Is .NET framework compületely included in .NET v2.0 (and this in v3.0) ?

[Steven Prasil]

Currently I have installed two (runtime) .NET frameworks on my WinXP system:

v1.1

AND

v2.0

Is this necessary or is v1.1 COMPLETELY included in v2.0 ?

The same questions applies to the relationship between .NET v2.0 and v3.0:
If I install v3.0 can I de-install v2.0?

Steven

[Mark Rae]

"Steven Prasil" <pr****@nortel.comwrote in message
news:45**********************@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...

Currently I have installed two (runtime) .NET frameworks on my WinXP
system:

v1.1

AND

v2.0

Is this necessary

Yes.

or is v1.1 COMPLETELY included in v2.0 ?

No.

If I install v3.0 can I de-install v2.0?

No.

[FrankV]

They are completely separate things and either may be used for development
with no connection to the other.

Frank

"Steven Prasil" <pr****@nortel.comwrote in message
news:45**********************@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...

Currently I have installed two (runtime) .NET frameworks on my WinXP
system:

v1.1

AND

v2.0

Is this necessary or is v1.1 COMPLETELY included in v2.0 ?

The same questions applies to the relationship between .NET v2.0 and v3.0:
If I install v3.0 can I de-install v2.0?

Steven

[Peter Foldes]

No. Both versions are completely different and 2.0 does not include 1.0

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Steven Prasil" <pr****@nortel.comwrote in message news:45**********************@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...

Currently I have installed two (runtime) .NET frameworks on my WinXP system:

v1.1

AND

v2.0

Is this necessary or is v1.1 COMPLETELY included in v2.0 ?

The same questions applies to the relationship between .NET v2.0 and v3.0:
If I install v3.0 can I de-install v2.0?

Steven

[Rock]

"Steven Prasil" wrote

Currently I have installed two (runtime) .NET frameworks on my WinXP
system:

v1.1

AND

v2.0

Is this necessary or is v1.1 COMPLETELY included in v2.0 ?

The same questions applies to the relationship between .NET v2.0 and v3.0:
If I install v3.0 can I de-install v2.0?

No, different version of .Net are not upward compatible. Higher versions
are not an upgrade. Specific programs require specific versions. Whether
you need all versions depends on whether you have programs that need each
version. So the question comes down to, how did these versions get
installed? Did you install them because a program needed them?

--
Rock [MVP - User/Shell]

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Rock <ro**@nospam.netwrote:

No, different version of .Net are not upward compatible. Higher versions
are not an upgrade. Specific programs require specific versions. Whether
you need all versions depends on whether you have programs that need each
version. So the question comes down to, how did these versions get
installed? Did you install them because a program needed them?

Well, 3.0 is definitely a superset of 2.0, in that 3.0 basically
installs 2.0 and then adds some extra bits. Any application which runs
on 2.0 should run fine on 3.0 too. (I don't know whether if you install
"just" 3.0 it's obvious that you've got 2.0 as well, effectively.)

There are some compatibility issues between 1.1 and 2.0, but many
applications originally written for and testing on 1.1 will run
perfectly well with 2.0.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[=?Utf-8?B?Uml6d2FuU2hhcnA=?=]

To run application of .Net 1.1 you must have to have .Net Framework 1.1
installed and it'lll not run under .Net 2.0 so for running 2 applications
belonging to .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 you need to have both versions installed
on the machine.
But this time Microsoft kept the Backward compatibility meaning that
applications of .Net 2.0 are 100% compatible and executable under .Net 3.0
withuot needing .Net 2.0 to be explicitly installed.
Best Regards,
Rizwan aka RizwanSharp

"Steven Prasil" wrote:

Currently I have installed two (runtime) .NET frameworks on my WinXP system:

v1.1

AND

v2.0

Is this necessary or is v1.1 COMPLETELY included in v2.0 ?

The same questions applies to the relationship between .NET v2.0 and v3.0:
If I install v3.0 can I de-install v2.0?

Steven

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

RizwanSharp <Ri*********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:

To run application of .Net 1.1 you must have to have .Net Framework 1.1
installed and it'lll not run under .Net 2.0 so for running 2 applications
belonging to .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 you need to have both versions installed
on the machine.

No, that's not true. .NET 1.1 applications *will* run with only 2.0
installed - there are some incompatibilities, but not *very* many. A
lot of 1.1 applications will run perfectly well without any
modifications on 2.0.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

RizwanSharp <Ri*********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:

I tried it many times but did not work.....

Well, it's certainly meant to and I've seen it working myself. I've
also seen it failing due to a few incompatibilities, but usually it
works.

And also found on the web that .Net 1.x application is not compatible
and runable on .Net 2.0.

Where exactly?

As I said, there *are* incompatibilities, but they should be relatively
rare.

See

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...ut/default.asp
x

(careful of line wrapping) for an article describing how backwards
compatibility works as well as side-by-side execution. A few quotes:

<quote>
Next in order of importance was that we wanted to ensure that
applications would run properly if only the latest runtime were
installed.
</quote>

<quote>
The result was that the vast majority of applications will not be
impacted by the installation of the .NET Framework 2.0, most
applications will work just fine on machines that only have the latest
version
</quote>

So certainly Microsoft intend it to work - and as I say, I've seen it
work myself.

Indeed, if you run a .NET 1.1 application on a machine with .NET 2.0
installed, it will run with the latest version *by default* unless you
specifically set a flag to run with a particular version.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:

RizwanSharp <Ri*********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:

>I tried it many times but did not work.....

Well, it's certainly meant to and I've seen it working myself. I've
also seen it failing due to a few incompatibilities, but usually it
works.

>And also found on the web that .Net 1.x application is not compatible
and runable on .Net 2.0.

Where exactly?

As I said, there *are* incompatibilities, but they should be
relatively rare.

See

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...ut/default.asp
x

That site says "on a machine running Windows VistaT with versions 1.1 and
2.0 of the .NET Framework installed, apps built against the .NET Framework
2.0 will run against the 2.0 version, while any older apps will still run
against the 1.1 version." If I'm interpreting that correctly, it seems to
say just the opposite of what you are saying.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Ken Blake, MVP <kb****@this.is.an.invalid.domainwrote:

That site says "on a machine running Windows VistaT with versions 1.1 and
2.0 of the .NET Framework installed, apps built against the .NET Framework
2.0 will run against the 2.0 version, while any older apps will still run
against the 1.1 version." If I'm interpreting that correctly, it seems to
say just the opposite of what you are saying.

Indeed it does. Looks like I had that part backwards, unfortunately -
apologies for that.

However, the point that you can run a 1.1 application on a machine with
only 2.0 installed still stands, I believe.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP <kb****@this.is.an.invalid.domainwrote:

>That site says "on a machine running Windows VistaT with versions
1.1 and
2.0 of the .NET Framework installed, apps built against the .NET
Framework
2.0 will run against the 2.0 version, while any older apps will
still run against the 1.1 version." If I'm interpreting that
correctly, it seems to say just the opposite of what you are saying.

Indeed it does. Looks like I had that part backwards, unfortunately -
apologies for that.

However, the point that you can run a 1.1 application on a machine
with only 2.0 installed still stands, I believe.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on .net, but my understanding of this
has always been just the opposite. And again, returning to the quotation
above, it says "any older apps" (presumably what's meant is .net 1.1 apps)
"will still run against the 1.1 version" (and presumably that means "and
*not* against the 2.0 version").

So the way I read that the sentence is that you can *not* run a 1.1
application on a machine with only 2.0 installed. And that meshes with what
I had long thought was the case.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Ken Blake, MVP <kb****@this.is.an.invalid.domainwrote:

However, the point that you can run a 1.1 application on a machine
with only 2.0 installed still stands, I believe.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on .net, but my understanding of this
has always been just the opposite. And again, returning to the quotation
above, it says "any older apps" (presumably what's meant is .net 1.1 apps)
"will still run against the 1.1 version" (and presumably that means "and
*not* against the 2.0 version").

They will run against 1.1 *if it is present*. Here's the sentence in
full:

<quote>
For example, on a machine running Windows Vista=3F with versions 1.1 and
2.0 of the .NET Framework installed, apps built against the .NET
Framework 2.0 will run against the 2.0 version, while any older apps
will still run against the 1.1 version.
</quote>

Note the "with versions 1.1 and 2.0 of the .NET framework installed"
part. In other words, that sentence doesn't say anything about what
happens when 1.1 isn't installed.

I apologise again for my mistake in what happens when two versions
*are* installed.

So the way I read that the sentence is that you can *not* run a 1.1
application on a machine with only 2.0 installed. And that meshes with what
I had long thought was the case.

No, it's not the case.

Here are another couple of pages:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...hk(VS.80).aspx

<quote>
The .NET Framework provides a high degree of support for backward
compatibility. For example, most applications created using version 1.0
will run on version 1.1 and applications using version 1.1 will run on
version 2.0.
</quote>

and

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zk(VS.80).aspx
<quote>
If the version of the .NET Framework that the application was built
against is not present and a configuration file does not specify a
version in a <supportedRuntimeElement, the application runs on the
latest version of the .NET Framework that is present on the computer.
</quote>

So basically, in the case where a 1.1 application doesn't have a
configuration file, it will use 2.0 on a machine which has 2.0 but not
1.1 installed.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP <kb****@this.is.an.invalid.domainwrote:

>>However, the point that you can run a 1.1 application on a machine
with only 2.0 installed still stands, I believe.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on .net, but my understanding of
this has always been just the opposite. And again, returning to the
quotation above, it says "any older apps" (presumably what's meant
is .net 1.1 apps) "will still run against the 1.1 version" (and
presumably that means "and *not* against the 2.0 version").

They will run against 1.1 *if it is present*. Here's the sentence in
full:

<quote>
For example, on a machine running Windows Vista=3F with versions 1.1
and
2.0 of the .NET Framework installed, apps built against the .NET
Framework 2.0 will run against the 2.0 version, while any older apps
will still run against the 1.1 version.
</quote>

Note the "with versions 1.1 and 2.0 of the .NET framework installed"
part. In other words, that sentence doesn't say anything about what
happens when 1.1 isn't installed.

Yes, I know it doesn't say it. As I said "and presumably that means "and
*not* against the 2.0 version." Just "presumably." That was the way *I* read
it, apparently incorrectly (see below).

>
I apologise again for my mistake in what happens when two versions
*are* installed.

>So the way I read that the sentence is that you can *not* run a 1.1
application on a machine with only 2.0 installed. And that meshes
with what I had long thought was the case.

No, it's not the case.

Here are another couple of pages:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...hk(VS.80).aspx

<quote>
The .NET Framework provides a high degree of support for backward
compatibility. For example, most applications created using version
1.0 will run on version 1.1 and applications using version 1.1 will
run on version 2.0.
</quote>

and

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zk(VS.80).aspx
<quote>
If the version of the .NET Framework that the application was built
against is not present and a configuration file does not specify a
version in a <supportedRuntimeElement, the application runs on the
latest version of the .NET Framework that is present on the computer.
</quote>

So basically, in the case where a 1.1 application doesn't have a
configuration file, it will use 2.0 on a machine which has 2.0 but not
1.1 installed.

Yes, those pages seem to be definitive, and make it clear that what you say
is correct. So my understanding of this has been wrong. Thank you for
straightening me out.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup