Can a .NET 1.1 app run on a PC which have .NET 2.0 installed only?

  • Thread starter Thread starter albusmw
  • Start date Start date
A

albusmw

Hello,

I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET
1.1":

We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash
Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already
have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also
teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1
assemblies, but both develope for the same target.

The question is:
If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any
assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine?

Best regards,

Martin.
 
Hello Andrew,

I tried the described scenario with a simple command line application and
this worked well ...
So is this just random ?????

Best regards,

Martin.


Andrew Faust said:
No. You need to have both installed.

--
Andrew Faust
andrew[at]andrewfaust.com
http://www.andrewfaust.com


albusmw said:
Hello,

I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET
1.1":

We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash
Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already
have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also
teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1
assemblies, but both develope for the same target.

The question is:
If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any
assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine?

Best regards,

Martin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most cases.

That is, .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET2.0 only machine, unless the
1.x app specifically used something only available in .NET 1.x (almost none,
..NET2.0 still support features in 1.x that are depreciated). So, in most
cases, 1.x app would just run fine. However, if the application is
complicated, you may need to do thorough test, or to play it safe, just
install 1.x framework. After all, the .NET framework is designed to
install/run side by side (so far until 2.0. After the messy version naming
of 3.0, and coming 3.5, the version and side-by-side thing is becoming more
and more confusing).


Andrew Faust said:
No. You need to have both installed.

--
Andrew Faust
andrew[at]andrewfaust.com
http://www.andrewfaust.com


albusmw said:
Hello,

I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET
1.1":

We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash
Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already
have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also
teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1
assemblies, but both develope for the same target.

The question is:
If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any
assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine?

Best regards,

Martin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Interesting. I hadn't realized that as I'm constantly running in to issues on
new installs of windows that only have .Net 2.0 where some app requires me to
install .Net 1.1

With how frequently I hit this issue, I thought MS had kept the frameworks
distinct.

Andrew Faust

Norman Yuan said:
No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most cases.

That is, .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET2.0 only machine, unless the
1.x app specifically used something only available in .NET 1.x (almost none,
..NET2.0 still support features in 1.x that are depreciated). So, in most
cases, 1.x app would just run fine. However, if the application is
complicated, you may need to do thorough test, or to play it safe, just
install 1.x framework. After all, the .NET framework is designed to
install/run side by side (so far until 2.0. After the messy version naming
of 3.0, and coming 3.5, the version and side-by-side thing is becoming more
and more confusing).


Andrew Faust said:
No. You need to have both installed.

--
Andrew Faust
andrew[at]andrewfaust.com
http://www.andrewfaust.com


albusmw said:
Hello,

I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET
1.1":

We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash
Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already
have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also
teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1
assemblies, but both develope for the same target.

The question is:
If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any
assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine?

Best regards,

Martin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The only thing I had run into to use app built on 1.1 with computer having
..NET2.0 only is the installation, since in the 1.1 app's setup package I
included the dependency to 1.1. So when I ran setup of the 1.1 app, it stops
the installation and ask to install 1.1 framework. If I do Xcopy to that 1.1
app to 2.0 only computer, it just runs.

If 1.x not runs on 2.0 only computer, then MS would have big trouble since
Vista is 2.0 pre-installed only (of course you can install 1.x on it, but
for most users, it is not needed for sure to run 1.1 applications).


Andrew Faust said:
Interesting. I hadn't realized that as I'm constantly running in to issues
on
new installs of windows that only have .Net 2.0 where some app requires me
to
install .Net 1.1

With how frequently I hit this issue, I thought MS had kept the frameworks
distinct.

Andrew Faust

Norman Yuan said:
No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most
cases.

That is, .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET2.0 only machine, unless
the
1.x app specifically used something only available in .NET 1.x (almost
none,
..NET2.0 still support features in 1.x that are depreciated). So, in most
cases, 1.x app would just run fine. However, if the application is
complicated, you may need to do thorough test, or to play it safe, just
install 1.x framework. After all, the .NET framework is designed to
install/run side by side (so far until 2.0. After the messy version
naming
of 3.0, and coming 3.5, the version and side-by-side thing is becoming
more
and more confusing).


Andrew Faust said:
No. You need to have both installed.

--
Andrew Faust
andrew[at]andrewfaust.com
http://www.andrewfaust.com


Hello,

I have a questions regarding the issue "Does .NET 2.0 contain .NET
1.1":

We want to install .NET on a machine that has only 1 GByte Flash
Harddisc. At the moment, there are developement teams that already
have Visual Studio 2005 and use .NET 2.0 language features, but also
teams that still use Visual Studio 2003 and thus generate .NET 1.1
assemblies, but both develope for the same target.

The question is:
If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any
assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine?

Best regards,

Martin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
albusmw said:
If the target machine has only .NET Framework 2.0 installed, will any
assembly compiled for .NET 1.1 run on this machine?
Click to expand...

Probably in "most cases".
I have recently installed on Windows Vista a desktop application based upon .net
1.1 and developed and tested on winXp. It seemd to run well but I had problems
with some procedures (say 1%) and using Crystal Reports (version included in
vs2003). Installing .net 1.1 on Vista removed all the problems :-)

Bye
Giorgio
 
Hi all,

thanks for the replies.
I am most programming with the basic classes only, so I do not use database
access, web applications, ... (we do algorithm design and such things).
So I do not expect any problems here.

Best regards,

Martin.
 
Back
Top