Is Microsoft .NET 2.0 somthing that will replace .NET 1.1?

I can't uninstall 1.1 (shows in uninstall list, but when selected
there is no list) and it takes 40MB, in addition 2.0 takes 93MB (or at
least this is what the "Uninstall" list says. Where are those files?
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605

You should leave both .NET frameworks on your sytem. If memory serves me
right I read that version 2.0 does not replace 1.1 - some programs still
require the older one.

"Lars-Erik Østerud" <.@.> wrote in message
news:7mucf.622$zc1.597@amstwist00...
> Is Microsoft .NET 2.0 somthing that will replace .NET 1.1?
>
> I can't uninstall 1.1 (shows in uninstall list, but when selected
> there is no list) and it takes 40MB, in addition 2.0 takes 93MB (or at
> least this is what the "Uninstall" list says. Where are those files?
> --
> Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605

Jerry:

> You should leave both .NET frameworks on your sytem. If memory serves me
> right I read that version 2.0 does not replace 1.1 - some programs still
> require the older one.

MS is an expert in wasting HD space then :-)
(2.0 took a lot more that 90MB after install)

OK, so if I don't have any programs needing 2.0 I could stick with 1.1
and on my home PC I don't need 1.1 either, my Office PC needs 1.1....
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605

Just like you did not need to install the .NET Framework v1.0 or the .NET
Framework v1.1 /unless/ you had an application that was written with .NET
technologies, and thus required the Framework, you also will not need to
install the .NET Framework v2.0 /until/ you have an application that was
written with .NET v2 technologies.


"Lars-Erik Østerud" <.@.> wrote in message news:Ccvcf.627$zc1.7@amstwist00...
> Jerry:
>
>> You should leave both .NET frameworks on your sytem. If memory serves me
>> right I read that version 2.0 does not replace 1.1 - some programs still
>> require the older one.
>
> MS is an expert in wasting HD space then :-)
> (2.0 took a lot more that 90MB after install)
>
> OK, so if I don't have any programs needing 2.0 I could stick with 1.1
> and on my home PC I don't need 1.1 either, my Office PC needs 1.1....
> --
> Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605

Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:

> Just like you did not need to install the .NET Framework v1.0 or the .NET
> Framework v1.1 /unless/ you had an application that was written with .NET
> technologies, and thus required the Framework, you also will not need to
> install the .NET Framework v2.0 /until/ you have an application that was
> written with .NET v2 technologies.
>

I have some applications that require .NET 1.1 to be installed. I
uninstalled .NET 1.1 and proceeded to installed .NET 2.0 Framework. The
applications that required .NET 1.1 seem to be running fine. So this leads
me to belive that 2.0 .NET Framework support apllications that were written
for 1.1.

--
Joey

"Joey" <joeysmall@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e76rFZb5FHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
>
>> Just like you did not need to install the .NET Framework v1.0 or the .NET
>> Framework v1.1 /unless/ you had an application that was written with .NET
>> technologies, and thus required the Framework, you also will not need to
>> install the .NET Framework v2.0 /until/ you have an application that was
>> written with .NET v2 technologies.
>>
>
> I have some applications that require .NET 1.1 to be installed. I
> uninstalled .NET 1.1 and proceeded to installed .NET 2.0 Framework. The
> applications that required .NET 1.1 seem to be running fine. So this leads
> me to belive that 2.0 .NET Framework support apllications that were written
> for 1.1.

I did some extra research on this question. Your results were very
enlightening, and forced me to 'review' my understanding of the framework
environments. While the above post, as written, is accurate, I have posted
elsewhere with, what I now know to be, an inaccurate assessement of framework
co-existence rules.

The newer versions of the framework /MAY/ allow applications built with the
older version... in fact, the MS webpages say... /should/ allow applications
built with the older versions -- to run without issue. However, this is not
guaranteed.

I had misunderstood this detail previously.

To that end, yes, your .NET Framework v1.1 applications /should/ run without
issue on the .NET Framework v2.0; however, there is no guarantee.

Personally, I would recommend keeping the .NET Framework v1.1 installed to
support v1.1 applications, as would I recommend having the .NET Framework v1.0
installed to support v1.0 applications. If the native version of the framework
is installed, the application will use the native framework to run.

Newer versions of the framework -can- be blocked by system administrators so
that they do not support applications written with the older versions. I also
learned that older versions of the framework can be 'enabled' to support
applications built with newer versions of the framework -- though whether it
will successfully run is an entirely different issue.

Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:

>
> "Joey" <joeysmall@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e76rFZb5FHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
>>
>>> Just like you did not need to install the .NET Framework v1.0 or the
>>> .NET Framework v1.1 /unless/ you had an application that was written
>>> with .NET technologies, and thus required the Framework, you also will
>>> not need to install the .NET Framework v2.0 /until/ you have an
>>> application that was written with .NET v2 technologies.
>>>
>>
>> I have some applications that require .NET 1.1 to be installed. I
>> uninstalled .NET 1.1 and proceeded to installed .NET 2.0 Framework. The
>> applications that required .NET 1.1 seem to be running fine. So this
>> leads me to belive that 2.0 .NET Framework support apllications that were
>> written for 1.1.
>
> I did some extra research on this question. Your results were very
> enlightening, and forced me to 'review' my understanding of the framework
> environments. While the above post, as written, is accurate, I have posted
> elsewhere with, what I now know to be, an inaccurate assessement of
> framework co-existence rules.
>
> The newer versions of the framework /MAY/ allow applications built with
> the older version... in fact, the MS webpages say... /should/ allow
> applications built with the older versions -- to run without issue.
> However, this is not guaranteed.
>
> I had misunderstood this detail previously.
>
> To that end, yes, your .NET Framework v1.1 applications /should/ run
> without issue on the .NET Framework v2.0; however, there is no guarantee.
>
> Personally, I would recommend keeping the .NET Framework v1.1 installed to
> support v1.1 applications, as would I recommend having the .NET Framework
> v1.0 installed to support v1.0 applications. If the native version of the
> framework is installed, the application will use the native framework to
> run.
>
> Newer versions of the framework -can- be blocked by system administrators
> so that they do not support applications written with the older versions.
> I also learned that older versions of the framework can be 'enabled' to
> support applications built with newer versions of the framework -- though
> whether it will successfully run is an entirely different issue.

Thanks for the information, if I seem to have problems with my applications
that require .NET 1.1, I will suspect it was the removal of .NET 1.1 and
install the Framework plus any additional updates.

--
Joey