4 ms·

.Net 3.5 has shipped with every Windows since Vista, so you can basically do the same thing with C# or VB if you target those OSes. With reflection[1], you can

.Net 3.5 has shipped with every Windows since Vista, so you can basically do the same thing with C# or VB if you target those OSes. With reflection[1], you can even include third party libraries directly in the executable and access them at runtime, no installation required. [1]https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173183.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173183.aspx

Someone1234 11y ago
But the topic is specifically freestanding executables, not compatibility in general. If it utilises an external DLL, or library then it isn't freestanding, as a .Net 3.5 program typically isn't (although I think Microsoft has a .Net native compiler now, but I don't know if that can be configured to push external dependencies into the executable package). Don't misunderstand, I like .Net, I just think you've misunderstood what is being discussed.
- padobson 11y ago
  From the Windows 7 user's perpsective, there's no difference. It's understood that this article is meant to discuss zero-install applications that require nothing more than the standard C library. That said, if you're making and marketing software (as I would expect a few visitors of this thread might) and looking to accomplish something functionally similar with your C# or VBScript dev team, my comment can be helpful - which is why I wrote it. I've shipped a number of sub-5MB applications this way.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > It's understood that this article is meant to discuss zero-install applications that require nothing more than the standard C library. No, they are zero install, including NOT requiring a C library. No libraries at all. They're communicating directly with kernel32 from userland. On Windows that's as "bare metal" as a non-driver can really get.
JohnTHaller 11y ago
.NET 2, 3.5 and 4+ are distinct and updated differently. Vista shipped with .NET 3.0 and automatically updated to .NET 3.5. .NET 4.x is not an automatic update on Windows Vista, it has to be manually selected and added with admin rights .NET 2 and 3.5 are disabled by default on Windows 8/8.1/10 and require admin rights to enable them. So, there's no version of .NET in and of itself that will work on Windows Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10. The one exception is if you specifically build a .NET 2 or 3 app and list compatibility with .NET 3/4.5 in the packaging manifest, then it will work with all the bundled versions of .NET on Windows Vista and later releases.

Someone1234 11y ago

But the topic is specifically freestanding executables, not compatibility in general. If it utilises an external DLL, or library then it isn't freestanding, as a .Net 3.5 program typically isn't (although I think Microsoft has a .Net native compiler now, but I don't know if that can be configured to push external dependencies into the executable package). Don't misunderstand, I like .Net, I just think you've misunderstood what is being discussed.

padobson 11y ago
From the Windows 7 user's perpsective, there's no difference. It's understood that this article is meant to discuss zero-install applications that require nothing more than the standard C library. That said, if you're making and marketing software (as I would expect a few visitors of this thread might) and looking to accomplish something functionally similar with your C# or VBScript dev team, my comment can be helpful - which is why I wrote it. I've shipped a number of sub-5MB applications this way.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > It's understood that this article is meant to discuss zero-install applications that require nothing more than the standard C library. No, they are zero install, including NOT requiring a C library. No libraries at all. They're communicating directly with kernel32 from userland. On Windows that's as "bare metal" as a non-driver can really get.

JohnTHaller 11y ago

.NET 2, 3.5 and 4+ are distinct and updated differently. Vista shipped with .NET 3.0 and automatically updated to .NET 3.5. .NET 4.x is not an automatic update on Windows Vista, it has to be manually selected and added with admin rights .NET 2 and 3.5 are disabled by default on Windows 8/8.1/10 and require admin rights to enable them. So, there's no version of .NET in and of itself that will work on Windows Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10. The one exception is if you specifically build a .NET 2 or 3 app and list compatibility with .NET 3/4.5 in the packaging manifest, then it will work with all the bundled versions of .NET on Windows Vista and later releases.