Malcolm,

But that's the point ... the .NET CLR will come included with Windows, there will be no reason to download it and install it. Besides, the different versions are supposed to be able to co-exist (I had both 1.0 and 1.1 Frameworks on my machine with no problems whatsoever). What issues are you having? Why would an upgrade break other apps? It shouldn't.

~~Bonnie



>> You have just posted the most compelling reason I have seen on any forum as to why switch to developing with dotnet.
>
>Hi Tracy,
>
>I'm confused by your response and actually came to the exact opposite conclusion.
>
>IMO, client side .NET "runtime" (CLR) distribution is a nightmare. Compared to the VFP runtimes, the .NET CLR is not only huge, it has many more dependencies that need to be properly installed before everything works. And in the real world in which my clients live, a .NET CLR upgrade is so invasive that it often breaks other applications. Compare this to VFP 9 runtimes which come in at under 5M and can be installed in an application's folder without affecting any system files or registry entries. Most of my VFP applications can be installed on locked down workstations without any IT involvement.
>
>When it comes to .NET, I have little problem asking a customer to install or upgrade .NET CLR on a server. But to get upgraded, fully patched versions of .NET CLR distributed to desktop clients is an entirely different issue. In my experience, I've found client side distribution of .NET apps to be an expensive and risky initiative.
>
>I know your firm has a very large client base. Are you seeing something different with regards to client side (as opposed to server side) .NET CLR based apps?
>
>Malcolm