.NET Framework version 1.1???

[erniehogan]

I have recently done a fresh reinstall of XP Pro/SP2 along with most of the recommended Microsoft updates, .NET framework version 2 included. Microsoft updates recommends .NET framework version 1.1. be installed also. Apparently version 2 does not contain the earlier version also. Can anyone enlighten me regarding the necessity or non-necessity of installing both .net framework versions?

 

[ncotton]

I don't know if there is a difference between upgrading and installing straight .NET2.0, I don't think that there should be, I've not come into any problem running .NET1.1 developed programs on a .NET2.0 environment.

I have never heard or read of anything that 2.0 is "missing" anything, or that there are problems running in a 2.0 environment, or anywhere that specifically suggest that you have to/should/recommended, install 1.1 then upgrade.

Hope this Helps.

Neil J Cotton
njc Information Systems
Systems Consultant

 

[bcastner]

You can install .NET redistributables in any order. This is similar to the case of VBasic runtimes, in which several may be installed on a workstation.

There are multiple releases of the .NET Framework (v1.0, v1.1, v2.0). These multiple .NET Framework releases can be installed "side-by-side" on a single computer, in the same way that a user can install multiple versions of an application such as Office (for example, Office XP and Office 2003 on one computer). On Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, the .NET Framework releases run side-by-side in different processes. In other words, one process can be running an application on the .NET Framework 1.0 and at the same time another process can be running an application on the .NET Framework 1.1.

Side-by-Side Runtime Behavior of Applications on the .NET Framework 1.0, 1.1, 2.0

Managed applications: When the application is started up on the .NET Framework 1.0, 1.1 or 2.0, the CLR (mscoree) looks at the .NET Framework version recorded in the application and tries to run the application on the version of the .NET Framework that the application was compiled with. If that version is not installed on the computer, the CLR will attempt to start the application on the latest .NET Framework and CLR, for example, an application compiled for .NET Framework 1.0 running on a computer with only .NET Framework 1.1 will be rolled forward to run on the .NET Framework 1.1. Likewise, an application compiled for .NET Framework 1.1 running on a computer with only the .NET Framework 2.0 will be rolled forward to run on the .NET Framework 2.0.

Because there are "breakable" differences in the version, this promotion may not succeed in running a versioned managed application on the promoted runtime.

 

[ncotton]

BC,
To actually answer the question, can you say that there is any need to install v1.1 at all, let alone first? I can't see any reason why he cant jump straight to the .NET2.0 distributable and ignore the others. Not seen or heard of any 1.0/1.1 apps that wont actually run on 2.0, but I may be wrong. As far as I am aware, the frameworks are completely backwards compatible.

Hope this Helps.

Neil J Cotton
njc Information Systems
Systems Consultant

 

[bcastner]

They are not completely backwards compatible, and no effort is made for them to be so. They are designed to run at the same time if needed side-by-side.

You can install them in any order.

This is not like Service Packs that are inclusive of all previous Service Pack changes.

Whether an application written for Framework 1.1 will run under Framework 2.0 is up to the application; some functions are deprecated in later frameworks and if critical to an application providing the needed framework makes sense.

These require little room. Install 1.1, 2.0 and now available 3.0.

 

[erniehogan]

I thank all of you. Your answers were sufficient to give me the understanding I was seeking.