"Terry Pinnell" <terry***@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:2kna72h3qammptknh3rjvlh5s4dc75sbi1@4ax.com...
> Oh no! last night I decided to bite the bullet and install the vast
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 which is unfortunately needed for what
> seems a relatively simple, free program called VOB2MPG,  Took me ages,
> but by the early hours I had it working and went to bed.
>
> This morning I decided as an act of faith to pay up 20 UKP (36 USD)
> for SVCD2DVD. Both programs are described at
> http://www.svcd2dvd.com/
> I'd read good reviews and I saw it used .NET Framework, so I judged
> that would capitalise a bit more on the effort I'd just made. So I
> duly registered and downloaded. But on starting the install I got this
> message:
>
> "This setup requires the .NET Framework version 1.1.4322.  Please
> install the .NET Framework and run this setup again."
>
> Why must I install another, OLDER version of this beast? And why would
> the free program use a newer version? I've no idea how much HD space
> version Framework 2.0 has taken, but it was one heck of a lot, plus
> hundreds of new registry entries. So naturally I'm reluctant to
> proceed. But having paid up...    I've never ever before dived
> straight in without a trial; obviously picked the wrong choice to
> break that habit.
>
> Ironically, before I installed version 2.0 I'd taken what I thought
> was the sensible precaution of *uninstalling* 1.1! (It had been
> required by at least one program I installed recently, called Autoplay
> Repair.)
>
> Any advice (as non-technical as possible) would be much appreciated
> please. I have of course also emailed the author
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>

"Terry Pinnell" <terry***@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:2kna72h3qammptknh3rjvlh5s4dc75sbi1@4ax.com...
| Oh no! last night I decided to bite the bullet and install the vast
| Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 which is unfortunately needed for what
| seems a relatively simple, free program called VOB2MPG,  Took me ages,
| but by the early hours I had it working and went to bed.
|
| This morning I decided as an act of faith to pay up 20 UKP (36 USD)
| for SVCD2DVD. Both programs are described at
| http://www.svcd2dvd.com/
| I'd read good reviews and I saw it used .NET Framework, so I judged
| that would capitalise a bit more on the effort I'd just made. So I
| duly registered and downloaded. But on starting the install I got this
| message:
|
| "This setup requires the .NET Framework version 1.1.4322.  Please
| install the .NET Framework and run this setup again."
|
| Why must I install another, OLDER version of this beast? And why would
| the free program use a newer version? I've no idea how much HD space
| version Framework 2.0 has taken, but it was one heck of a lot, plus
| hundreds of new registry entries. So naturally I'm reluctant to
| proceed. But having paid up...    I've never ever before dived
| straight in without a trial; obviously picked the wrong choice to
| break that habit.
|
| Ironically, before I installed version 2.0 I'd taken what I thought
| was the sensible precaution of *uninstalling* 1.1! (It had been
| required by at least one program I installed recently, called Autoplay
| Repair.)
|
| Any advice (as non-technical as possible) would be much appreciated
| please. I have of course also emailed the author
|
| --
| Terry, West Sussex, UK

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow_***@tsbradley.net> wrote:

>Terry,
>.NET 2.0 will run most .NET 1.1 & 1.0 applications without any problems.
>
>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228009.aspx
>
>In fact most .NET 1.0 & 1.1 apps will/should run under the .NET 2.0 64-bit
>edition!
>
>http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archive/2005/05/06/415191.aspx
>
>However due to meta file changes (Generics & such) .NET 1.0 & 1.1 cannot run
>.NET 2.0 assemblies.
>
>There are a handful (very few) breaking changes in .NET 2.0 that won't allow
>.NET 1.1 apps to run, I would recommend that you attempt to run the 1.1 app
>under 2.0 & see if it works. In fact I would have expected the manufacture
>of SVCD2DVD to have already done this!
>
>If it works then you should be fine. If not, the framework allows & fully
>supports having both versions (all three 1.0, 1.1 & 2.0 in fact) installed
>at the same time. For those odd cases (Visual Studio for example) where the
>application absolutely requires a specific version of the framework.

"Terry Pinnell" <terry***@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:2kna72h3qammptknh3rjvlh5s4dc75sbi1@4ax.com...
> Oh no! last night I decided to bite the bullet and install the vast
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 which is unfortunately needed for what
> seems a relatively simple, free program called VOB2MPG,  Took me ages,
> but by the early hours I had it working and went to bed.
>
> This morning I decided as an act of faith to pay up 20 UKP (36 USD)
> for SVCD2DVD. Both programs are described at
> http://www.svcd2dvd.com/
> I'd read good reviews and I saw it used .NET Framework, so I judged
> that would capitalise a bit more on the effort I'd just made. So I
> duly registered and downloaded. But on starting the install I got this
> message:
>
> "This setup requires the .NET Framework version 1.1.4322.  Please
> install the .NET Framework and run this setup again."
>
> Why must I install another, OLDER version of this beast? And why would
> the free program use a newer version? I've no idea how much HD space
> version Framework 2.0 has taken, but it was one heck of a lot, plus
> hundreds of new registry entries. So naturally I'm reluctant to
> proceed. But having paid up...    I've never ever before dived
> straight in without a trial; obviously picked the wrong choice to
> break that habit.
>
> Ironically, before I installed version 2.0 I'd taken what I thought
> was the sensible precaution of *uninstalling* 1.1! (It had been
> required by at least one program I installed recently, called Autoplay
> Repair.)
>
> Any advice (as non-technical as possible) would be much appreciated
> please. I have of course also emailed the author
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK