Re: Microsoft .NET Framework

I need to add a followup to this message, as I have become somewhat more
"enlightened" as to the co-existence scenarios for the various versions of the
frameworks.

As to my statement that v2 does not supercede v1.1, that is still semantically
correct; however, it conveys an additional meaning which is not accurate. The
v2 framework /can/ be used to "replace" the v1.1 framework -- though doing so
is advised with caution -- and full interoperability is not guaranteed.

The newer versions of the framework /MAY/ allow applications built with the
older version... in fact, the MS webpages say... /should/ allow applications
built with the older versions -- to run without issue. However, this is not
guaranteed.

I had misunderstood this detail previously.

To that end, NET Framework v1.1 applications /should/ run without issue on the
..NET Framework v2.0; however, there is no guarantee.

Personally, I would recommend keeping the .NET Framework v1.1 installed to
support v1.1 applications, as would I recommend having the .NET Framework v1.0
installed to support v1.0 applications. If the native version of the framework
is installed, the application will use the native framework to run.

Newer versions of the framework -can- be blocked by system administrators so
that they do not support applications written with the older versions. I also
learned that older versions of the framework can be 'enabled' to support
applications built with newer versions of the framework -- though whether it
will successfully run is an entirely different issue.


"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> v2.0 does /not/ supercede v1.1.
>
> They are designed to work in side-by-side mode, just as v1.0 and v1.1 work
> in side-by-side mode. This is a design criteria for the .NET Framework.
>
>
> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
> news:%23s%...
>>I have done a clean install and ran Windows Update, so why has Windows
>>Update detected version 1.1 of Microsoft .NET Framework and also version
>>2.0. I thought version 2.0 would have superseded version 1.1?
>>
>> Got me stumped
>>
>>
>
>