Q: .Net Framework - Upgrade v1.1 to v2.0 or skip v1.1 altogether ?

[x9012590125]

Hi.

I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question
answered...

This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0.

Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new
features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the
same job? (**)

*: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new
features

**: like MS' and Sun's JVM
If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1
and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can
both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and
update to v1.1

I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page
doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite.

PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime.
Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to
it.
Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;)
Thanks!

PS: email is a decoy.
==

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

HI,

How could it 2.0 compatible to 1.1 withouth what you ask.(It has to be it is
not but that is because there are corrected not registrated and described
bugs in previous versions) ,

I hope this helps,

Cor
<x9*********@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:11*********************@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

Hi.

I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question
answered...

This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0.

Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new
features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the
same job? (**)

*: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new
features

**: like MS' and Sun's JVM
If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1
and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can
both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and
update to v1.1

I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page
doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite.

PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime.
Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to
it.
Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;)
Thanks!

PS: email is a decoy.
==

[x9012590125]

Cor,

I don't really understand your answer.

If you mean that 1.1 and 2.0 have to be compatible at some level, of
course that should be so.

My question is:

Can 2.0 be installed without 1.1 (does 2.0 contain all of 1.1, plus
updates)...
Or are both required?

In the case of Java for example, some sites still use the JVM from
Microsoft; some others only Sun's; and some other sites use whichever
is installed. But for maximum functionality, it is still customary to
install both.
Anyway, I don't see how I can make my question any clearer...

M.T.
Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:

HI,

How could it 2.0 compatible to 1.1 withouth what you ask.(It has to be it is
not but that is because there are corrected not registrated and described
bugs in previous versions) ,

I hope this helps,

Cor
<x9*********@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:11*********************@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

Hi.

I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question
answered...

This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0.

Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new
features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the
same job? (**)

*: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new
features

**: like MS' and Sun's JVM
If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1
and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can
both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and
update to v1.1

I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page
doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite.

PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime.
Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to
it.
Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;)
Thanks!

PS: email is a decoy.
==

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

2.0 should have all parts that are in the previous versions.

I did nowhere write "some level" so why are you telling that I did?.

Because of some bugs at the moment you can install both. Surely as long as
SP1 is not there, however normally this should not have been needed.

In a normal situation there should only be one NET Framework on a computer.
But as I said because of some bugs I would not do that now.

(This for endusers for developing are different rules. Visual Studio uses
always the Framework from the same version)

Cor

<x9*********@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:11**********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Cor,

I don't really understand your answer.

If you mean that 1.1 and 2.0 have to be compatible at some level, of
course that should be so.

My question is:

Can 2.0 be installed without 1.1 (does 2.0 contain all of 1.1, plus
updates)...
Or are both required?

In the case of Java for example, some sites still use the JVM from
Microsoft; some others only Sun's; and some other sites use whichever
is installed. But for maximum functionality, it is still customary to
install both.
Anyway, I don't see how I can make my question any clearer...

M.T.
Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:

HI,

How could it 2.0 compatible to 1.1 withouth what you ask.(It has to be it
is
not but that is because there are corrected not registrated and described
bugs in previous versions) ,

I hope this helps,

Cor
<x9*********@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:11*********************@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

> Hi.
>
> I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question
> answered...
>
> This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0.
>
> Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new
> features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the
> same job? (**)
>
> *: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new
> features
>
> **: like MS' and Sun's JVM
>
>
> If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1
> and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can
> both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and
> update to v1.1
>
> I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page
> doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite.
>
> PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime.
>
>
> Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to
> it.
> Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;)
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> PS: email is a decoy.
> ==
>

[Chris Dunaway]

V1.1 and V2.0 are separate. V2.0 is new and can be installed on the
same machine with V1.1, but v2.0 is not just a combination ov v1.1 plus
service packs. In fact, there are no service packs to version 1.1 to
my knowledge.

You can install v2.0 without installing v1.1. You only need v1.1 if
you have apps that are compiled against that version and you still need
to maintain them. Apps converted from v1.1 to v2.0 will probably
require some changes to accomodate new features, but it should be
fairly painless. This, of course, is dependent on the individual app
in question.

If you use VS2005, then you must have v2.0 as it only compiles for
v2.0.

Hope this helps

[x9012590125]

That's exactly what I wanted to know.

Thanks Chris!

M.T.
Chris Dunaway wrote:

V1.1 and V2.0 are separate. V2.0 is new and can be installed on the
same machine with V1.1, but v2.0 is not just a combination ov v1.1 plus
service packs. In fact, there are no service packs to version 1.1 to
my knowledge.

You can install v2.0 without installing v1.1. You only need v1.1 if
you have apps that are compiled against that version and you still need
to maintain them. Apps converted from v1.1 to v2.0 will probably
require some changes to accomodate new features, but it should be
fairly painless. This, of course, is dependent on the individual app
in question.

If you use VS2005, then you must have v2.0 as it only compiles for
v2.0.

Hope this helps