As the .NET Framework upgrades.

The first .NET Framework Redistributable (from now on I'll refer to as
.NET) 1.0 was released several years ago, then .NET 1.1 then now we are
one step away from .NET 2.0.

I've found some programs (say, Microsoft Student 2006) insisted that
.NET 1.1 should be installed though I have installed .NET 2.0 beta 2.
When .NET 2.0 is released, would this problem disappear? Will every
.NET application run happlily on machines that only have .NET 2.0
installed?

I tried to run a .NET 2.0 applicatoin on .NET 1.1 and got a message box
said something like "This applicatoin require version 2.0xxxx....". Now
I'm just wondering what if Microsoft add an auto update feature to
.NET. Instead of the previous simple error message, how about showing
this kind of message?
"This program requires .NET 2.0, and your .NET version is 1.1. Would
you like to upgrade .NET now? Internet connection is required." [Yes]
[No]

Perhaps this will make the process of developers to make sure users are
using up-to-date version of .NET easy. Yes, users can update .NET at
the Windows Updates but it's in a Recommended category.

CT
Tue Oct 18 02:43:05 CDT 2005

The .NET Framework an application is built with, must be installed on your
machine. So, even if version 2.0 is installed, and your application was
built with version 1.1, it simply won't run without installing version 1.1
of the framework. The functionality you're mentioning about the auto-update
can be created using a deployment project and the new bootstrapper,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/10/Bootstrapper/

--
Carsten Thomsen
Communities - http://community.integratedsolutions.dk

<typingcat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129618566.248070.27520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The first .NET Framework Redistributable (from now on I'll refer to as
> .NET) 1.0 was released several years ago, then .NET 1.1 then now we are
> one step away from .NET 2.0.
>
> I've found some programs (say, Microsoft Student 2006) insisted that
> .NET 1.1 should be installed though I have installed .NET 2.0 beta 2.
> When .NET 2.0 is released, would this problem disappear? Will every
> .NET application run happlily on machines that only have .NET 2.0
> installed?
>
> I tried to run a .NET 2.0 applicatoin on .NET 1.1 and got a message box
> said something like "This applicatoin require version 2.0xxxx....". Now
> I'm just wondering what if Microsoft add an auto update feature to
> .NET. Instead of the previous simple error message, how about showing
> this kind of message?
> "This program requires .NET 2.0, and your .NET version is 1.1. Would
> you like to upgrade .NET now? Internet connection is required." [Yes]
> [No]
>
> Perhaps this will make the process of developers to make sure users are
> using up-to-date version of .NET easy. Yes, users can update .NET at
> the Windows Updates but it's in a Recommended category.
>

Kevin
Tue Oct 18 05:38:48 CDT 2005

Instead of the previous simple error message, how about showing
> this kind of message?
> "This program requires .NET 2.0, and your .NET version is 1.1. Would
> you like to upgrade .NET now? Internet connection is required." [Yes]
> [No]

Perhaps it is because you can have both or any versions installed at any
given time, and run programs on both/all of them at the same time. Side by
side.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

<typingcat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129618566.248070.27520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The first .NET Framework Redistributable (from now on I'll refer to as
> .NET) 1.0 was released several years ago, then .NET 1.1 then now we are
> one step away from .NET 2.0.
>
> I've found some programs (say, Microsoft Student 2006) insisted that
> .NET 1.1 should be installed though I have installed .NET 2.0 beta 2.
> When .NET 2.0 is released, would this problem disappear? Will every
> .NET application run happlily on machines that only have .NET 2.0
> installed?
>
> I tried to run a .NET 2.0 applicatoin on .NET 1.1 and got a message box
> said something like "This applicatoin require version 2.0xxxx....". Now
> I'm just wondering what if Microsoft add an auto update feature to
> .NET. Instead of the previous simple error message, how about showing
> this kind of message?
> "This program requires .NET 2.0, and your .NET version is 1.1. Would
> you like to upgrade .NET now? Internet connection is required." [Yes]
> [No]
>
> Perhaps this will make the process of developers to make sure users are
> using up-to-date version of .NET easy. Yes, users can update .NET at
> the Windows Updates but it's in a Recommended category.
>

Dirc
Wed Oct 19 03:49:56 CDT 2005

Kevin Spencer wrote:

> Instead of the previous simple error message, how about showing
> > this kind of message?
> > "This program requires .NET 2.0, and your .NET version is 1.1. Would
> > you like to upgrade .NET now? Internet connection is required."
> > [Yes] [No]
>
> Perhaps it is because you can have both or any versions installed at
> any given time, and run programs on both/all of them at the same
> time. Side by side.

Better would be for the software companies including the relevant .NET
redistributable and installing it for you if it is not present....

--

typingcat
Thu Oct 20 00:24:17 CDT 2005

The problem is some people hate to install .NET because they think
instaling .NET make to many changes to the computer (registry etc.) and
even think it makes the computer instable (according to some Korean
famous PC magazine). Would the users like to installing each and every
version of .NET? I mean, installing .NET 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 .... Can't
every .NET applicatoin run on the latest version of .NET?

As for me, I've installed .NET 2.0 but some applicatoins insist that
.NET 1.1 should be installed. I don't use those applicatoin only
because I don't want to install .NET 1.1. Looks like a kind of waste
of disk space and wouldn't it make some kind trouble if two or more
versions are installed on the same computer?



Dirc Khan-Evans wrote:
> Kevin Spencer wrote:
>
> > Instead of the previous simple error message, how about showing
> > > this kind of message?
> > > "This program requires .NET 2.0, and your .NET version is 1.1. Would
> > > you like to upgrade .NET now? Internet connection is required."
> > > [Yes] [No]
> >
> > Perhaps it is because you can have both or any versions installed at
> > any given time, and run programs on both/all of them at the same
> > time. Side by side.
>
> Better would be for the software companies including the relevant .NET
> redistributable and installing it for you if it is not present....
>
> --

Richard
Sun Oct 23 15:14:40 CDT 2005

typingcat@gmail.com wrote:

There are *immense* benefits gained from using .NET. The security
benefits themselves should be sufficient to persuade most people.
However, having said that...

> The problem is some people hate to install .NET because they think
> instaling .NET make to many changes to the computer (registry etc.)
> and even think it makes the computer instable (according to some
> Korean famous PC magazine).

I doubt it. When you install .NET there are only *two* files put into
%windir%\System32 gdiplus.dll and mscoree.dll. You could easily argue
that gdiplus.dll isn't even part of .NET - it is a native file and
Microsoft provides header files for you to use it from unmanaged C++. So
IMO the only file inserted into System32 is mscoree.dll, and this is the
shim DLL that choses the right version of .NET to use from the ones
installed on your machine.

As to registry, well the *vast* majority of .NET configuration is done
through machine.config and friends. While .NET does use the registry, it
does not add much.

> Would the users like to installing each
> and every version of .NET? I mean, installing .NET 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0

This is the nubb of the issue. Microsofties live in an isolated world.
They have hugely powerful machines with huge large disks and lots of
memory; they also have super fast, always on, internet connections.
Unfortunately they behave as if they expect everyone else to have such
machines. If I could afford one of their machines and their huge pipe to
the internet I too would want every version of the framework on my
machine, but, of course, I don't, so I don't.

> .... Can't every .NET applicatoin run on the latest version of .NET?

Well yes, through configuration files, if you want to take the effort.

> As for me, I've installed .NET 2.0 but some applicatoins insist that
> .NET 1.1 should be installed. I don't use those applicatoin only
> because I don't want to install .NET 1.1. Looks like a kind of waste
> of disk space and wouldn't it make some kind trouble if two or more
> versions are installed on the same computer?

You should get yourself a Microsoft developer's machine, then you won't
care about the wasted space ;-)

Richard
--
http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/workshops/fusionWS.htm
http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/workshops/securityWS.htm