|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Can a .NET 1.1 app run on a PC which have .NET 2.0 installed only?Hello,
I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET 1.1": We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1 assemblies, but both develope for the same target. The question is: If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? Best regards, Martin. No. You need to have both installed.
Show quote "albusmw" <albu***@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1193125252.150175.201660@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Hello, > > I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET > 1.1": > > We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash > Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already > have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also > teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1 > assemblies, but both develope for the same target. > > The question is: > If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any > assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? > > Best regards, > > Martin. > Hello Andrew,
I tried the described scenario with a simple command line application and this worked well ... So is this just random ????? Best regards, Martin. Show quote "Andrew Faust" <and***@andrewfaust.com> wrote in message news:D18D4007-38E9-4579-8C25-9E7631A14B48@microsoft.com... > No. You need to have both installed. > > -- > Andrew Faust > andrew[at]andrewfaust.com > http://www.andrewfaust.com > > > "albusmw" <albu***@gmx.de> wrote in message > news:1193125252.150175.201660@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> Hello, >> >> I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET >> 1.1": >> >> We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash >> Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already >> have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also >> teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1 >> assemblies, but both develope for the same target. >> >> The question is: >> If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any >> assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Martin. >> > No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most cases.
That is, .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET2.0 only machine, unless the 1.x app specifically used something only available in .NET 1.x (almost none, ..NET2.0 still support features in 1.x that are depreciated). So, in most cases, 1.x app would just run fine. However, if the application is complicated, you may need to do thorough test, or to play it safe, just install 1.x framework. After all, the .NET framework is designed to install/run side by side (so far until 2.0. After the messy version naming of 3.0, and coming 3.5, the version and side-by-side thing is becoming more and more confusing). Show quote "Andrew Faust" <and***@andrewfaust.com> wrote in message news:D18D4007-38E9-4579-8C25-9E7631A14B48@microsoft.com... > No. You need to have both installed. > > -- > Andrew Faust > andrew[at]andrewfaust.com > http://www.andrewfaust.com > > > "albusmw" <albu***@gmx.de> wrote in message > news:1193125252.150175.201660@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> Hello, >> >> I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET >> 1.1": >> >> We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash >> Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already >> have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also >> teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1 >> assemblies, but both develope for the same target. >> >> The question is: >> If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any >> assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Martin. >> > Interesting. I hadn't realized that as I'm constantly running in to issues on
new installs of windows that only have .Net 2.0 where some app requires me to install .Net 1.1 With how frequently I hit this issue, I thought MS had kept the frameworks distinct. Andrew Faust Show quote "Norman Yuan" wrote: > No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most cases. > > That is, .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET2.0 only machine, unless the > 1.x app specifically used something only available in .NET 1.x (almost none, > ..NET2.0 still support features in 1.x that are depreciated). So, in most > cases, 1.x app would just run fine. However, if the application is > complicated, you may need to do thorough test, or to play it safe, just > install 1.x framework. After all, the .NET framework is designed to > install/run side by side (so far until 2.0. After the messy version naming > of 3.0, and coming 3.5, the version and side-by-side thing is becoming more > and more confusing). > > > "Andrew Faust" <and***@andrewfaust.com> wrote in message > news:D18D4007-38E9-4579-8C25-9E7631A14B48@microsoft.com... > > No. You need to have both installed. > > > > -- > > Andrew Faust > > andrew[at]andrewfaust.com > > http://www.andrewfaust.com > > > > > > "albusmw" <albu***@gmx.de> wrote in message > > news:1193125252.150175.201660@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET > >> 1.1": > >> > >> We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash > >> Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already > >> have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also > >> teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1 > >> assemblies, but both develope for the same target. > >> > >> The question is: > >> If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any > >> assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Martin. > >> > > > > The only thing I had run into to use app built on 1.1 with computer having
..NET2.0 only is the installation, since in the 1.1 app's setup package I included the dependency to 1.1. So when I ran setup of the 1.1 app, it stops the installation and ask to install 1.1 framework. If I do Xcopy to that 1.1 app to 2.0 only computer, it just runs. If 1.x not runs on 2.0 only computer, then MS would have big trouble since Vista is 2.0 pre-installed only (of course you can install 1.x on it, but for most users, it is not needed for sure to run 1.1 applications). Show quote "Andrew Faust" <afaust@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:00CC186D-7402-448C-9022-3509E2CBA44D@microsoft.com... > Interesting. I hadn't realized that as I'm constantly running in to issues > on > new installs of windows that only have .Net 2.0 where some app requires me > to > install .Net 1.1 > > With how frequently I hit this issue, I thought MS had kept the frameworks > distinct. > > Andrew Faust > > "Norman Yuan" wrote: > >> No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most >> cases. >> >> That is, .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET2.0 only machine, unless >> the >> 1.x app specifically used something only available in .NET 1.x (almost >> none, >> ..NET2.0 still support features in 1.x that are depreciated). So, in most >> cases, 1.x app would just run fine. However, if the application is >> complicated, you may need to do thorough test, or to play it safe, just >> install 1.x framework. After all, the .NET framework is designed to >> install/run side by side (so far until 2.0. After the messy version >> naming >> of 3.0, and coming 3.5, the version and side-by-side thing is becoming >> more >> and more confusing). >> >> >> "Andrew Faust" <and***@andrewfaust.com> wrote in message >> news:D18D4007-38E9-4579-8C25-9E7631A14B48@microsoft.com... >> > No. You need to have both installed. >> > >> > -- >> > Andrew Faust >> > andrew[at]andrewfaust.com >> > http://www.andrewfaust.com >> > >> > >> > "albusmw" <albu***@gmx.de> wrote in message >> > news:1193125252.150175.201660@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET >> >> 1.1": >> >> >> >> We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash >> >> Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already >> >> have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also >> >> teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1 >> >> assemblies, but both develope for the same target. >> >> >> >> The question is: >> >> If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any >> >> assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Martin. >> >> >> > >> >> "albusmw" <albu***@gmx.de> ha scritto nel messaggio Probably in "most cases".news:1193125252.150175.201660@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any > assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? I have recently installed on Windows Vista a desktop application based upon .net 1.1 and developed and tested on winXp. It seemd to run well but I had problems with some procedures (say 1%) and using Crystal Reports (version included in vs2003). Installing .net 1.1 on Vista removed all the problems :-) Bye Giorgio Hi all,
thanks for the replies. I am most programming with the basic classes only, so I do not use database access, web applications, ... (we do algorithm design and such things). So I do not expect any problems here. Best regards, Martin. Show quote "Giorgio" <OnlyOnNewsGr***@nodomain.it> wrote in message news:%23N5uBLhFIHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "albusmw" <albu***@gmx.de> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:1193125252.150175.201660@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any >> assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine? > > Probably in "most cases". > I have recently installed on Windows Vista a desktop application based > upon .net 1.1 and developed and tested on winXp. It seemd to run well but > I had problems with some procedures (say 1%) and using Crystal Reports > (version included in vs2003). Installing .net 1.1 on Vista removed all the > problems :-) > > Bye > Giorgio >  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics