..NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 1 (x86)

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...9-b6dcefc0873b


Download (at your own risk):
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...7/dotnetfx.exe

(note, NT4 no longer listed as supported..)


http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/





--
Thomas Scheidegger - MVP .NET - 'NETMaster'
http://www.cetus-links.org/oo_dotnet.html - http://dnetmaster.net/

can this be installed side by side with 1.0/1.1?
"Thomas Scheidegger [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 1 (x86)
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...9-b6dcefc0873b
>
>
> Download (at your own risk):
>
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...7/dotnetfx.exe
>
> (note, NT4 no longer listed as supported..)
>
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Scheidegger - MVP .NET - 'NETMaster'
> http://www.cetus-links.org/oo_dotnet.html - http://dnetmaster.net/
>
>

* "PEACEMAKER" <(E-Mail Removed)> scripsit:
> can this be installed side by side with 1.0/1.1?

I assume that this can be done, but I would not do that in production
environment.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
when you are versioning assemblies.

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:

> * "PEACEMAKER" <(E-Mail Removed)> scripsit:
>
>>can this be installed side by side with 1.0/1.1?
>
>
> I assume that this can be done, but I would not do that in production
> environment.
>

* Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
> Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
> things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
> when you are versioning assemblies.

I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> * Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
> > Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
> > things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
> > when you are versioning assemblies.
>
> I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
> somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
> Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
>

The same poster later realized that he had been running the wrong version of
aspnet_regiis. Running the correct version solved his problem.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail

Well a development machine is probably fine to run this on. It is not
going to mess around with anything that you already have installed, it
just adds programs not replaces them.

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
> * Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
>
>>Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
>>things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
>>when you are versioning assemblies.
>
>
> I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
> somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
> Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
>

* "John Saunders" <(E-Mail Removed)> scripsit:
>>> Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
>>> things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
>>> when you are versioning assemblies.
>>
>> I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
>> somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
>> Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
>
> The same poster later realized that he had been running the wrong version of
> aspnet_regiis. Running the correct version solved his problem.

OK, I didn't see that post yet. Nevertheless, the message of my post
still remains valid.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

I installed the .net framework 2.0 redistributable first and then installed C# Express and the whole thing installed without alerts of any kind. Of course I am reduced now to replying to this thread in Morse code on a telegraph key...(just kidding!).

"Nick" wrote:

> Well a development machine is probably fine to run this on. It is not
> going to mess around with anything that you already have installed, it
> just adds programs not replaces them.
>
> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
> > * Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
> >
> >>Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
> >>things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
> >>when you are versioning assemblies.
> >
> >
> > I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
> > somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
> > Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
> >
>