3

I have a project done in VB.NET and I want to publish it for distribution. I know that when I build solution It creates an .Exe. But that requires local resorouces. If I build for release I know it works but it still needs the .Net platform installed. Is there anyway to make a true standalone .exe or something that would run on a persons computer if they do not have .NET installed. Also the ClickOnce application thing is not a wanted Solution.

Is there any converter program that can do this for me?

1478963
  • 1,198
  • 4
  • 11
  • 25
  • 1
    Short answer: you need .NET installed. It weights a ton, so imagine how nice would it be to have your small half-megabyte program suddenly be 80 MB. – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 10:17
  • You'll have some dependencies when you write a VB.NET program. It needs Windows, weighs in at several gigabytes. And you'll need what is preinstalled on the last 3 versions of Windows, the .NET runtime. There used to be companies that shipped linkers that removes the .NET runtime dependencies. They cost thousands of dollars, not terribly competitive with the .NET runtime, it is free. You'll need to go shopping if that's what you really want anyway. – Hans Passant Jun 16 '13 at 12:39

3 Answers3

2

The .NET framework represents the basic prerequisite to run a .NET program; equivalently than having Windows installed is the prerequisite to run a Windows program. Bear in mind that any Windows version includes the .NET framework (and, actually, it tends to involve top-priority updates and thus are automatically perfomed by Windows Update in many cases). A big proportion of the programs running on Windows created during the last 10 years are built on the .NET framework; a relevant proportion of the sites (like this one, for instance) are built on ASP.NET and thus the given server has to include the .NET framework. If overall compatility is a concern for you, you might rely on a-bit-old .NET version: the latest one in VS 2010 (4.0) should be fine for most of modern computers; but you can even rely on the previous one (3.5) to be completely sure. Lastly, bear in mind that a .NET program can also be run under a OS other than Windows (Linux or MacOS, for example); although, from my past experiences, these are not too reliable situations. Nonetheless, in case of being interested in other OS, you should do some research/testing on this front to see if the available options offer what you are looking for.

SUMMARY: the exe file generated by the Visual Studio is actually what you call "standalone .exe". One of its defining features is the .NET version (which can be changed in the Project Settings); a program can only be run on computers with a .NET framework (or equivalent) equal or newer than the one on which it was built. The 4.0 version should be OK for most of new/properly-updated computers; the 3.5 .NET would work with virtually any computer (although, logically, it includes less features than the 4.0 one).

---------------------------- UPDATE AFTER COMMENTS --------------------

From some comments, I have undertood that my statement wasn't as clear as I thought and this is the reason for this update

  • .NET is pre-installed in Windows only since Vista. XP does not include the .NET runtime by default. The reason for not having mentioned this issue in my answer was that having a XP Windows without .NET is highly unlikely. Firstly because this is a top-priority, automatic update and thus one of the first times the computer is connected to internet "Windows Update" will take care of this. And secondly because this is the basic framework for any Microsoft programming over the last 10 years and thus a Windows computer not having it will not be able to run almost anything. With this last sentence, I don't mind that most of the programs are built on .NET, but that for a Windows-based environment most of nowadays basic requirements do include .NET.

  • It was also pointed out that there is some compatibility problems between different .NET versions (that various side-by-side versions were required). The basic Microsoft approach to the different .NET versions is backwards compatibility, what means that a given .NET version can run any program built with that version or older. This is theoretically right, but not always right in fact. My approach to this problem is relying on a bit old .NET version (3.5) and not using too new/untested features (e.g., WPF). If you want a for-sure overall compatible program you should work quite a lot on this front (compatibility between versions is one of most typical problem of any programming platform), instead expecting Microsoft to take care of everything. Thus, in principle, just one .NET version (the last one) has to be installed (which, on the other hand, is not the case for a big proportion of computers; for example: computer including the 3.5 version being updated, over the years, to 4.0 and 4.5 by maintaining the previous versions).

  • Lastly, I want to highlight that my intention with this answer is not defending any programming approach over any other one; I am just describing what is there from the point of view of your question "can I remove the .NET part?" -> no, you cannot; there is no (sensible) way to do that. If you want to rely on a different programming platform you should get informed about it (I am sure that Camilo Martin will be more than happy to help you on this front). If you prefer to rely on .NET, be sure that you can generate an overall compatible program (to be run on Windows).

varocarbas
  • 12,354
  • 4
  • 26
  • 37
  • This is misleading. Windows XP does not include any .NET version out of the box (believing people update their machines is sadly naive), and other Windows include varying versions of .NET. Vista inclues .NET 3.0 for example. – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 10:12
  • Also, it would be wise to note that .NET in Linux and MacOS is due to the Mono project, and this does not include some things like WPF. – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 10:13
  • 1
    Also, I believe you need .NET 3.5 and 4.0 installed side-by-side, they're two different installs I think, so even if you have 4.0 I think you also need 3.5. I might be wrong on that. – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 10:15
  • Windows XP does not include any .NET version -> this is not right. I do have various Windows XP machines with .NET. .NET is a program you can install (as the one required for Java). An XP Windows not having .NET wouldn't work with 80% of today's sofware. – varocarbas Jun 16 '13 at 10:28
  • Linux & MacOS -> if you read my post, you would see that I have said that I don't recommend that. Not because of the WPF (that, well...) but because of not being too reliable approaches (at least from my experiences some years ago). But I did highlight this as an option. – varocarbas Jun 16 '13 at 10:30
  • Also, I believe you need .NET 3.5 and 4.0 -> you believe? Believing is a good thing but what you think about knowing or confirming your assumptions before writing something so extremely wrong (which, additionally, have got a +1?!). If you have the VS 2010, please make me the favour of opening a new project (with any language), select properties (RHS, on the Solution Explorer) and, under the "Application" tab, "Target Framework" you can see a Drop-Down menu including all the frameworks. Please, delete your comment and confirm your beliefs before writing so misleading comments. – varocarbas Jun 16 '13 at 10:35
  • And just out of curiousity @Camilo Martin, what is the exact point of all your comments? The conclusion? That he should look for conversors to standalone .exes? if you know about any of those, I would love to hear about it, please keep me informed. PS: I have +1 the question (someone -1 it; was it you?) because perhaps is not as evident as I thought and lots of people coming here have not-so-clear ideas as their ranking seem to indicate. – varocarbas Jun 16 '13 at 10:41
  • I cannot edit my previous comments (why?)... anyway: this is just to highlight that the .NET backwards compatibility is not just something on the VS, but on the target computers: having installed .NET 4.0 implies that you can run any program built on .NET 4.0 or older. A person not knowing that has clearly never developed an application to be used anywhere (= does not know but like to talk). Just FYI, I do most of my work on .NET 3.5 (and these applications are deployed on a wide variety of different old/new computers without a single .NET compatibility problem until the moment). – varocarbas Jun 16 '13 at 10:53
  • `I do have various Windows XP machines with .NET.` - Of course, you can install .NET, but this does not mean people have it installed. And you can run tons and tons of software, including some of the most popular ones (Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, all browsers, etc) without any version of .NET. "works on my machine" means nothing. And as much as I like C#, it doesn't account for "80%" of today's software. Yes! There are other languages. – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 20:23
  • I got an upvote on that, because I was right. I said "I believe", because it was the only part I guessed, but hey, [I'm right anyway](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2803434). You might delete your comment instead, because you're telling me to look up something you didn't look up for yourself. – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 20:25
  • `what is the exact point of all your comments?` - I'd like to know the same thing. My comments only addressed misleading points in your answer (so that you or someone else would not be misled), but yours seem to take it personally. And I didn't -1 you: whoever upvoted you took back the upvote (maybe after seeing your comments). When you get 1000 rep points you can see how many upvotes and downvotes there are: http://stackoverflow.com/privileges/established-user – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 20:30
  • `I cannot edit my previous comments (why?)` There's a time limit to editing comments so that conversations do not lose meaning. Something like 5 minutes. – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 20:33
  • `.NET 4.0 implies that you can run any program built on .NET 4.0 or older. A person not knowing that has clearly never developed an application to be used anywhere (= does not know but like to talk)` I invite you to look at [questions like this](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2816914). – Camilo Martin Jun 16 '13 at 20:36
  • let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/31835/discussion-between-varocarbas-and-camilo-martin) – varocarbas Jun 16 '13 at 22:05
0

Easy way to convert in .exe in VB.NET-2010:

  1. Create New Project

  2. Select Windows Application And Save Proper Path

  3. Comple Project then Select File-> Save All

  4. Select Build->Start Build

Your Project .exe Created Your Project Save Path:

  1. Select Windows Application 1

  2. Select bin Folder

  3. Select Debug Folder

And in Debug folder your .exe File is ready.

Bugs
  • 4,491
  • 9
  • 32
  • 41
user8411732
  • 9
  • 1
-2

Quick Basic once made and executable (.exe) directly form their VB code, but I wouldn't recommend converting to Quick Basic. You can look at Mono to see if they have anything yet. (mono allows you to use compiled vb.net in other operating systems).

Ezirit Reactor makes a single executable, but it's not free.

You can bundle .NET Framework into your distribution so that users don't have download it.

Why do you need an executable (.exe)? If the reason is for security and to minimize chances of reverse engineering, then get a good obfuscator.