471,349 Members | 2,001 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,349 software developers and data experts.

about .NET versions

Hello!

I just wonder what do I miss if I only have VS2005 without having
..NET 1.1 installed ?
According to Jon Skeet he said that it makes sense to have both 1.1 and 2.0
installed.
When installing VS2005 you automatically get .NET 2.0 but not .NET 1.1.
What versions of .Net automatically installed when installing VS2005 or
VS2008?

With VS2005 you get .NET 2.0.
With VS2008 you get .NET 3.5.

Remember that 2.0 and 3.5 frameworks include all previous versions too.
>Not really - .NET 2.0 doesn't include .NET 1.1, which has a different
CLR. The framework libraries of .NET 2.0 include all the framework
ibraries of 1.1, but that's not quite the same thing.
>In particular, it makes sense to have both 1.1 and 2.0 installed, but
when you install .NET 3.5 it supercedes .NET 2.0 and .NET
//Tony
Jul 20 '08 #1
7 1018
Tony Johansson <jo*****************@telia.comwrote:
I just wonder what do I miss if I only have VS2005 without having
.NET 1.1 installed ?
It means that anything built for .NET 1.1 will run under .NET 2.0.
Usually that's fine, but there are a *few* compatibility issues.
According to Jon Skeet he said that it makes sense to have both 1.1 and 2.0
installed.
Sometimes, yes. Only occasionally though.

It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
..NET 1.1.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
Web site: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
C# in Depth: http://csharpindepth.com
Jul 20 '08 #2
On Jul 20, 10:54*pm, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <sk...@pobox.comwrote:
According to Jon Skeet he said that it makes sense to have both 1.1 and2.0
installed.

Sometimes, yes. Only occasionally though.

It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
.NET 1.1.
I may be wrong, but couldn't one refrain from using APIs introduced in
2.0, and correct the .exe.config so that 1.x is the required runtime,
even with VS2005?
Jul 20 '08 #3
Pavel Minaev <in****@gmail.comwrote:
It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
.NET 1.1.

I may be wrong, but couldn't one refrain from using APIs introduced in
2.0, and correct the .exe.config so that 1.x is the required runtime,
even with VS2005?
I don't think so - I'm pretty sure that the IL that it generates says
that it expects the 2.0 CLR. A whole load of extra IL was included in
2.0 for generics etc, and even if you don't use it I expect that it
includes the IL version number.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
Web site: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
C# in Depth: http://csharpindepth.com
Jul 20 '08 #4
MC
It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
.NET 1.1.
Which is not a big deal, because .NET 1.1 is not all that widely used. 2.0
is the widely distributed one.
Jul 20 '08 #5
MC <fo**************@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mcwrote:
It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
.NET 1.1.

Which is not a big deal, because .NET 1.1 is not all that widely used. 2.0
is the widely distributed one.
It's certainly less of a big deal now, but quite a few companies have
stayed with .NET 1.1 for a very long time. Hopefully by 2010 we'll be
able to ignore 1.1 completely :)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
Web site: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
C# in Depth: http://csharpindepth.com
Jul 20 '08 #6
MC wrote:
>It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
.NET 1.1.

Which is not a big deal, because .NET 1.1 is not all that widely used. 2.0
is the widely distributed one.
I would expect a lot of PC's to still be at 1.1. All PC's where .NET
is installed before late 2005 and not upgraded since.

Arne
Jul 20 '08 #7
On Jul 21, 3:06*am, Arne Vajhj <a...@vajhoej.dkwrote:
MC wrote:
It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
.NET 1.1.
Which is not a big deal, because .NET 1.1 is not all that widely used. *2.0
is the widely distributed one.

I would expect a lot of PC's to still be at 1.1. All PC's where .NET
is installed before late 2005 and not upgraded since.
Something to consider:

1.0 was not shipped with any version of Windows
1.1 was shipped with all versions of Windows 2003 (and enabled by
default)
2.0 was shipped with Windows 2003 R2 (but not enabled by default)
3.0 was shipped with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 (and
enabled by default)
3.0 is available on Windows Update for XP as optional download
3.5 was not yet shipped with any version of Windows

Jul 21 '08 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

17 posts views Thread by Jan Danielsson | last post: by
1 post views Thread by UJ | last post: by
28 posts views Thread by SpreadTooThin | last post: by
35 posts views Thread by rebeccatre | last post: by
reply views Thread by XIAOLAOHU | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.