Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Determine branding for WindowsDesktop shared framework bundle installer #191

Closed
dagood opened this issue Jul 31, 2019 · 25 comments
Closed

Determine branding for WindowsDesktop shared framework bundle installer #191

dagood opened this issue Jul 31, 2019 · 25 comments

Comments

@dagood
Copy link
Member

dagood commented Jul 31, 2019

This is what the Windows Desktop Runtime bundle installer UI looks like with my initial implementation, basically just replacing .NET Core with Windows Desktop. Initial questions:

  1. Is Microsoft Windows Desktop Runtime the right name?
  2. What should the description text be changed to?
  3. What should/can we do about the overflow?
    • An interesting wrinkle with fixing it is the Alpha 1/Preview 9/etc. prerelease label won't appear in the stable release, so if we fix it by e.g. decreasing font size, it would be pointlessly small at 3.0.0 RTM. I'm thinking it might make the most sense to verify it'll eventually work with RTM versioning and leave it.

image

Note that this has to loop through the loc process once we're done. I'll drive that.

@vatsan-madhavan @merriemcgaw @zsd4yr, thoughts?

/cc @dleeapho @leecow @ericstj

(Bundle implementation tracked at https://github.com/dotnet/core-setup/issues/6384.)
@vatsan-madhavan
Copy link
Member

/cc @grubioe, @richlander ,@diverdan92, @OliaG

@vatsan-madhavan
Copy link
Member

My 2c - Let's stick to a name that matches what we already selected for the runtime & sdk etc. - Windows Desktop. In other words, I'm happy with @dagood's proposal for name - Windows Desktop Runtime

@grubioe
Copy link

grubioe commented Jul 31, 2019 •
edited
Loading

@BethMassi for input.

Windows Desktop Runtime works from my perspective.

@merriemcgaw
Copy link
Member

I'm fine with that or with "Windows Desktop Shared Framework Runtime", but that seems even more excessive :)

@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Aug 1, 2019

Cool, sounds like we agree on this so far, which perfectly mirrors what shows up in the .NET Core Runtime installer:

  • Title: Microsoft Windows Desktop Runtime - 5.0.0 Alpha 1 (x64)
  • Description header: Windows Desktop Runtime

I believe branding is consistent across the product with calling the shared frameworks "runtimes", so no need to add the extra words. 🙂 (In some contexts I might call CoreCLR or Mono a runtime, making things a bit confusing... I'm trying to call them VMs instead when that comes up.)

Any ideas on the description body and links? Is there someone I can assign this issue to to figure that out?

@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Aug 5, 2019

Current text:

Windows Desktop Runtime

.NET Core is a development platform that you can use to build command-line applications, microservices and modern websites. It is open source, cross-platform, and supported by Microsoft. We hope you enjoy it!

My motivation for changing this:

  1. The text describes development and building, which this isn't for.
  2. It mentions various types of projects, but desktop apps are notably missing.
  3. It says cross-platform, but it don't run/exist on non-Windows platforms.

Maybe for Preview 9, we can simply remove the section. I'll submit a quick PR to do this as the default.

@dleeapho
Copy link

dleeapho commented Aug 7, 2019

/cc @leecow can you chase down the answer for the above?

@vatsan-madhavan
Copy link
Member

vatsan-madhavan commented Aug 8, 2019 •
edited
Loading

This is what I see for ASP.NET Core. Are we planning on changing or adding more verbiage to it? If the answer is no, then I'd recommend that we take out the text from WindowsDesktop shared framework as well and keep things consistent.

image

If we plan on adding some text to ASP.NET Core shared framework installer, then we should definitely make a matching update and add relevant text to WindowsDesktop shared framework as well. Something like this could be a reasonable starting point for iteration:

Windows Desktop shared framework/runtime contains support for using Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and Windows Forms. It is a part of .NET Core development platform, is open-source, and supported by Microsoft.

@merriemcgaw
Copy link
Member

merriemcgaw commented Aug 8, 2019 •
edited
Loading

@vatsan-madhavan - Why WPF first:

Windows Desktop shared framework/runtime contains support for using Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and Windows Forms. It is a part of .NET Core development platform, is open-source, and supported by Microsoft.

😁

I actually really like just keeping it simple like the current text for ASP.NET. Either that or we arm-wrestle over who is first 😉

@vatsan-madhavan
Copy link
Member

@merriemcgaw, No idea - I copied it from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-core-3-0#windows-desktop ;-). I’m fine with any order really - let’s change it up by all means!

@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Aug 8, 2019

That installer's text is a little busted (note the double space and weird phrase), here's the 2.2 one:

image

Might want to report the 3.0 issue (if it hasn't been already)?

The audience seems to me to be different enough that I don't know if it makes sense to take cues from that installer. (Devs installing the sfx on server/hosting machines vs. users (and devs) trying to run a FDE/FDD WindowsDesktop app.) But the SDK and .NET Core Runtime installers are also dev-focused, and they're the wordy ones, so I don't see clear precedent either way.

@merriemcgaw
Copy link
Member

@vatsan-madhavan maybe we can alternate the order each major release to keep it fair ;)

@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Aug 16, 2019

I'm going to move a little forward with porting the installer to 3.0 with the one-liner and description removed--this means we can reuse the .NET Core Runtime loc, because those lines appear to be the only text that wouldn't work for both.

image

If there's text that should be there for Preview 9, I think we can add it, but I doubt it could be localized in time.

@richlander
Copy link
Member

richlander commented Aug 16, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Proposal:

  • Microsoft .NET Core for Windows Desktop Apps -- 3.0.0 (x64)
  • Microsoft .NET Core for Windows Server Apps -- 3.0.0
  • Microsoft ASP.NET Core Runtime -- 3.0.0
  • Microsoft .NET Core Runtime -- 3.0.0 (x64)

Note: The first two are intended for direct customer download and usage since they are for specific app-models. The SDK is similar in that respect. The bottom two are not useful in most scenarios and are largely pulled in via other installers.

Note: I am assuming the middle two cover both x64 and x86. Seems like the first one should too. I think there is mounting evidence that we should do that.

Currently (for comparison):

  • Microsoft Windows Desktop Runtime -- 3.0.0 (x64)
  • Microsoft .NET Core 3.0.0 Windows Server Hosting
  • Microsoft ASP.NET Core 3.0.0 Shared Framework
  • Microsoft .NET Core Runtime -- 3.0.0 (x64)

@BethMassi
Copy link

Agree with Rich on naming. Branding still falls under .NET Core.

@vatsan-madhavan
Copy link
Member

I like @richlander’s proposal!

Yes, WindowsDesktop should include both x86 and x64. @dagood can you confirm ?

@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Aug 18, 2019 •
edited
Loading

The download page https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-core/3.0 has this currently:

Windows

I believe only the Runtime & Hosting Bundle includes both x64 and x86. Another important difference is that the Runtime & Hosting Bundle includes the .NET Core Runtime. Others have one installer per arch and only includes a single shared framework.

Here's what a "complete" lineup looks like to me, based on the wording on the download page plus the proposal:

This gets a bit muddy because the branding uses "Bundle" to mean that it includes the .NET Core Runtime, but all the listed installers are "bundle installers" in technical language. This is why issue titles might be a little confusing.

The installer that I've implemented is Windows Desktop Installer, one installer for each arch. I haven't had the Runtime & Windows Desktop Bundle in mind, but it makes sense that it's needed for app users. Filed https://github.com/dotnet/core-setup/issues/7763 to track it.

I don't have time to create a Runtime & Windows Desktop Bundle in 3.0 Preview 9. The infra builds x64 and x86 in parallel, so there is some work to do to even get the assets from both archs on the same machine to combine them together.

Continuing to move forward with the Windows Desktop Installer that has no description text, for now.

@DamianEdwards
Copy link
Member

I like @richlander's proposal above. That gives us something that I think will translate to what we need to display on the main download page too (basically we'd add a button to download the desktop apps runtime).

Richard also suggested we combine both architectures into the installer for Windows Desktop app runtimes. This would simplify the download choices but of course increase the installer size. Does anyone know what the .NET Framework installer does RE architectures today?

@dleeapho
Copy link

Does anyone know what the .NET Framework installer does RE architectures today?

@NikolaMilosavljevic can you answer?

@vatsan-madhavan
Copy link
Member

vatsan-madhavan commented Aug 23, 2019 •
edited
Loading

.NET Framework follows Windows’ rules.

Installing x64 will (in fact, must) implicitly install WoW64 binaries (ie x86).

There is no such thing as registration-free installation (ie, “zip”, “xcopy” etc) - an “installer” is always involved, so managing WoW64 gets handled by the installer (MSI, CBS etc).

@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Sep 13, 2019 •
edited
Loading

For tracking purposes, this issue is about finding the right branding for the installers we're producing for 3.0 that only include the Windows Desktop runtime and only include a single architecture. (Windows Desktop Installer: x64 | x86 above.)(Edit in 2020 to clarify: we do bundle .NET Core Runtime + Desktop Runtime now, but we still don't have branding, so this issue now tracks branding the current bundle.)

The installer that bundles x86 + x64 + WindowsDesktop + .NET Core is tracked at https://github.com/dotnet/core-setup/issues/7763 and it's unclear whether it's necessary with other plans for 3.1.

@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Nov 6, 2019

Moving to dotnet/windowsdesktop. If there are changes based on this issue to backport to 3.1, please open a new issue in dotnet/core-setup.

@dagood dagood transferred this issue from dotnet/core-setup Nov 6, 2019
@dagood dagood mentioned this issue Jan 30, 2020
Closed
@RussKie
Copy link
Member

RussKie commented Mar 31, 2021

Is there anything outstanding, or can we close this?

@dagood dagood mentioned this issue Mar 31, 2021
Closed
@dagood
Copy link
Member Author

dagood commented Mar 31, 2021

It looks like there's text now! 🎉

image

/cc @NikolaMilosavljevic

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

It looks like there's text now! 🎉

Yeah, that was fixed as part of 5.0 branding work: #769

Closing this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
10 participants
@DamianEdwards @richlander @RussKie @BethMassi @dleeapho @NikolaMilosavljevic @dagood @vatsan-madhavan @merriemcgaw @grubioe