470,831 Members | 1,815 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 470,831 developers. It's quick & easy.

do I need to enable dot net 1.1 on server 2008?

I have a program I tried to install on server 2008 which said it requires
..net 1.1.4322... I assumed this older version would be built in to server
2008 and so I checked the windows directory and there is a folder for this
specific version. So why does this program's install routine think its not
there? Do I need to explicitly enable .net 1.1 somehow first? If so where? I
did not see it listed in the add/remove features section?
Sep 29 '08 #1
3 4522
I'd contact the application developer.
--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
"James" wrote:
>I have a program I tried to install on server 2008 which said it requires
.net 1.1.4322... I assumed this older version would be built in to server
2008 and so I checked the windows directory and there is a folder for this
specific version. So why does this program's install routine think its not
there? Do I need to explicitly enable .net 1.1 somehow first? If so where?
I did not see it listed in the add/remove features section?
Sep 29 '08 #2
..NET 1.1 is NOT installed on Windows Server 2008 by default. There is a
folder, but take a look at what is in there. It is simply a couple of
configuration files.

If the app is 1.1, and cannot run on 2.0 (doubtful, but the installer may
force the issue), you will either have to have them compile it for 2.0 (or
remove the restriction from the installer) or install 1.1.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

Subscribe to my blog
http://feeds.feedburner.com/GregoryBeamer#

or just read it:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/GregoryBeamer

********************************************
| Think outside the box! |
********************************************
"James" <no***@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a program I tried to install on server 2008 which said it requires
.net 1.1.4322... I assumed this older version would be built in to server
2008 and so I checked the windows directory and there is a folder for this
specific version. So why does this program's install routine think its not
there? Do I need to explicitly enable .net 1.1 somehow first? If so where?
I did not see it listed in the add/remove features section?
Sep 29 '08 #3
ok Thank you.

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamMwrote in
message news:u$*************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
.NET 1.1 is NOT installed on Windows Server 2008 by default. There is a
folder, but take a look at what is in there. It is simply a couple of
configuration files.

If the app is 1.1, and cannot run on 2.0 (doubtful, but the installer may
force the issue), you will either have to have them compile it for 2.0 (or
remove the restriction from the installer) or install 1.1.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

Subscribe to my blog
http://feeds.feedburner.com/GregoryBeamer#

or just read it:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/GregoryBeamer

********************************************
| Think outside the box! |
********************************************
"James" <no***@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a program I tried to install on server 2008 which said it requires
.net 1.1.4322... I assumed this older version would be built in to server
2008 and so I checked the windows directory and there is a folder for this
specific version. So why does this program's install routine think its not
there? Do I need to explicitly enable .net 1.1 somehow first? If so where?
I did not see it listed in the add/remove features section?

Sep 29 '08 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

8 posts views Thread by David Thielen | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Jorge Reyes | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by Chuck Anderson | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by Mark B | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by Oriane | last post: by
reply views Thread by mihailmihai484 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.