Hello:

I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When WinXP
SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.

Does anyone know how I can do that?

Harrison Midkiff

Why would you need to block it?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Complex things are made up of
Lots of simple things.

"Harrison Midkiff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello:
>
> I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
> WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When WinXP
> SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.
>
> Does anyone know how I can do that?
>
> Harrison Midkiff
>

If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
"Kevin Spencer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Why would you need to block it?
>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> Complex things are made up of
> Lots of simple things.
>
> "Harrison Midkiff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hello:
>>
>> I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
>> WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When WinXP
>> SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.
>>
>> Does anyone know how I can do that?
>>
>> Harrison Midkiff
>>
>
>

Harrison Midkiff wrote:
> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.

In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
freaky (probably unsupported) things with System assemblies, your
custom app should carry on working against 1.1 (or, heaven help us,
1.0)

Damien

>> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
>
> In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
I believe that is incorrect.
I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest framework
available would be used.


> freaky (probably unsupported) things with System assemblies, your
> custom app should carry on working against 1.1 (or, heaven help us,
> 1.0)
>
> Damien
>

Lloyd Dupont wrote:
> >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
> >
> > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
> I believe that is incorrect.
> I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest framework
> available would be used.
>
>
Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
(Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
connecting to 2.0

Damien

It could perhaps try to run in 2.0 if only this version is available ?

Anyway my advice would be :
- if the default behavior for the runtime selection doesn't fit your needs
you could update the config file for your application to specify which
runtimes are supported

IMO it's better as you'll likely run one day in a situation where another
app needs the 2.0 runtime so isntead of blocking 2.0 based applications,
just tell those who can't run with 2.0 they shouldn't...

See :
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk for details
--
Patrice

"Damien" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Lloyd Dupont wrote:
> > >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
> > >
> > > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> > > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> > > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> > > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
> > I believe that is incorrect.
> > I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest
framework
> > available would be used.
> >
> >
> Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
> VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
> (Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
> tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
> config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
> Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
> believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
> and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
> connecting to 2.0
>
> Damien
>

> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.

No it won't.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Complex things are made up of
Lots of simple things.

"Harrison Midkiff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
> "Kevin Spencer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Why would you need to block it?
>>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> Complex things are made up of
>> Lots of simple things.
>>
>> "Harrison Midkiff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
>>> WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When
>>> WinXP
>>> SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know how I can do that?
>>>
>>> Harrison Midkiff
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

If their app is in Beta 2, it will break. I had the same problem. Until VS
2005 is readily available, the RTM framework needs to be blocked.

Mike Ober.

"Damien" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Harrison Midkiff wrote:
> > If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
>
> In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
> freaky (probably unsupported) things with System assemblies, your
> custom app should carry on working against 1.1 (or, heaven help us,
> 1.0)
>
> Damien
>
>

Patrice:

Thank you very much for your posting.

I am not the developer who wrote the application so please excuse me if I
get anything wrong. The developers have wrote their applications in v1.0 I
think. They have said there is something in 2.0 which will break there
applications. So far no one has installed 2.0. Knock on would. I followed
up on them regarding the configuration file, but they claim this would be
something they would have to do to each application. After reading the
article this just seems to be one update. Is that correct or do I have to
add this for each application?

Thanks again.

Harrison Midkiff

"Patrice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> It could perhaps try to run in 2.0 if only this version is available ?
>
> Anyway my advice would be :
> - if the default behavior for the runtime selection doesn't fit your needs
> you could update the config file for your application to specify which
> runtimes are supported
>
> IMO it's better as you'll likely run one day in a situation where another
> app needs the 2.0 runtime so isntead of blocking 2.0 based applications,
> just tell those who can't run with 2.0 they shouldn't...
>
> See :
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk for details
> --
> Patrice
>
> "Damien" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Lloyd Dupont wrote:
>> > >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
>> > >
>> > > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
>> > > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
>> > > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version
>> > > is
>> > > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
>> > I believe that is incorrect.
>> > I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest
> framework
>> > available would be used.
>> >
>> >
>> Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
>> VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
>> (Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
>> tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
>> config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
>> Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
>> believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
>> and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
>> connecting to 2.0
>>
>> Damien
>>
>
>