Do I need .Net Framework 1.1 Redistributable after 2.0?

[PHiLiP]

Do I need to keep version 1.1 if I have the new 2.0 installed?

Setup doesn't look like it has uninstalled the old one, which suggests
2.0 is not a direct replacement. Am I correct?

[CT]

You're correct; apps built for the .NET Framework 1.1 will continue to run
in the context of 1.1, and apps built for 2.0....

--
Carsten Thomsen
Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk

"PHiLiP" <@.com.hk> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Do I need to keep version 1.1 if I have the new 2.0 installed?

Setup doesn't look like it has uninstalled the old one, which suggests
2.0 is not a direct replacement. Am I correct?

[Olaf Baeyens]

> You're correct; apps built for the .NET Framework 1.1 will continue to run

in the context of 1.1, and apps built for 2.0....

Doesn't have v2.0 have backward functionality to run v1.1 even if the v1.1
is not installed?
I don't think that you need v1.1 anymore if you have v2.0 installed.

Last time I testested v1.0 programs and they ran fine under v1.1 only
installs.
So I guess that this wil be the case too for v2.0

What I do imagine is that some functionality might break in the v2.0
version, in this case installing the v1.1 might be a solution, but if you
stick to the v1.1 specification and did not use exotic functionality, then I
believe that it just runs fine under v2.0.

[CT]

Nope, no backward compatibility mode, I'm afraid.

--
Carsten Thomsen
Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk

"Olaf Baeyens" <ol**********@skyscan.be> wrote in message
news:43***********************@news.skynet.be...

You're correct; apps built for the .NET Framework 1.1 will continue to
run
in the context of 1.1, and apps built for 2.0....

Doesn't have v2.0 have backward functionality to run v1.1 even if the v1.1
is not installed?
I don't think that you need v1.1 anymore if you have v2.0 installed.

Last time I testested v1.0 programs and they ran fine under v1.1 only
installs.
So I guess that this wil be the case too for v2.0

What I do imagine is that some functionality might break in the v2.0
version, in this case installing the v1.1 might be a solution, but if you
stick to the v1.1 specification and did not use exotic functionality, then
I
believe that it just runs fine under v2.0.

[Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]]

Carsten,
| Nope, no backward compatibility mode, I'm afraid.
What do you mean?

Most .NET 1.0 & 1.1 applications will run on .NET 2.0.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228009.aspx

In fact most .NET 1.0 & 1.1 apps will run under the .NET 2.0 64-bit edition!

http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archiv...06/415191.aspx

However due to the change in the meta data, no .NET 2.0 app will run on .NET
1.0 or 1.1.

Of course can install .NET 1.0, 1.1 & 2.0 side-by-side & have all three
versions installed.

--
Hope this helps
Jay [MVP - Outlook]
..NET Application Architect, Enthusiast, & Evangelist
T.S. Bradley - http://www.tsbradley.net
"CT" <ca******@spammersgoawayintegrasol.dk> wrote in message
news:en**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Nope, no backward compatibility mode, I'm afraid.
|
| --
| Carsten Thomsen
| Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk
|
| "Olaf Baeyens" <ol**********@skyscan.be> wrote in message
| news:43***********************@news.skynet.be...
| >> You're correct; apps built for the .NET Framework 1.1 will continue to
| >> run
| >> in the context of 1.1, and apps built for 2.0....
| >>
| > Doesn't have v2.0 have backward functionality to run v1.1 even if the
v1.1
| > is not installed?
| > I don't think that you need v1.1 anymore if you have v2.0 installed.
| >
| > Last time I testested v1.0 programs and they ran fine under v1.1 only
| > installs.
| > So I guess that this wil be the case too for v2.0
| >
| > What I do imagine is that some functionality might break in the v2.0
| > version, in this case installing the v1.1 might be a solution, but if
you
| > stick to the v1.1 specification and did not use exotic functionality,
then
| > I
| > believe that it just runs fine under v2.0.
| >
| >
|
|

[CT]

Jay,

Inline please.

--
Carsten Thomsen
Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja************@tsbradley.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Carsten,
| Nope, no backward compatibility mode, I'm afraid.
What do you mean?
Yes, I have seriously misinterpreted the information presented to me. I do
apologize :-$

Most .NET 1.0 & 1.1 applications will run on .NET 2.0.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228009.aspx

In fact most .NET 1.0 & 1.1 apps will run under the .NET 2.0 64-bit
edition!

http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archiv...06/415191.aspx

However due to the change in the meta data, no .NET 2.0 app will run on
.NET
1.0 or 1.1.

Of course can install .NET 1.0, 1.1 & 2.0 side-by-side & have all three
versions installed.

--
Hope this helps
Jay [MVP - Outlook]
.NET Application Architect, Enthusiast, & Evangelist
T.S. Bradley - http://www.tsbradley.net
"CT" <ca******@spammersgoawayintegrasol.dk> wrote in message
news:en**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Nope, no backward compatibility mode, I'm afraid.
|
| --
| Carsten Thomsen
| Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk
|
| "Olaf Baeyens" <ol**********@skyscan.be> wrote in message
| news:43***********************@news.skynet.be...
| >> You're correct; apps built for the .NET Framework 1.1 will continue
to
| >> run
| >> in the context of 1.1, and apps built for 2.0....
| >>
| > Doesn't have v2.0 have backward functionality to run v1.1 even if the
v1.1
| > is not installed?
| > I don't think that you need v1.1 anymore if you have v2.0 installed.
| >
| > Last time I testested v1.0 programs and they ran fine under v1.1 only
| > installs.
| > So I guess that this wil be the case too for v2.0
| >
| > What I do imagine is that some functionality might break in the v2.0
| > version, in this case installing the v1.1 might be a solution, but if
you
| > stick to the v1.1 specification and did not use exotic functionality,
then
| > I
| > believe that it just runs fine under v2.0.
| >
| >
|
|

[Olaf Baeyens]

> > Carsten,

| Nope, no backward compatibility mode, I'm afraid.
What do you mean?

Yes, I have seriously misinterpreted the information presented to me. I do
apologize :-$

That means that you are human. :-)
I also made a big mistake about the security rights in .NET recently.

Life is a learning process. ;-)

[CT]

> Life is a learning process. ;-)
Now that is so true. Thanks for understanding. :-)

--
Carsten Thomsen
Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk

"Olaf Baeyens" <ol**********@skyscan.be> wrote in message
news:43***********************@news.skynet.be...

> Carsten,
> | Nope, no backward compatibility mode, I'm afraid.
> What do you mean?

Yes, I have seriously misinterpreted the information presented to me. I
do
apologize :-$

That means that you are human. :-)
I also made a big mistake about the security rights in .NET recently.

Life is a learning process. ;-)