SyncToy and .Net 2.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I just found out about SyncToy and am very interested in using it with Win
XP. I have .NET 2.0 installed, but when attempting to installed SyncToy I
get the error message that I need to install .NET 1.1.4322.

I removed .NET 2.0 and attempted to install an earlier version, but was not
successful in this attempt.

Anyone have an idea how to fix / get around this problem?

Thanks
Lynn
 
I have this same problem. The SyncToy install gives you a link to
download .NET, and if you follow it and install .NET, then try installing
SyncToy again, it gives the same complaint.

To the novice user, it appears as though SyncToy is just a way to lure
people into downloading something altogether different, and then
punishes them for doing so by refusing to install.

You get what you pay for, and I want my (no) money back! :)
 
Leave .Net 2.0 'as is', and download the REDISTRIBUTABLE .Net 1.1 installer
from msdn. Both .Net 1.1 and .Net 2.0 can work and play together on the same
machine. Reboot after installing .Net, check Windows Update for service
packs & hotfixes, reboot after them if necessary, and then try to install
SyncToy. I had to do this on mine to get it working, as it is a new machine
which came with .Net 2.0 pre-installed but no .Net 1.1

The standard installer will only install conponents which are newer than
what you already have. If .Net 2.0 is already there, then .Net 1.1 will only
'pretend' to install without making any real changes. The redistributable
version will put all of .Net on your machine without caring if there are
later versions present.

I Hope this helps.
 
It would seem that MS either doesn't trust .Net or doesn't find it as useful
as their marketing would like users to think it is.
 
I recall reading a blog several months ago by an MS mvp which claimed that
over 70% of vista has been written in unmanaged code. Where does that leave
..Net 2.0 if the MS developers won't even use it, yet the same MS developers
are trying to push out CTPs of .Net 3.0 ??
 
Graeme said:
It would seem that MS either doesn't trust .Net or doesn't find it as useful
as their marketing would like users to think it is.

:
Click to expand...

You misunderstand (and Microsoft's "naming" doesn't help).

In the .NET world, version numbers are forever. Newer versions do not
obsolete older versions. Older versions are retained forever to run
code developed and tested on them.

This is Microsoft's latest attempt to resolve "DLL hell", in which
hidden dependencies on, for example, "bugs" in an older implementation
of a DLL cause using applications to malfunction when the DLL is updated
to a newer "corrected" version.

There is no way for Microsoft to ensure that all older pieces of
software, tested in an older environment, will run correctly on a
newer version of the "same" environment without enforcing rigourous
architectural control over the interfaces and functionality for both
the environment (hard, but doable) and all the applications that use
it (not doable without a costly, time-consuming certification program
for all applications).

So their pragamatic (but confusing) solution is to keep all older
versions of an environment active to support all older apps.

It's a hard problem, and a relatively chaotic market that would not
accept any increased rigorousness in the development and certification
process.

The confusing thing is that in the past, a higher version number of
a particular named piece of software meant "supercedes", not simply
"is later than".

-michael

Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
 
Thanks Michael,

I'd never realised that that's what Microsoft was doing with their
versioning. It makes a lot of sense when seeing new software which is
compatible with a wider range of OS versions and other apps using .net 1.1
instead of .net 2.0.

I'm quite new to programming, and have only ever been taught .net 2.0 IDEs
and techniques. Do you think it's worth getting a good book from a couple of
years ago and learning .net 1.1 as well?

-Graeme
 
Graeme said:
Thanks Michael,

I'd never realised that that's what Microsoft was doing with their
versioning. It makes a lot of sense when seeing new software which is
compatible with a wider range of OS versions and other apps using .net 1.1
instead of .net 2.0.

I'm quite new to programming, and have only ever been taught .net 2.0 IDEs
and techniques. Do you think it's worth getting a good book from a couple of
years ago and learning .net 1.1 as well?
Click to expand...

I believe the intent is not to encourage the writing of new apps
for the older interface, so learning .net 2.0 seems like the right
thing.

-michael
 
Back
Top