|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
I need to add a followup to this message, as I have become somewhat more
"enlightened" as to the co-existence scenarios for the various versions of the frameworks. As to my statement that v2 does not supercede v1.1, that is still semantically correct; however, it conveys an additional meaning which is not accurate. The v2 framework /can/ be used to "replace" the v1.1 framework -- though doing so is advised with caution -- and full interoperability is not guaranteed. 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, 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]" <onsitechsolutions@news.postalias> wrote in message news:... > v2.0 does /not/ supercede v1.1. > > They are designed to work in side-by-side mode, just as v1.0 and v1.1 work > in side-by-side mode. This is a design criteria for the .NET Framework. > > > "Clayton" <claytonbNOSPAM@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message > news:%23s%23S9aL5FHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>I have done a clean install and ran Windows Update, so why has Windows >>Update detected version 1.1 of Microsoft .NET Framework and also version >>2.0. I thought version 2.0 would have superseded version 1.1? >> >> Got me stumped >> >> > > |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| RE: .NET 1.1 Installation Failure - error 0x66A | Dave | Windows Update | 0 | 01-05-2006 05:08 PM |
| One-way connection: networked XP/2000 PC's | Cheryl | Windows XP Network Web | 22 | 01-05-2006 04:11 AM |
| Can't Ping My Own IP Address - Part 2 | Don | Windows XP Network Web | 3 | 01-05-2006 04:10 AM |
| Internet Explorer will open only https pages | Bill | Windows XP General | 1 | 01-05-2006 02:33 AM |
| USB Mass Storage Device - This device cannot start. (Code 10) | lobo201 | Windows XP Hardware | 11 | 01-05-2006 02:15 AM |