.NET Framework penetration


Approximately three years ago, we shipped the first version of C# along with VS 2002 and .NET Framework 1.0.  Early on, there was a lot of concern about how quickly we could get broad distribution of the framework so that application developers could reduce or eliminate the need to redistribute it with their applications.

Our marketing team tracks this kind of thing regularly.  I thought it would be valuable to share some of the recent data, which shows very broad penetration of the framework:

  • More than 120M copies of the .NET Framework have been downloaded and installed using either Microsoft downloads or Windows Update
  • More than 85% of new consumer PCs sold in 2004 had the .NET Framework installed
  • More than 58% of business PCs have the .NET Framework preinstalled or preloaded
  • Every new HP consumer imaging device (printer/scanner/camera) will install the .NET Framework if it’s not already there – that’s 3M units per year
  • Every new Microsoft IntelliPoint mouse software CD ships with the .NET Framework

–Scott


Comments (18)

  1. Anonymous Coward says:

    Which version of the .Net framework? Are there compatibility issues between different versions of the .Net framework?

    Of current machines running Windows worldwide, what percent have the .Net framework?

  2. Wayne says:

    It’s too bad that 99% of all statistics are wrong 😉

  3. I don’t have the breakdown of versions — that’s a good question.

    Applications written for .NET Framework 1.0 can run under 1.1, so developers can target all versions by building apps that target 1.0.

    If a developer writes an app that targets 1.1, e.g., that uses an API that was added in 1.1, then it will not work against 1.0.

    It’s harder to answer this question: "Of current machines running Windows worldwide, what percent have the .Net framework?" since for privacy reasons I don’t think it’s possible to gather this information without the user’s permission. (Caveat — I am not a privacy expert.)

  4. Ricky Datta says:

    Why did it not get installed as part of XP SP1 ?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft .NET Framework penetration numbers > Software dev > IT Facts

  6. Barry says:

    Scott –

    "More than 58% of business PCs have the .NET Framework preinstalled or preloaded".

    That’s fine but not a real reflection: I work for a truly huge company (think fortune 500), and my wife in a separate f500 company. Both uninstall the preinstalled OS, and place a corporate build of win2k on all desktops *minus* .NET. I know of at least two other companies (one motor, one electric) that do the same.

    – Barry.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Victor Boctor – .NET Framework penetration

  8. Max says:

    "Of current machines running Windows worldwide, what percent have the .Net framework?"

    Scott, i think its easy to answer that question by datamining weblogs of some public non-developer site, say msn.com. % of IE visitors who have .NET installed will be very valuable datapoint.

  9. Anthony D. Green says:

    "That’s fine but not a real reflection: I work for a truly huge company (think fortune 500), and my wife in a separate f500 company. Both uninstall the preinstalled OS, and place a corporate build of win2k on all desktops *minus* .NET. I know of at least two other companies (one motor, one electric) that do the same"

    If your corporate IT department can make a corp build image they could certainly make one that includes .NET. When was it that we decided that we didn’t have jobs, that everything would always be handed to us? Maybe it was because VB did everything for us. But if deploying the framework within an, I assume, networked corporate intranet is an extreme issue I’m not sure you all have the resources to be in business at all. Modify your corporate build that you install on all new machines to install .NET (this is part of your deployment strategy). If you aren’t the person responsible for it then bitch at the person who is until they justify their paycheck. Use your domain controller to do a distributed install. Surely you could do it if you actually wanted to.

  10. Plebeian says:

    I have been looking at building a low-end, home user-oriented (email-related), and therefore non-enterprise shareware application using .NET. My informal market research reveals that there are presently very few applications of that kind that require the .NET Framework.

    I believe that the main reason for this is the perception that .NET does not have good penetration onto ordinary users’ desktops, and is difficult to install from an application’s setup procedure.

    So, even if the quoted statistics are accurate, they do not tell us what percentage of those PCs are corporate PCs and what percentage are home user PCs. I suspect that most are corporate PCs.

    Microsoft seems to have expended very little effort in encouraging home users to install .NET. For example, Windows Update leaves this as an optional install rather than a recommended install, and tells people to install it only if they have a program that requires it. This increases the acceptance barrier for developers who want to use .NET to deploy applications that are aimed at home users.

    In addition, the only easy way to incorporate the installation of the .NET Framework into an installer seems to require that the 25MB dotnetfx.exe be distributed along with the application – whether or not the target PC has .NET.

    If Microsoft wanted to encourage the use of .NET by home users, why wouldn’t they have provided a simple native code library that checks for the existence of .NET, if not present, checks for the existence of Internet Explorer 5.01 or above, and if either or both are not present, initiates a download and install of whatever is missing from a Microsoft server, in the proper order?

    This would enormously reduce the barriers to use of the Framework for home user-oriented applications.

    Similar things could be said about MSDE, but in that case it seems fairly clear that Microsoft cares only about MSDE’s role as a feeder for SQL Server purchases, and has no real intention of supporting its use for single-user desktop applications (even though they nominally support this).

    I would be very interested in hearing other people’s opinions regarding this, and would be delighted if my present perceptions on any of the above are wrong, as I would very much like to write an application for home users that relies upon .NET.

  11. dotgrid says:

    Disclaimer: I'm no MS/.Net evangelist. I'm just a computer software developer that wants to share

  12. Work at home moms. Work from home moms. Wahm com the online magazine for work at home moms. Moms work from home. Amazon com work at home moms. Moms work at home.