Can VB 2003 use .net 2.0 framework?

[cj]

Can VB 2003 use .net 2.0 framework?

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Can VB 2003 use .net 2.0 framework?

No, that's not supported.

 

[Kevin Yu [MSFT]]

Hi,

The VS.NET 2003 is bound to .NET framework 1.1 and cannot use .NET
framework 2.0 instead.

Kevin Yu
Microsoft Online Community Support

============================================================================
==========================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
============================================================================
==========================

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

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

Can VB 2003 use .net 2.0 framework?

Visual Studio 2003 compiles to framework 1.1. The code can be run on a
computer only having framework 2.0, though.

 

[Sid Price]

Is this really true? My understanding is that if an application is built to
use 1.1 then it needs 1.1 installed on the target PCs.

Sid.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Is this really true? My understanding is that if an application is built
to use 1.1 then it needs 1.1 installed on the target PCs.

IIRC no, but testing is required because there might be some
incompatibilities between .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0.

 

[Carlos J. Quintero [VB MVP]]

Hi Sid,

Yes, it's true. See:

Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 (Beta) Compatibility
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/netfxcompat.asp

Compatibility Testing Scenarios
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...ry/en-us/dnnetdep/html/netfxcompatapptest.asp

--

Best regards,

Carlos J. Quintero

MZ-Tools: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio
You can code, design and document much faster:
http://www.mztools.com

 

[Sid Price]

Thanks for the links, very interesting.

I had a user of my application complain that he only had 2.0 on his machine
and that the installer would not complete without 1.1 being installed. I
guess this may be an installer issue that I need to investigate; that was
what made me believe that I needed 1.1 on th etarget machine.

Again, thank you,
Sid.