Somebody please correct me because I hope I am wrong. In this thread I had a
disputation into the client profile, but it turns out I was right in choosing the separate installs as that reduced my framework install size by over 2/3.
Jaime Rodriguez has a pretty good explanation as to what the client profile is, and why it was procured. The salient points are that this is only of benefit to web installs, because as my miffed@ thread proves, you cannot install the client profile off-line. You inadvertently create a dependency for your application to use the internet in order to run (who's idea was that one?)
The client profile is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" for two reasons.
- The biggest one is that after installing the minimal 28 MB version (all that a client application needs), it then proceeds to install the full .NET 3.5 framework in the background at a later date via windows update. This includes all the server based ASP.NET, WCF, WF stuff, so is this still a client profile application? Err...no! You should have called it a quick installer or something else because that "client profile" does not stay so for very long. If you are installing a .NET application on a CD, You may as well install the full 230MB - especially on business networks where installations are controlled. This is very disappointing!
- If you have .NET 2.0, it does not behave as a client profile, it just upgrades your application to the full .NET 3.5 SP1. Is this still a client framework? I don't think so!
I had hoped that as .NET inflates a 2 tier framework would develop, but it seems that Microsoft have got this horribly wrong!