.NET Framework question

[RJK]

I was having a "tidy up," and in Control Panel Add/Remove programs there was
an entry for
..net framwork v.1.1
and a MS KB hotfix for .net framework v1.1
and .net framwork v2 was also installed. (backalong I upgraded it via
WindowsUpdate).

So I uninstalled v1.1 and the v1.1 Hotfix, and ran a repair on v2 via the
panel that comes up when you threaten to uninstall v2

The "repair" claimed to have completed properly but Norton's Windoctor tells
me the following files are missing etc.
http://www.rk73.wanadoo.co.uk
(
This link is to my free Wanadoo webspace, and contains one partial screen
grab of Windoctor results.
....I suppose I could have looked to see if the results could have been save
to a log !)
....oh well !

Any advice gratefully received

regards, Richard

 

[Guest]

I'm also having problems with this.

From reading the treads from earlier this year I found that my failed .NET
Framework 1.1 TRL x86 enu needed to be uninstalled before I can reinstall. I
followed the troubleshoot guidelines but when I tried to unitstall Microsoft
..NET Framework 1.1 TRL x86 enu from the installer I just got a message that
the file had to be installed before it could uninstalled!

Anyone know where I go from here!

 

[RJK]

....I found a copy of msvcr80.dll in
C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.VC80.CRT_1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b_8.0.50727.42_x-ww_0de06acd

....what a horrible name for a directory !

regards, Richard

 

[RJK]

....that's an idea ...I think ..!

uninstall it all then put 1.1 back in , ummmmmm on second thought's I'll
leave well enough alone for a while !!

regards, Richard

 

[Guest]

My understanding is that the .net framework is not backward compatible.

 

[RJK]

Where did I suggest that I was trying to go backwards ?

regards, Richard

 

[RJK]

....well since then,
I uninstalled v2, then rebooted, ran Windoctor that wanted to remove some
entries for applications that are reliant on .net framework ! I didn't let
it, but, I'm wondering if I'll end up having to reinstall .net reliant apps.

Then I reinstalled it, cooked two deep fill pizzas which I'm about to eat,
and ran Windoctor which now says:-
http://www.rk73.wanadoo.co.uk/

so i think I'll just leave it alone, until somone that knows all about .net
framework appears ! ...hopefully !

regards, Richard

 

[Jonny]

Don't know Rich. My Imaging software, DI 7.0 relies on NET framework, so I
won't touch it.

.............
Jonny

 

[RJK]

...oops, on reply to my own thread i implied that, sorry (blush)

regards, Richard

 

[RJK]

Having looked at it afresh this morning, it looks like I could safely get
rid of the registry keys for v1.1 shared files, v1.1 is no longer
installed - for the top block of 9 keys for "missing shared files",

but, I'm still left with the problem of a missing msvcr30.dll and
msvcr80.dll, (...looks like that part got worse since fiddling with it i.e.
now there's a missing msvcr30.dll !)
re: http://www.rk73.wanadoo.co.uk

regards, Richard

 

[JD]

msvcr80.dll can be downloaded from
http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?msvcr80

Copy it into Windows/system32 folder

JD

 

[RJK]

thanx JD,

"Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)" advised me, (in Windows 98
General discussion NG), that versions .net framwork versions 1.1 and 2.0 can
coexist, and are not mutually exclusive and that some app's could prefer to
use 1.1, even when v 2.0 is installed,

.....so I've put 1.1 back in alongside 2.0 ...phew !!!

regards, Richard

 

[frodo]

"Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)" advised me, (in Windows 98
General discussion NG), that versions .net framwork versions 1.1 and 2.0 can
coexist, and are not mutually exclusive and that some app's could prefer to
use 1.1, even when v 2.0 is installed,
....so I've put 1.1 back in alongside 2.0 ...phew !!!
regards, Richard

True, .Net 1.1 and 2.0 are DIFFERENT ANIMALS, not a newer version of the
same thing [just like the VB5 runtime is different from the VB6 runtime].
BOTH can coexisit, and apps built for 1.1 can not use 2.0 at all, and vice
versa.

Also, don't trust what WinDoctor tells you - it often flags things as
"being in error" when they really are not. The rule w/ WinDoctor is "if
you yourself are not absolutely sure it is an error, then tell WinDoctor
to just ignore it, DON'T let it "repair" the "error". For the most part,
the Norton Utilities are worthless today.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

...apps built for 1.1 can not use 2.0 at all, ...

Are you sure about that? It would be unlike
Microsoft not to try to make new software
releases compatible with older software.

*TimDaniels*

 

[RJK]

I asked the same question, a day or so later in XP General DiscussionNG and
to quote a post:-

"the .NET frameworks are not mutually exclusive - and can co-exist quite
happily. Indeed some programs running under .NET may require 1.1 rather than
2.x
I'd suggest reinstalling 1.1 and the hotfix. (and throwing Norton out of the
nearest window)

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I asked the same question, a day or so later in XP
General Discussion NG and to quote a post:-

"the .NET frameworks are not mutually exclusive - and can
co-exist quite happily. Indeed some programs running under
.NET may require 1.1 rather than 2.x I'd suggest reinstalling
1.1 and the hotfix. (and throwing Norton out of the
nearest window)

There was a discussion about this a couple months ago
as well, and the conclusion was that apps written for 1.1
can use 2.0 unless they were restricted in their runtime
option list to use 1.1 specifically. I think the option is
settable in Visual Studio.NET. at compile time. It makes
sense if you assume that 2.0 is mostly a superset that
extends 1.1 .

*TimDaniels*

 

[RJK]

Thanx Timothy, I'm now keeping both versions installed.

regards, Richard

 

[John Loaf]

"and the conclusion was that apps written for 1.1
can use 2.0 unless they were restricted in their runtime
option list to use 1.1 specifically."

This reminds me of the problems when DOS 5 came out. Some programs insisted
on DOS 3 so Microsoft included DOSVER that made those programs think DOS 3
was running. I've always thought it was poor programming not to allow for a
DOS upgrade. OS upgrades are normally backward compatible, right, XP being
a bit of an exception.