ANN: .NET Framework 2.0 Beta 1

.NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 1 (x86)

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=f1232c37-0fee-4aa6-aa89-b6dcefc0873b


Download (at your own risk):
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/6/6/9666067a-660f-48e0-a755-a83a81036b67/dotnetfx.exe

(note, NT4 no longer listed as supported..)


http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/





--
Thomas Scheidegger - MVP .NET - 'NETMaster'
http://www.cetus-links.org/oo_dotnet.html - http://dnetmaster.net/

PEACEMAKER
Tue Jun 29 13:00:55 CDT 2004

can this be installed side by side with 1.0/1.1?
"Thomas Scheidegger [MVP]" <spam.netmaster@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:%237COWxaXEHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 1 (x86)
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=f1232c37-0fee-4aa6-aa89-b6dcefc0873b
>
>
> Download (at your own risk):
>
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/6/6/9666067a-660f-48e0-a755-a83a81036b67/dotnetfx.exe
>
> (note, NT4 no longer listed as supported..)
>
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Scheidegger - MVP .NET - 'NETMaster'
> http://www.cetus-links.org/oo_dotnet.html - http://dnetmaster.net/
>
>

hirf-spam-me-here
Tue Jun 29 13:34:09 CDT 2004

* "PEACEMAKER" <do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.ass.com> scripsit:
> can this be installed side by side with 1.0/1.1?

I assume that this can be done, but I would not do that in production
environment.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

Nick
Tue Jun 29 14:21:47 CDT 2004

Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
when you are versioning assemblies.

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:

> * "PEACEMAKER" <do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.ass.com> scripsit:
>
>>can this be installed side by side with 1.0/1.1?
>
>
> I assume that this can be done, but I would not do that in production
> environment.
>

hirf-spam-me-here
Tue Jun 29 16:28:54 CDT 2004

* Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
> Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
> things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
> when you are versioning assemblies.

I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

John
Tue Jun 29 16:39:11 CDT 2004

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:2ke5daF19asbU1@uni-berlin.de...
> * Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
> > Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
> > things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
> > when you are versioning assemblies.
>
> I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
> somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
> Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
>

The same poster later realized that he had been running the wrong version of
aspnet_regiis. Running the correct version solved his problem.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail

Nick
Tue Jun 29 16:57:07 CDT 2004

Well a development machine is probably fine to run this on. It is not
going to mess around with anything that you already have installed, it
just adds programs not replaces them.

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
> * Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
>
>>Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
>>things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
>>when you are versioning assemblies.
>
>
> I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
> somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
> Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
>

hirf-spam-me-here
Tue Jun 29 17:00:52 CDT 2004

* "John Saunders" <johnwsaundersiii@notcoldmail.com> scripsit:
>>> Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
>>> things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
>>> when you are versioning assemblies.
>>
>> I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
>> somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
>> Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
>
> The same poster later realized that he had been running the wrong version of
> aspnet_regiis. Running the correct version solved his problem.

OK, I didn't see that post yet. Nevertheless, the message of my post
still remains valid.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

Cbarnhorst
Wed Jun 30 00:19:01 CDT 2004

I installed the .net framework 2.0 redistributable first and then installed C# Express and the whole thing installed without alerts of any kind. Of course I am reduced now to replying to this thread in Morse code on a telegraph key...(just kidding!).

"Nick" wrote:

> Well a development machine is probably fine to run this on. It is not
> going to mess around with anything that you already have installed, it
> just adds programs not replaces them.
>
> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
> > * Nick <nberardi@[nospam.]zigamorph.com> scripsit:
> >
> >>Yes you can install 2.0 next to 1.0 and 1.1. That is one of the good
> >>things about .Net, version 2.0 is going to work just like 1.0 and 1.1
> >>when you are versioning assemblies.
> >
> >
> > I still would not do that if I depend on the machine. In another group
> > somebody reported that his .NET 1.1 got damaged by installing one of the
> > Express products (this will install .NET 2.0 Beta 1).
> >
>