funny little thing called the CLR.

VB.NET, that is. "Classic" VB is just a little more bloated than C++.

Me, I prefer pure win32 API

Edited August 20, 2006 by LLXX