No, you will need the .net framework 1.1 installed too. Reason being, the application was compiled with that framework and none
of the frameworks ( 1.0,1.1,2.0 etc.) superceeds the other, as far as applications built (compiled) against a certain version of
the framework will work with the next higher version. The only way to get that to happen is to load & rebuild/ recompile your
application , in the Development Enviroment for the newer framework version you are wanting to use. In this case , you will need
to recompile in Visual Studio 2005. This is supposed to prevent a framework version of DLL HELL,,,,,,,,,where a newer version of
a dll caused an application written with an earlier version to blow up.

james

"Fabio Pagano" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Scenario: i have some applications (exe and dll) compiled in Vs2003 using
> default options.
>
> On a clean machine, if i install only .net framework 2.0, will these
> applications run?
>
>

I do not agree.

In general, app written in .NET 1.x should be able to run on computer with
..NET2.0 only, unless the app uses some features that are not supported by
..NET2.0 any more (I do not know if there are some or not). This philosophy
is supported when .NET 1.1 came out, and I believe it is still so for
..NET2.0.

I have apps written in 1.0 in year 2002. And when my client bought some new
computer with WinXP, SP2, the .NET1.1 is preinstalled and not .NET1.0 at
all. My app simply runs without any changing/re-compiling.

Of course, if you want make 100% sure your app will run on a computer and
you do not know exactly whether your app uses some features in older version
that are not supported in newer version, then you'd better get the older
version of .NET installed. I'd always installed the version of .NET that my
app is compiled against, whenever possible.


"james" <jjames700ReMoVeMe at earthlink dot net> wrote in message
news:et$(E-Mail Removed)...
> No, you will need the .net framework 1.1 installed too. Reason being, the
> application was compiled with that framework and none of the frameworks
> ( 1.0,1.1,2.0 etc.) superceeds the other, as far as applications built
> (compiled) against a certain version of the framework will work with the
> next higher version. The only way to get that to happen is to load &
> rebuild/ recompile your application , in the Development Enviroment for
> the newer framework version you are wanting to use. In this case , you
> will need to recompile in Visual Studio 2005. This is supposed to prevent
> a framework version of DLL HELL,,,,,,,,,where a newer version of a dll
> caused an application written with an earlier version to blow up.
>
> james
>
> "Fabio Pagano" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Scenario: i have some applications (exe and dll) compiled in Vs2003 using
>> default options.
>>
>> On a clean machine, if i install only .net framework 2.0, will these
>> applications run?
>>
>>
>
>

James,

Sorry, but I don't think your are correct here. 1.x should be ok on 2.0.

Most of the time, machines will have the actual version of the framework
that an app was compiled against, but the framework in general is backwards
compatible.

Two good resources here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=73151

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...etfxcompat.asp

-Andrew Robinson


"james" <jjames700ReMoVeMe at earthlink dot net> wrote in message
news:et$(E-Mail Removed)...
> No, you will need the .net framework 1.1 installed too. Reason being, the
> application was compiled with that framework and none of the frameworks
> ( 1.0,1.1,2.0 etc.) superceeds the other, as far as applications built
> (compiled) against a certain version of the framework will work with the
> next higher version. The only way to get that to happen is to load &
> rebuild/ recompile your application , in the Development Enviroment for
> the newer framework version you are wanting to use. In this case , you
> will need to recompile in Visual Studio 2005. This is supposed to prevent
> a framework version of DLL HELL,,,,,,,,,where a newer version of a dll
> caused an application written with an earlier version to blow up.
>
> james
>
> "Fabio Pagano" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Scenario: i have some applications (exe and dll) compiled in Vs2003 using
>> default options.
>>
>> On a clean machine, if i install only .net framework 2.0, will these
>> applications run?
>>
>>
>
>

Norman & Andrew, I stand corrected. After reading the second link that Andrew provided, I see that I mis-understood how things
work with the framework(s). It would appear that instead of dll Hell, we now can have Framework Hell !! My reason for stating
that is, if a newer framework has any breaking changes (as mentioned in the Microsoft article) then an application built with an
earlier framework can fail. I know that you can specify either at install time or runtime for a specific version of the
framework and that seems to be a potential source for problems. It's what Microsoft calls "version-brittle".
While it sounds like a good idea to keep an application from requiring a particular version of the framework, it would seem to
me, that it would be better to do so , to insure your application continues to run correctly.
I guess someone is worried that tech support is not getting enough calls to pay for themselves!!
Ok, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.
james


"Norman Yuan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I do not agree.
>
> In general, app written in .NET 1.x should be able to run on computer with .NET2.0 only, unless the app uses some features
> that are not supported by .NET2.0 any more (I do not know if there are some or not). This philosophy is supported when .NET
> 1.1 came out, and I believe it is still so for .NET2.0.
>
> I have apps written in 1.0 in year 2002. And when my client bought some new computer with WinXP, SP2, the .NET1.1 is
> preinstalled and not .NET1.0 at all. My app simply runs without any changing/re-compiling.
>
> Of course, if you want make 100% sure your app will run on a computer and you do not know exactly whether your app uses some
> features in older version that are not supported in newer version, then you'd better get the older version of .NET installed.
> I'd always installed the version of .NET that my app is compiled against, whenever possible.
>
>
> "james" <jjames700ReMoVeMe at earthlink dot net> wrote in message news:et$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> No, you will need the .net framework 1.1 installed too. Reason being, the application was compiled with that framework and
>> none of the frameworks ( 1.0,1.1,2.0 etc.) superceeds the other, as far as applications built (compiled) against a certain
>> version of the framework will work with the next higher version. The only way to get that to happen is to load & rebuild/
>> recompile your application , in the Development Enviroment for the newer framework version you are wanting to use. In this
>> case , you will need to recompile in Visual Studio 2005. This is supposed to prevent a framework version of DLL
>> HELL,,,,,,,,,where a newer version of a dll caused an application written with an earlier version to blow up.
>>
>> james
>>
>> "Fabio Pagano" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Scenario: i have some applications (exe and dll) compiled in Vs2003 using
>>> default options.
>>>
>>> On a clean machine, if i install only .net framework 2.0, will these
>>> applications run?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Scenario: i have some applications (exe and dll) compiled in Vs2003 using
default options.

On a clean machine, if i install only .net framework 2.0, will these
applications run?

Andrew Robinson wrote:
> James,
>
> Sorry, but I don't think your are correct here. 1.x should be ok on 2.0.
>
> Most of the time, machines will have the actual version of the framework
> that an app was compiled against, but the framework in general is backwards
> compatible.

Why wouldn't the 2.0 framework be 100% backwards compatible w/ a 1.x
application?

Seems like we are right back on track to what MS calls "DLL Hell" (which
they caused in the first place).

Not Andrew, but comments inline:


"Peter Franks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:svAbf.17526$i%.6192@fed1read07...
> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't think your are correct here. 1.x should be ok on 2.0.
>>
>> Most of the time, machines will have the actual version of the framework that an app was compiled against, but the framework
>> in general is backwards compatible.
>
> Why wouldn't the 2.0 framework be 100% backwards compatible w/ a 1.x application?

See this link that Andrew provided as to why they may not be 100% backwards compatable:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...etfxcompat.asp


>
> Seems like we are right back on track to what MS calls "DLL Hell" (which they caused in the first place).

Exactly my thinking! Oh, and I am pretty sure that Microsoft didn't coin the phrase "DLL Hell".
It had to be a developer trying to deal with support calls.
james

It's impossible to answer this question because it depends on each specific
app. There are breaking changes between releases, and if an app is affected
by a breaking change then it needs (in this case) the 1.1 framework. Or it
needs changing to avoid the incompatibility.

http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/change...0/default.aspx

There isn't really any DLL Hell here, why not just install the framework was
built for and you're done? They can all exist on the same system.
--
Phil Wilson
[Microsoft MVP-Windows Installer]
Definitive Guide to Windows Installer
http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=280


"Peter Franks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:svAbf.17526$i%.6192@fed1read07...
> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't think your are correct here. 1.x should be ok on 2.0.
>>
>> Most of the time, machines will have the actual version of the framework
>> that an app was compiled against, but the framework in general is
>> backwards compatible.
>
> Why wouldn't the 2.0 framework be 100% backwards compatible w/ a 1.x
> application?
>
> Seems like we are right back on track to what MS calls "DLL Hell" (which
> they caused in the first place).

> Exactly my thinking! Oh, and I am pretty sure that Microsoft didn't coin
> the phrase "DLL Hell".
> It had to be a developer trying to deal with support calls.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the term "DLL Hell." There is no
such thing in the .Net Framework. DLLs are not registered in the System
Registry, nor are they superceded (or "upgraded" as you might like to
think). "Backwards compatibility" is not part of the picture in the .Net
Framework. Instead "side by side execution" is the model. "Backwards
compatibility" is part of the cause for "DLL Hell." When new versions of
software came out, they would overwrite existing versions, replace DLLs with
newer versions etc. "Backwards compatibilty" was a nightmare. Existing apps
using a certain version of a DLL would break because the version that now
existed on their machine was no longer the version needed by the app that
installed the original version on the machine.

With .Net, DLLs are not replaced. New versions are installed to new
locations. Each app knows what version it needs, and where to find it. Even
assemblies registered in the Global Assembly Cache can exist side-by-side
with as many other versions as necessary. And the application bin folder
enables XCopy deployment.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"james" <jjames700ReMoVeMe at earthlink dot net> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not Andrew, but comments inline:
>
>
> "Peter Franks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:svAbf.17526$i%.6192@fed1read07...
>> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>>> James,
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I don't think your are correct here. 1.x should be ok on 2.0.
>>>
>>> Most of the time, machines will have the actual version of the framework
>>> that an app was compiled against, but the framework in general is
>>> backwards compatible.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the 2.0 framework be 100% backwards compatible w/ a 1.x
>> application?
>
> See this link that Andrew provided as to why they may not be 100%
> backwards compatable:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...etfxcompat.asp
>
>
>>
>> Seems like we are right back on track to what MS calls "DLL Hell" (which
>> they caused in the first place).
>
> Exactly my thinking! Oh, and I am pretty sure that Microsoft didn't coin
> the phrase "DLL Hell".
> It had to be a developer trying to deal with support calls.
> james
>
>
>
>

Phil, my personal opinion is that it would be better to install the framework that an app was built with. That way avoids the
problem of breaking changes. Until I had read Andrew's post and the 2nd link he provided,
I didn't think that an application built against an older version of the framework would run on a system with a newer version.
For whatever reason, I was under the impression that that was the way it worked and was intended to be.
I guess the best thing to do is as you suggested and install the needed framework for a particular app even if another (newer)
version is already on the system.
james

"Phil Wilson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> It's impossible to answer this question because it depends on each specific app. There are breaking changes between releases,
> and if an app is affected by a breaking change then it needs (in this case) the 1.1 framework. Or it needs changing to avoid
> the incompatibility.
>
> http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/change...0/default.aspx
>
> There isn't really any DLL Hell here, why not just install the framework was built for and you're done? They can all exist on
> the same system.
> --
> Phil Wilson
> [Microsoft MVP-Windows Installer]
> Definitive Guide to Windows Installer
> http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=280
>