Uhmmm, problems with framework...

[Sueffel]

Okay, I have Framwork v1.0 on my devel machine, VS.NET 2002. On my
workstations, I have Framework v1.1 (Redistributable) installed. Everything
runs fine on my test machine, and it does not run on the workstations. I'm
not sure, but the version on my devel machine is what VS.NET installs, and
I'm just not getting this now.

Thanks
Sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

[CJ Taylor]

You have to have 1.0 on your Workstations, because thats what its looking
for after compliing. 2002 can only use 1.0 framerwork.
"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Okay, I have Framwork v1.0 on my devel machine, VS.NET 2002. On my
workstations, I have Framework v1.1 (Redistributable) installed. Everything runs fine on my test machine, and it does not run on the workstations. I'm not sure, but the version on my devel machine is what VS.NET installs, and
I'm just not getting this now.

Thanks
Sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> scripsit:

Okay, I have Framwork v1.0 on my devel machine, VS.NET 2002. On my
workstations, I have Framework v1.1 (Redistributable) installed. Everything
runs fine on my test machine, and it does not run on the workstations. I'm
not sure, but the version on my devel machine is what VS.NET installs, and
I'm just not getting this now.

Did you have a look here? Probably you will have to create a config
file:

"Side-by-Side Execution"
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/sidexsidenet.asp>

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[Sueffel]

"CJ Taylor" <no****@blowgoats.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

You have to have 1.0 on your Workstations, because thats what its looking
for after compliing. 2002 can only use 1.0 framerwork.
"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Okay, I have Framwork v1.0 on my devel machine, VS.NET 2002. On my
workstations, I have Framework v1.1 (Redistributable) installed.

Everything

runs fine on my test machine, and it does not run on the workstations.

I'm

not sure, but the version on my devel machine is what VS.NET installs, and I'm just not getting this now.

Thanks
Sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

According to MS, having the v1.1 on a machine will work cause v1.1 is
backwards compatible and will run v1.0 assemblies. And, another really tiny
assembly I have runs just fine in this environment, it's a form with a
little of code. The one I'm having problems with uses alot of GDI+. I'm
thinking you're exactly right, and I need to go and get the v1.0 redist, but
I'm also wondering if there's a way to force VS.NET 2002 to use framework
v1.1

Thanks,
Sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

[CJ Taylor]

> According to MS, having the v1.1 on a machine will work cause v1.1 is

backwards compatible and will run v1.0 assemblies. And, another really tiny assembly I have runs just fine in this environment, it's a form with a
little of code. The one I'm having problems with uses alot of GDI+. I'm
thinking you're exactly right, and I need to go and get the v1.0 redist, but I'm also wondering if there's a way to force VS.NET 2002 to use framework
v1.1
Hmmm don't know if I have a clear answer to the first one. I understand
what your saying, but I don't think that is exactly true. Reason being,
that sounds like how COM would work (providing one DLL to cover x number of
versions). If my understanding of .NET is correct, then v1.1 and v1.0
should never know about eachother nor depend on eachother in anyway
(including a fallback).

Could be wrong though.

as for using 1.1 in 2002, I thought there was a recent post that said you
couldn't do that. Again, could be mistaken, I know 2003 can do both 1.0 and
1.1, but didn't think it was the other way around.

-CJ

Thanks,
Sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

[Armin Zingler]

"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> schrieb

Okay, I have Framwork v1.0 on my devel machine, VS.NET 2002. On
my workstations, I have Framework v1.1 (Redistributable) installed.
Everything runs fine on my test machine, and it does not run on the
workstations.
No surprise if you don't install v1.0 on the workstations.
I'm not sure, but the version on my devel machine is
what VS.NET installs, and I'm just not getting this now.

--
Armin

How to quote and why:
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[Sueffel]

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> schrieb

Okay, I have Framwork v1.0 on my devel machine, VS.NET 2002. On
my workstations, I have Framework v1.1 (Redistributable) installed.
Everything runs fine on my test machine, and it does not run on the
workstations.

No surprise if you don't install v1.0 on the workstations.

I'm not sure, but the version on my devel machine is
what VS.NET installs, and I'm just not getting this now.

--
Armin

How to quote and why:
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

So, in short the info MS is putting out on MSDN about the v1.1 being able to
run v1.0 assemblies is wrong? Well ain't that just lovely...... Okay, so I
install v1.0 SP2 and things should be hunkie dorrie after that. Kewl, no
biggie, but I think that MSDN should be updated to reflect this error in the
documentation.

Thanks,
Sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

[Armin Zingler]

"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> schrieb

So, in short the info MS is putting out on MSDN about the v1.1 being
able to run v1.0 assemblies is wrong? Well ain't that just
lovely...... Okay, so I install v1.0 SP2 and things should be hunkie
dorrie after that. Kewl, no biggie, but I think that MSDN should be
updated to reflect this error in the documentation.

The only thing _I_ know about this is that the framework version developed
for must be installed on the client machines. I _believe_ it is not possible
to run apps developed for 1.1 on 1.0 because there are differences and new
features not available in 1.0. I don't know whether it's possible to devert
1.1 apps to the 1.0 framework.
--
Armin

How to quote and why:
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Armin,

* "Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> scripsit:

So, in short the info MS is putting out on MSDN about the v1.1 being
able to run v1.0 assemblies is wrong? Well ain't that just
lovely...... Okay, so I install v1.0 SP2 and things should be hunkie
dorrie after that. Kewl, no biggie, but I think that MSDN should be
updated to reflect this error in the documentation.

The only thing _I_ know about this is that the framework version developed
for must be installed on the client machines. I _believe_ it is not possible
to run apps developed for 1.1 on 1.0 because there are differences and new
features not available in 1.0. I don't know whether it's possible to devert
1.1 apps to the 1.0 framework.

It /should/ work with a config file, but as you mention above, it won't
always work and it's not recommended (AFAIK).

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[CJ Taylor]

Armin and Suefell,

I don't think you can do that. I ran across this problem in a project I
worked on a couple months ago on RentACoder and finally realized that the
issue was I had a 1.1 assembly and only 1.0 installed.

I installed 1.1 and it worked fine.

The only way it would work would be to put all your .NET assemblies for that
version in the bin\ directory because of the search pattern for finding
assemblies. And that isn't a good idea. But that still wont solve the
version issue because the assembly reference afterall is looking for
1.1.1433 and not 1.0.3075.

I hope this makes sense. And if Microsoft does have it up this way, I
suggest it be changed too (because it is contradictory), if you have a link
of where it states this I would love to see it.

-CJ

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> schrieb

So, in short the info MS is putting out on MSDN about the v1.1 being
able to run v1.0 assemblies is wrong? Well ain't that just
lovely...... Okay, so I install v1.0 SP2 and things should be hunkie
dorrie after that. Kewl, no biggie, but I think that MSDN should be
updated to reflect this error in the documentation.

The only thing _I_ know about this is that the framework version developed
for must be installed on the client machines. I _believe_ it is not

possible to run apps developed for 1.1 on 1.0 because there are differences and new
features not available in 1.0. I don't know whether it's possible to devert 1.1 apps to the 1.0 framework.
--
Armin

How to quote and why:
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[Sueffel]

"CJ Taylor" <no****@blowgoats.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

Armin and Suefell,

I don't think you can do that. I ran across this problem in a project I
worked on a couple months ago on RentACoder and finally realized that the
issue was I had a 1.1 assembly and only 1.0 installed.

I installed 1.1 and it worked fine.

The only way it would work would be to put all your .NET assemblies for that version in the bin\ directory because of the search pattern for finding
assemblies. And that isn't a good idea. But that still wont solve the
version issue because the assembly reference afterall is looking for
1.1.1433 and not 1.0.3075.

I hope this makes sense. And if Microsoft does have it up this way, I
suggest it be changed too (because it is contradictory), if you have a link of where it states this I would love to see it.

-CJ

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> schrieb

So, in short the info MS is putting out on MSDN about the v1.1 being
able to run v1.0 assemblies is wrong? Well ain't that just
lovely...... Okay, so I install v1.0 SP2 and things should be hunkie
dorrie after that. Kewl, no biggie, but I think that MSDN should be
updated to reflect this error in the documentation.

The only thing _I_ know about this is that the framework version developed for must be installed on the client machines. I _believe_ it is not

possible

to run apps developed for 1.1 on 1.0 because there are differences and new features not available in 1.0. I don't know whether it's possible to

devert

1.1 apps to the 1.0 framework.
--
Armin

How to quote and why:
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Here is the link:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...n/default.aspx

And, there's a link which shows what is brroken between compatability, and
non o that is the case at this time. I'm just going to install v1.0 SP2 on
the workstations and call it a day.

sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

[CJ Taylor]

I think thats the best call. This document does talk a lot about Side by
Side execution, however, it never says that 1.0 code will work with the 1.0
library. Just simply says that members should not change between versions
unless absolutly necessary...

Again, we look at the concept of COM vs .NET

-CJ
"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

"CJ Taylor" <no****@blowgoats.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

Armin and Suefell,

I don't think you can do that. I ran across this problem in a project I
worked on a couple months ago on RentACoder and finally realized that the

issue was I had a 1.1 assembly and only 1.0 installed.

I installed 1.1 and it worked fine.

The only way it would work would be to put all your .NET assemblies for that

version in the bin\ directory because of the search pattern for finding
assemblies. And that isn't a good idea. But that still wont solve the
version issue because the assembly reference afterall is looking for
1.1.1433 and not 1.0.3075.

I hope this makes sense. And if Microsoft does have it up this way, I
suggest it be changed too (because it is contradictory), if you have a

link

of where it states this I would love to see it.

-CJ

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> schrieb
>
> So, in short the info MS is putting out on MSDN about the v1.1 being
> able to run v1.0 assemblies is wrong? Well ain't that just
> lovely...... Okay, so I install v1.0 SP2 and things should be hunkie > dorrie after that. Kewl, no biggie, but I think that MSDN should be
> updated to reflect this error in the documentation.
The only thing _I_ know about this is that the framework version

developed for must be installed on the client machines. I _believe_ it is not

possible

to run apps developed for 1.1 on 1.0 because there are differences and new features not available in 1.0. I don't know whether it's possible to

devert

1.1 apps to the 1.0 framework.
--
Armin

How to quote and why:
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Here is the link:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...n/default.aspx
And, there's a link which shows what is brroken between compatability, and
non o that is the case at this time. I'm just going to install v1.0 SP2 on the workstations and call it a day.

sueffel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

[José Manuel Agüero]

Hello, Sueffel:

Are you adding a reference to .NET Framework 1.1 in the project properties?
If you do so, the application may work fine most of the time, then give unexpected errors like the one you posted.

I have dealed with 1.1 only for small testing programs, but I have never had troubles since I use the configuration file to instruct my program to use 1.1.

Regards.
"Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> escribió en el mensaje news:eB*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
|
| "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
| news:ek**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > * "Sueffel" <so*****@somewhere.com> scripsit:
| > > Okay, I have Framwork v1.0 on my devel machine, VS.NET 2002. On my
| > > workstations, I have Framework v1.1 (Redistributable) installed.
| Everything
| > > runs fine on my test machine, and it does not run on the workstations.
| I'm
| > > not sure, but the version on my devel machine is what VS.NET installs,
| and
| > > I'm just not getting this now.
| >
| > Did you have a look here? Probably you will have to create a config
| > file:
| >
| > "Side-by-Side Execution"
| > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/sidexsidenet.asp>
| >
| > --
| > Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
| > http://www.mvps.org/dotnet
|
| Followed your suggestion Herfried, and attached is the error I got back,
| which is the same one without the config file inplace.
|
| Thanks again,
| Sueffel
|
|
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004
|
|
|