2.0 backwards compat

[Brian Henry]

Does anyone know if you have 2.0 framework installed does it have backwards
compatability with 1.1? like 1.1 did with 1.0? if you had 1.1 installed you
didn't need 1.0 installed... and so on. thanks!

[Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]]

Brian,
..NET 2.0 will run most .NET 1.1 & 1.0 applications without any problems.

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

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

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

--
Hope this helps
Jay [MVP - Outlook]
..NET Application Architect, Enthusiast, & Evangelist
T.S. Bradley - http://www.tsbradley.net
"Brian Henry" <no****@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uh**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Does anyone know if you have 2.0 framework installed does it have
backwards
| compatability with 1.1? like 1.1 did with 1.0? if you had 1.1 installed
you
| didn't need 1.0 installed... and so on. thanks!
|
|

[Greg Burns]

Yes and No.

Yes an executable compiled against 1.x it will run on a machine with nothing
but 2.0 installed.

Will run it exactly the same as it would on a machine with 1.x installed?
Maybe, maybe not.

See my thread about this:
http://tinyurl.com/dxbf2

I just ran my test app (the 1.1 version) from that thread on a machine with
nothing but 2.0 on it. I got the 2.0 output (not suprising).

Granted my test app was poorly written, but it is something to watch out
for.

Greg

I've see some differences in how code exectues when recompiled
"Brian Henry" <no****@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uh**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Does anyone know if you have 2.0 framework installed does it have
backwards compatability with 1.1? like 1.1 did with 1.0? if you had 1.1
installed you didn't need 1.0 installed... and so on. thanks!