469,647 Members | 1,811 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,647 developers. It's quick & easy.

Older versions of .NET framework ... Needed?

I just looked in the folder that contains my .NET framework
installations, and I have versions 1.0,1.1 and 2.0. Do I need the 1
series since I have version 2.0?

Seems like it might just be a waste of space.

TIA

Apr 28 '06 #1
8 2417
ApopleBag,

If you are developing only in 2.0 than you only need 2.0. If you are as well
using VS 2002 and 2003 than you need 1.0 and 1.1.

As a user you need as principle only the latest version from Net. However I
would wait at least on SP1 from version 2.0 before removing the 1.1 version.

Cor
Apr 28 '06 #2
>I just looked in the folder that contains my .NET framework
installations, and I have versions 1.0,1.1 and 2.0. Do I need the 1
series since I have version 2.0?
If you develop against them, yes. It may also be needed by some
applications if they don't work properly under 2.0.

Seems like it might just be a waste of space.


Harddrives are cheap.
Mattias

--
Mattias Sjögren [C# MVP] mattias @ mvps.org
http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ | http://www.dotnetinterop.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup.
Apr 28 '06 #3
better to have all version.
otherwise older app would be forced to run eith newer framework.
and that *MIGHT* be a source of bug....

--
Regards,
Lloyd Dupont

NovaMind development team
NovaMind Software
Mind Mapping Software
<www.nova-mind.com>
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
ApopleBag,

If you are developing only in 2.0 than you only need 2.0. If you are as
well using VS 2002 and 2003 than you need 1.0 and 1.1.

As a user you need as principle only the latest version from Net. However
I would wait at least on SP1 from version 2.0 before removing the 1.1
version.

Cor

Apr 28 '06 #4
Lloyd,

No that is not the purpose. It is made to overcome the problems which there
were with runtimer, not to handle it as a runtimer.

Cor
Apr 28 '06 #5
I know it Jon,

:-)

Cor
Apr 28 '06 #6
If you're talking about runtime installations, I agree with Lloyd --
keep them all, just in case you happen to run an assembly (not
necessarily your own) compiled and tested against a previous version
that just *happens* to use one of the items that were breaking changes
between versions. The different runtime versions work perfectly
side-by-side, and an application will attempt to use the version it was
compiled against before trying another version.

Also, it's hardly a waste of space, being barely a drop in the bucket
of your harddrive.

If you're talking about SDKs, however, I agree with Cor -- only the
version you're developing against is important.

Apr 28 '06 #7
Thanks for the comments everyone.

I'm an intermediate-level VB6 dev who is new to vb.net, and learning
the ropes, so I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of .NET as of yet.

A few more questions:
How do see which version of the framework any particular
program/assembly is using?

And I'm guessing from the replies, that apps created with 1.0 or 1.1
can't make use of 2.0? 2.0 isn't very backwards compatible?

I'm using VS 2K5, so I assume any app I write in it automatically uses
2.0? How do I know if I might accidentally be using a control from the
1 series of the framework if I want to purely develop in 2.0?

I apologize if any of these questions sound newby-ish, but I'm just now
dabbing my toes in the .NET waters. :)

Oh, btw, my original question wasn't because I'm afraid of the cost of
HDD space. I have 300GB of HDD space here. What I don't like is
clutter, wasted space, and 300GB of superfluous files. Call me a neat
freak. ;)

Apr 28 '06 #8
>How do see which version of the framework any particular
program/assembly is using?
It'll be in the metadata, you can use ILDASM or reflection. Of course,
it's not necessary if you already have the correct runtime installed.
And I'm guessing from the replies, that apps created with 1.0 or 1.1
can't make use of 2.0? 2.0 isn't very backwards compatible?


Actually, they're very backwards compatible, but there *are* breaking
changes. If you're running an assembly written in a previous version
that you didn't write, however, you have no real way of knowing how
well it's going to work in a newer runtime. You're really better off
keeping side-by-side versions of the runtimes, just in case. And no, I
don't think it's either clutter *or* wasted space. I view each version
of the runtime as a necessary OS component, just as one might view the
latest patch from Microsoft to be a necessary OS component. Sure, it's
not 100% necessary if you've locked your box down properly, but are you
really willing to take that chance? Better to have the patch. Better to
have the different versions of the .NET runtime.

For more info on breaking changes see here:

http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/default.aspx

and here:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...s/default.aspx

May 1 '06 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by Erik Cruz | last post: by
reply views Thread by MDGColorado | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by iamleppert | last post: by
reply views Thread by gheharukoh7 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.