Newcomer: why are TWO versions needed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Terry Pinnell
  • Start date Start date
T

Terry Pinnell

Oh no! last night I decided to bite the bullet and install the vast
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 which is unfortunately needed for what
seems a relatively simple, free program called VOB2MPG, Took me ages,
but by the early hours I had it working and went to bed.

This morning I decided as an act of faith to pay up 20 UKP (36 USD)
for SVCD2DVD. Both programs are described at
http://www.svcd2dvd.com/
I'd read good reviews and I saw it used .NET Framework, so I judged
that would capitalise a bit more on the effort I'd just made. So I
duly registered and downloaded. But on starting the install I got this
message:

"This setup requires the .NET Framework version 1.1.4322. Please
install the .NET Framework and run this setup again."

Why must I install another, OLDER version of this beast? And why would
the free program use a newer version? I've no idea how much HD space
version Framework 2.0 has taken, but it was one heck of a lot, plus
hundreds of new registry entries. So naturally I'm reluctant to
proceed. But having paid up... I've never ever before dived
straight in without a trial; obviously picked the wrong choice to
break that habit.

Ironically, before I installed version 2.0 I'd taken what I thought
was the sensible precaution of *uninstalling* 1.1! (It had been
required by at least one program I installed recently, called Autoplay
Repair.)

Any advice (as non-technical as possible) would be much appreciated
please. I have of course also emailed the author
 
Reinstall Framework 1.1. Framework 2.0 isn't backwards compatible with 1.1.

Mike.
 
Terry,
..NET 2.0 will run most .NET 1.1 & 1.0 applications without any problems.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228009.aspx

In fact most .NET 1.0 & 1.1 apps will/should run under the .NET 2.0 64-bit
edition!

http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archive/2005/05/06/415191.aspx

However due to meta file changes (Generics & such) .NET 1.0 & 1.1 cannot run
..NET 2.0 assemblies.

There are a handful (very few) breaking changes in .NET 2.0 that won't allow
..NET 1.1 apps to run, I would recommend that you attempt to run the 1.1 app
under 2.0 & see if it works. In fact I would have expected the manufacture
of SVCD2DVD to have already done this!

If it works then you should be fine. If not, the framework allows & fully
supports having both versions (all three 1.0, 1.1 & 2.0 in fact) installed
at the same time. For those odd cases (Visual Studio for example) where the
application absolutely requires a specific version of the framework.

--
Hope this helps
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]
..NET Application Architect, Enthusiast, & Evangelist
T.S. Bradley - http://www.tsbradley.net


| Oh no! last night I decided to bite the bullet and install the vast
| Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 which is unfortunately needed for what
| seems a relatively simple, free program called VOB2MPG, Took me ages,
| but by the early hours I had it working and went to bed.
|
| This morning I decided as an act of faith to pay up 20 UKP (36 USD)
| for SVCD2DVD. Both programs are described at
| http://www.svcd2dvd.com/
| I'd read good reviews and I saw it used .NET Framework, so I judged
| that would capitalise a bit more on the effort I'd just made. So I
| duly registered and downloaded. But on starting the install I got this
| message:
|
| "This setup requires the .NET Framework version 1.1.4322. Please
| install the .NET Framework and run this setup again."
|
| Why must I install another, OLDER version of this beast? And why would
| the free program use a newer version? I've no idea how much HD space
| version Framework 2.0 has taken, but it was one heck of a lot, plus
| hundreds of new registry entries. So naturally I'm reluctant to
| proceed. But having paid up... I've never ever before dived
| straight in without a trial; obviously picked the wrong choice to
| break that habit.
|
| Ironically, before I installed version 2.0 I'd taken what I thought
| was the sensible precaution of *uninstalling* 1.1! (It had been
| required by at least one program I installed recently, called Autoplay
| Repair.)
|
| Any advice (as non-technical as possible) would be much appreciated
| please. I have of course also emailed the author
|
| --
| Terry, West Sussex, UK
 
At the risk of stating the obvious, the 2.0 framework is an upgrade to 1.1,
but it's not a direct replacement.

The 2.0 FW is about 140MB, 1.1 about half that. "Vast" is relative,
especiially when a 250GB hard drive costs 125 US dollars.
 
Jay B. Harlow said:
Terry,
.NET 2.0 will run most .NET 1.1 & 1.0 applications without any problems.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228009.aspx

In fact most .NET 1.0 & 1.1 apps will/should run under the .NET 2.0 64-bit
edition!

http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archive/2005/05/06/415191.aspx

However due to meta file changes (Generics & such) .NET 1.0 & 1.1 cannot run
.NET 2.0 assemblies.

There are a handful (very few) breaking changes in .NET 2.0 that won't allow
.NET 1.1 apps to run, I would recommend that you attempt to run the 1.1 app
under 2.0 & see if it works. In fact I would have expected the manufacture
of SVCD2DVD to have already done this!

If it works then you should be fine. If not, the framework allows & fully
supports having both versions (all three 1.0, 1.1 & 2.0 in fact) installed
at the same time. For those odd cases (Visual Studio for example) where the
application absolutely requires a specific version of the framework.
Click to expand...

Thanks all, appreciate the help.

I went ahead and installed 1.1, which was VERY much faster than
installing 2.0.
 
Back
Top