CLR20r3 - what am I missing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hilton
  • Start date Start date
H

Hilton

Hi,

Using VS 2003, compiled an EXE, runs fine on XP. I just tried to run it on
Vista, crashes with DllNotFoundException and mentions "CLR20r3". I have run
other .NET apps on the Vista machine. Why does this build specifically
require CLR20r3 (.NET 2.0 I assume)? I removed .NET 2.0 from my XP
development machine and the EXE runs fine.

Under References, I have System, System.Data, System.Drawing,
System.Windows.Forms, and System.XML - all have "Runtime Version" as
v1.1.4322 and Version as 1.0.5000.0.

Using VS 2003, is there a setting to force the use of .NET 1.0 or 2.0?

DLL Hell? :)

Thanks in advance,

Hilton
 
Using VS 2003, is there a setting to force the use of .NET 1.0 or 2.0?

No, because when 2003 came out 2.0 hadn't been created yet. Each version of
VS is uses a specific version of the Framework. Although you can target
your assembly to run on a previous Framework version, you can't go forward.

-Scott
 
No, because when 2003 came out 2.0 hadn't been created yet. Each version of
VS is uses a specific version of the Framework. Although you can target
your assembly to run on a previous Framework version, you can't go forward.
Click to expand...

That's great. But the question was: why does VS 2003 on XP produce an
EXE which runs fine on XP but crashes with DllNotFoundException
"CLR20r3".on Vista. Perhaps the answer can be found here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=328111&SiteID=1&mode=1
 
I'm pretty sure there wer 2 questions asked and I answered the second one.
In fact, I included the part I was answering in my reply.
 
I'm pretty sure there wer 2 questions asked and I answered the second one.
In fact, I included the part I was answering in my reply.
Click to expand...

When posting, please stick to either "replies below previous message"
or "replies above previous message". Using both in the same post
creates unnecessary confusion and may unintentionally reduce the
helpfulness of what you write. Otherwise, great post.
 
I've been posting in these ng's for about 10 years, so I really don't need a
lesson. Seems like the only one confused is you.
 
Also, I did not top and bottom post in the same message, as you suggest I
did. But, if I had, it would be called "inline" posting, which is perfectly
reasonable.
 
Also, I did not top and bottom post in the same message, as you suggest I
did. But, if I had, it would be called "inline" posting, which is perfectly
reasonable.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that your post used both inline-replying (all older
replies) and top-posting (your reply) in the same message. This has
the side effect of making it impossible to reply using anything but
top-posting unless you discard all the previously quoted text (which I
had to do now). I think it's better to keep an entire conversation
quoted the same way, so it's always possible to continue the
conversation while keeping the context. Don't you agree?
 
Wether top quoting, bottom quoting or inline quoting is used, is entirely up
to the poster. AFAIR, there are no guidelines for the newsgroups telling
which to use.

Besides, the post mentioned DID only use top quoting.

Best regards

Benny
 
Wether top quoting, bottom quoting or inline quoting is used, is entirely up
to the poster. AFAIR, there are no guidelines for the newsgroups telling
which to use.
Click to expand...

Instead of guidelines, I feel that well argumented advocacy is much
more productive. For example, my argument against using both quote
styles in the same message was that it "creates unnecessary confusion
and may unintentionally reduce the helpfulness of what you write", and
specifically, because it "has the side effect of making it impossible
to reply using anything but top-posting unless you discard all the
previously quoted text".

(Programming methodology is also up to the poster, but I like to see
this newsgroup as a good opportunity to make arguments for my views on
the subject.)
Besides, the post mentioned DID only use top quoting.
Click to expand...

Like I said; in the strictest sense of the word, perhaps. But who are
we to judge? Let's see if Hilton agrees when they come back to see all
our CLR20r3-related responses.

Greetings from sunny Sweden!
 
When you said that I used both inline and top posting, I had only posted one
message, which did NOT use both of these styles. The message was a simple
<snip> of the OP, with a bottom-posted response. Your replies since then
have been talking about something I didn't do.
 
For example, my argument against using both quote
styles in the same message was that it "creates unnecessary confusion
and may unintentionally reduce the helpfulness of what you write", and
specifically, because it "has the side effect of making it impossible
to reply using anything but top-posting unless you discard all the
previously quoted text".
Click to expand...

First, I'm not using both styles in one message (as being done here).
Second, your preference is just that, your preference. There are many
people out there (myself included) that prefer top-posting over bottom
posting so you don't have to scroll down through lengthy posts just to add a
short comment to it and others won't have to scroll down through hundreds of
lines of text just to read a short response. The point is people have their
own styles of posting.

But, the main point of my responses to you in this thread is that you are
saying I've used multiple styles in one response (inline and top-posting)
and I did not do that. My reply to the OP was written just as this message
is written to you - - a bottom post with an included <snip>.
 
Back
Top