32-bit .net 1.1 apps on Win2003 x64

[Frank Rizzo]

I have a set of apps that require .net 1.1 framework. I've installed
them on Windows 2003 Server (x64) with the .net 2.0 (x64) framework. I
can't seem to find the x64 1.1 framework and the x86 .net 1.1 framework
refuses to install on win2003 x64. Is there such a thing as x64 1.1
framework? If not, is there a way to fool the apps into thinking that
the 1.1 framework is installed?

Regards

 

[Kevin Yu [MSFT]]

Hi Frank,

Unfortunately, there is no x64 version for .NET framework 1.1. If this is a
..NET application, it should be working fine on .NET framework 2.0 for
backward compatibility, except for some break changes. You don't need to
fool the app, it will automatically running on .NET framework 2.0 runtime
if it detects that only .NET 2.0 is installed.

Also, you can specify the runtime version in your application's app.config
file with the following block:

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.50727" />
</startup>
</configuration>

This is often used when 2 different versions of framework are installed on
one machine.

Here are some newgroup thread that you can reference on this issue.

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=760931&SiteID=1

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb/browse_t
hread/thread/ca379a50bb249700/bcecfce1f9190280?lnk=st&q=.net+1.1+app+run+on+
..net+2.0&rnum=2&hl=en#bcecfce1f9190280

If anything is unclear, please feel free to let me know.

Kevin Yu
Microsoft Online Community Support

==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
==================================================

(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)

 

[Frank Rizzo]

Hi Frank,

Unfortunately, there is no x64 version for .NET framework 1.1. If this is a
.NET application, it should be working fine on .NET framework 2.0 for
backward compatibility, except for some break changes. You don't need to
fool the app, it will automatically running on .NET framework 2.0 runtime
if it detects that only .NET 2.0 is installed.

Also, you can specify the runtime version in your application's app.config
file with the following block:

<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.50727" />
</startup>
</configuration>

Well, that's part of the problem. There were some issues with running
the apps against .net 2.0. Thus the original authors required the 1.1
framework using the <requiredRuntime version="v1.1***"/>.

Regards

 

[Kevin Yu [MSFT]]

Hi Frank,

Does this app touch the break changes in .NET 2.0. Since only .NET
framework 2.0 is supported on x64 OS, in this case, it seems that we cannot
run it on x64 OS.

Kevin Yu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================

(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)

 

[Frank Rizzo]

Hi Frank,

Does this app touch the break changes in .NET 2.0. Since only .NET
framework 2.0 is supported on x64 OS, in this case, it seems that we cannot
run it on x64 OS.

Yep, that's essentially the crux of the problem.

Regards

 

[Kevin Yu [MSFT]]

Hi Frank,

Could you let me know why the app sticks to .NET framework 1.1? If it is
running on 2.0 is there any problem there? If we can find and fix the
problem, we may try to make the app run on .NET 2.0.

Kevin Yu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================

(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)

 

[Austin Ehlers]

I have a set of apps that require .net 1.1 framework. I've installed
them on Windows 2003 Server (x64) with the .net 2.0 (x64) framework. I
can't seem to find the x64 1.1 framework and the x86 .net 1.1 framework
refuses to install on win2003 x64. Is there such a thing as x64 1.1
framework? If not, is there a way to fool the apps into thinking that
the 1.1 framework is installed?

Frank,
I'm running XP x64, which is the same code base as Windows Server 2003
x64, and .NET 1.1 apps run fine on this machine, as .NET 1.1 is
supported on the x64 platform. See
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...E3-F589-4842-8157-034D1E7CF3A3&displaylang=en

so I'm not sure what's going on with your system.

Austin

 

[Kevin Yu [MSFT]]

Sorry, Frank.But it just come to mind that if you're using the Windows 2003
x64 edtion, the .NET framework 1.1 has already integrated with the
operating system. You can try to check if it has been installed throught
Add/Remove Programs|Add/Remove Windows components.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Kevin Yu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================

(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)

 

[Frank Rizzo]

Sorry, Frank.But it just come to mind that if you're using the Windows 2003
x64 edtion, the .NET framework 1.1 has already integrated with the
operating system. You can try to check if it has been installed throught
Add/Remove Programs|Add/Remove Windows components.

Ok, here is the deal. It turns out that 1.1 framework won't install on
the plain vanilla Windows 2003 x64. However, if you install Win2003 R2
on top of it, the .net 1.1 framework happily installs (after giving an
IIS partial incompatibility warning).

So it seems to work ok now.