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?
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).
Easy way to convert in .exe in VB.NET-2010:
Create New Project
Select Windows Application And Save Proper Path
Comple Project then Select File-> Save All
Select Build->Start Build
Your Project .exe Created Your Project Save Path:
Select Windows Application 1
Select bin Folder
Select Debug Folder
And in Debug folder your .exe File is ready.
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.
This is driving me crazy. I have developed a .NET COM DLL that is used by a VB6 DLL wrapper in order to update and replace some legacy functions in an application.
I am now trying to remove the requirement to use regasm on client machines so have worked out how to do that on a test DLL which all works fine.
I branched the DLL just in case and added an app.manifest file. Everything else worked out fine and I got it all working. The manifest is embedded and Visual Studio 2012 generates a mydll.dll.manifest file in the release folder.
Then I went back to the original trunk and added an app.manifest file (no point in merging as there were no code changes). I copied the contents of the branch into the app.manifest file and built the release version. The manifest is embedded in the DLL but no mydll.dll.manifest file is generated.
I know that it's not strictly necessary to have the mydll.dll.manifest file but I'd like things to be consistent (and for some reason the test process doesn't produce the same results with the trunk version) so how can I force it to be created?
This is a VB.NET DLL project so it doesn't have (or I can't find) the 'Generate Manifest' property drop down mentioned in the first answer here. How can I set this? Or is there a way to set it by editing the project file directly?
References:
Original walkthrough article and some corrections.
Overview by Junfeng Zhang in two articles plus a useful tool
You are making a fairly common mistake. A reg-free COM manifest helps an application find a COM server without looking in the registry to locate the DLL. Embedding the manifest in the DLL is like trying to solve the chicken and egg problem, Windows cannot possibly find that manifest if it cannot locate the DLL first.
The manifest needs to be part of the client app. Which is tricky since it is VB6, it doesn't support embedding manifests in its executables.
You could tinker with the mt.exe tool, an SDK utility that supports embedding manifests in an executable. You'd have to run it by hand after building the VB6 binaries. That's unfun and very likely to cause trouble when you forget. It is in general not a joyful tool to use, documentation is meager, incomplete and unhelpful, a chronic problem with manifests.
The fall back is a separate app.exe.manifest file, what Windows will look for next when it cannot find a manifest embedded in the executable. Where "app.exe" must be renamed to the name of the VB6 program. The EXE, not the DLL. This now also gives you a chance to avoid having to register the VB6 DLL, presumably what you really want if you truly want to make your program run reg-free. The disadvantage is that it will not work when you debug your VB6 program, wrong EXE. You'd also need a vb6.exe.manifest, located in the VB6 install directory.
Needless to say perhaps, very hard to get ahead with VB6 here. It just wasn't made to help you do this, they didn't have a time machine in 1998.
I have to admit that I don't know VB at all, but in the case of C++ and C# Visual Studio projects I previously had to resort to calling mt.exe in a post-build step in order to get the DLL manifest I wanted. Maybe that workaround would work in your case as well?
I hope you can help me with this.
I want to build a dll (statically linking other, non-third-party libraries) using version 4053 of the CRT (/MD) instead of the latest (5592) in Visual Studion 2005 SP1.
I'm wondering if using the following method is enough to accomplish this. By using this method in all dependent projects of the solution, to my understanding, the dll's embedded manifest is altered to state the CRT (and MFC, ATL) version requested. Is this assumption correct?
Is simply making sure the dll's embedded manifest states the wanted version enough? Shouldn't I also use the correct import library (msvcrt.lib) belonging to the older (4053) CRT dll (msvcr80.dll) when building my dll (with ignore specific library)? How is this import library (msvcrt.lib) changed with minor version changes like this?
Thanks in advance!
Marc Maussen
The CRT version number is declared in vc/include/crtassem.h. For MFC it is vc/atlmfc/include/mfcassem.h. For ATL it is vc/atlmfc/include/atlassem.h. If you got the security update installed on your dev machine then these files will be updated. Using #define _CRT_ASSEMBLY_VERSION x.y.z.w (etcetera) before #including any CRT header will override that version number. So does uninstalling the security update.
This is otherwise unwise, the target machine is still going to use the .5592 revision of the DLL if it has the security update installed. It deploys a 'publisher policy' that redirects the version number, ensuring that old programs automatically get patched. Testing the version that runs on your customer's machine is of course always best. And shipping an installer with a known security problem is very rarely appreciated by customers.
I have a seemingly random problem where my project will run using an old version of a DLL file that no longer exists. Sometimes the real version of the DLL file will be used, other times an ancient version of the DLL file will be used. Who knows where Visual Studio is getting this DLL file from - it's months out of date!
I know that it is using the old DLL file, because when the application runs I start getting weird 'TypeLoadExceptions', complaining that methods don't exist or don't have implementations.
The following actions will sometimes help, sometimes not:
Restarting Visual Studio
Restarting the computer
Cleaning and rebuilding the solution
Deleting everything in \WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\Temporary ASP.NET Files
Searching for and deleting instances of the DLL file in \Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Temp
Sometimes I perform all of the above steps, and it still uses an old copy of the DLL file. Where is it hiding it?!
The same issue exists on our TeamCity server which is using MSBuild. When TeamCity tries to run unit tests it uses an old DLL file.
Now, I know that I can use assembly redirection in the web.config file, but the version number of the DLL file hasn't changed (I don't bother to update it, so it just stays at version 1). I don't want to have to start versioning the DLL files just to solve this problem. I would just like to know which particular caches I need to clear so that I can get on with developing.
It hides it in the GAC. There it may reside indefinitely. Using a more recent version may indeed solve the problem, but there is an outstanding bug in Visual Studio that has to do with choosing the correct version of DLL files. (If DLL Hell wasn't bad enough, the Visual Studio team is making it worse!)
Finding it in the GAC is tricky, and I cannot advise you on how to do that, but once the old version is deleted from there, it will not be found again. Sometimes, even though you are pointing the compiler at a newer version (by date), it will use the older version, because it has the same version level (by version). That is its bug.
Who knows where Visual Studio is getting this dll from - it's months
out of date!
The Modules Window is your friend...
It'll tell you exactly where that file is coming from. You can even use it with arbitrary processes if you attach the debugger.
I too would guess that they're hiding in the GAC.
You can look in 'C:\Windows\assembly' to see all the dlls and unregister yours from there.
The problem may exists with the build order or your projects.
If your Test project is built before the application project, this cause the behaviour you describe. To fix this: right click on your main project in VS and select the Project Dependencies... option and check the build order. Changes to the build subsequence can be made here by correctly setting these dependencies.
I had a similiar problem (but without Visual Studio). I am loading a .NET dll using UnsafeLoadFrom.
On one computer (a terminal server) the old file still remains being used, regardless of updated version numbers, etc.
The reason is simple: As long as a program instance is running, which has already loaded the old dll, the new dll will never be used. All further UnsafeLoadFrom will become the old dll although the old version doesn't exist on the harddisk anymore, because it has already loaded some time ago.
The solution is to shut down all running instances of the application or even restart the computer. Then all new instances will get the updated dll.
In my case, this was caused switching to Release mode, which had a different configuration (that used different location of the DLL).
In my case, I use Visual Studio to Publish Website, and though I check the reference of the dll file has changed, but the published dll still is old. Finally I new a Publish Web Profile and choose the right configuration (such as Debug - x86 / Release - Any CPU), publish again then the dll is corrected.
While this question is old, maybe someone will stumble upon it again in his/her quest for finding a solution.
In my case i got a CS0433 error for an ASP.Net page. After deleting the content in the obj\ and bin\ folders of the project, it worked again. Probably has to be done with a closed Visual Studio. Maybe also clean out those folders in referenced projects in the same solution (if used in the project and not pulled via Nuget).
In my case, the old DLL was in
C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\assembly\GAC_MSIL\MyDLL\MyDLL.dll
It DID NOT show up in c:\Windows\assembly.
I did a search of my drive for MyDLL, and it showed up as indicated above. I was debugging my test app at the time, and tried to delete the offending folder...no go...it was locked by Visual Studio. I had to stop debugging my app, close Visual Studio, and then delete the folder. Problem solved!! I don't know how my DLL got there, but it hasn't showed up there since I deleted it.
It's possible that the DLL is being referenced from another folder. It could even be on a network drive if you have one in your PATH environment variable. Here's how Windows searches for DLLs:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7d83bc18%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
In My Visual Studio 2015, I ensured that the offending Visual Studio project's Reference Path Listing is empty:
If you find such problem ,delete your Reference dll and pdb extensionfile add new references and rebuild your project .This often happens due to no rebuild of project,commit and updates.
The fix for me was making sure that the virtual directory in IIS was pointing to the correct directory. I have two projects on my system, a v4 and a v5. The virtual directory on my dev system was pointing to the v4 bin directory instead of my v5 bin directory - oops!
The file that was being cached in the dll, I couldn't trace the file, so I ended up renaming the file. This might not resolve the problem mentioned here but this was the fix that worked for me related to this question.
I tried a ton of things including re-installing VS 2107.
You can see where the DLL files are being loaded from in your Output window. After going through all mine looking for project DLL, I found it.
Clearing this worked for me.
C:\Users\YourUser\AppData\Local\assembly\dl3\222Q4G1T.8AT\JBEAR7PB.E3J\8bfcf9ab\6e61cbd5_30acd401\YourDLL.dll'
I actually deleted all the files in:
C:\Users\YourUser\AppData\Local\assembly\
Holy Crow! I had an old, old suite of applications including 2 web services and a bunch of class libraries and a click once application. Well, click once stopped publishing for VS 2005 with a bunch of 'not found' errors. So, rather than hack away at my registry as suggested on this site, I figured it was time to upgrade the projects to 2017. Well, when I did this, the projects references in my web service projects got lost. Then, rather than helpfully just telling me that with errors, VS 2017 must have went to some cached file in C:\Users\XXX\AppData\Local\Temp\WebSitePublish or C:\Users\XXX\AppData\Local\Microsoft\VisualStudio\8.0\ProjectAssemblies or C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\Temporary ASP.NET Files\root and 'helpfully' just used those files instead! I had to do a hardcore search with a custom program to find all the files on my C:\ drive and delete them before I finally got the errors!
I have a VB.Net 1.1 application works just fine after compiling in Visual Studio. However, I want to use ILMerge to combine all the referenced assemblies into a single executable just to make it easier to move around. After I send it through ILMerge and try to run it I get the error
"Strong name validation failed for assembly.exe" .....
But none of my stuff is strong named! I saw this post here: Strong Name Validation Failed and tried running it through 'sn.exe -Vr merged.exe' but that gives me this error:
"merged.exe does not represent a strongly named assembly"
Has anyone else had this problem before? How do I fix it?
UPDATE:
I'm starting to feel like Strong name validation isn't the real problem here. I'm building against .NET v1.1 and running on a machine where that is the only .NET version installed (happens to be Windows 2003). The merged executable appears to die with that error on every Windows 2003 machine I try, but if I try to run it on a more modern OS (Vista) it at least starts, but that's not really a good test since the environment isn't fit for a real test.
I have verified that my app.config has the correct settings (specifying required and supported runtime version of v1.1.4322)
I use the /targetplatform:v1.1 option when running my assemblies through ILMerge.
ILMerge is definitely causing the problem (i.e. it works fine before I merge), I just don't know how to fix it.
I had to find and download a very old version of ILMerge (v1.1) in order for my merged binary to work; there must be a bug in the way the current ILMerge application builds .NET 1.1 assemblies. Thankfully we had one internally because I would probably have never found it online.