Re: .NET Framework question

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

"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.


"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6fqdnRCuJPaheUzenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"RJK" wrote:
"Timothy Daniels" wrote:
<frodo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...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*

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)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)"

regards, Richard


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*


.