Can I block the .NET Framework via a GPO

Hello:

I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When WinXP
SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.

Does anyone know how I can do that?

Harrison Midkiff

Kevin
Wed Nov 09 16:53:48 CST 2005

Why would you need to block it?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Complex things are made up of
Lots of simple things.

"Harrison Midkiff" <HMidkiff@aviinc.com> wrote in message
news:uJfaJuX5FHA.4012@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello:
>
> I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
> WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When WinXP
> SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.
>
> Does anyone know how I can do that?
>
> Harrison Midkiff
>

Harrison
Wed Nov 09 19:18:39 CST 2005

If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:Or1ozBY5FHA.1032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Why would you need to block it?
>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> Complex things are made up of
> Lots of simple things.
>
> "Harrison Midkiff" <HMidkiff@aviinc.com> wrote in message
> news:uJfaJuX5FHA.4012@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Hello:
>>
>> I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
>> WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When WinXP
>> SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.
>>
>> Does anyone know how I can do that?
>>
>> Harrison Midkiff
>>
>
>

Damien
Thu Nov 10 02:11:59 CST 2005

Harrison Midkiff wrote:
> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.

In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
freaky (probably unsupported) things with System assemblies, your
custom app should carry on working against 1.1 (or, heaven help us,
1.0)

Damien

Lloyd
Thu Nov 10 02:29:17 CST 2005

>> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
>
> In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
I believe that is incorrect.
I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest framework
available would be used.


> freaky (probably unsupported) things with System assemblies, your
> custom app should carry on working against 1.1 (or, heaven help us,
> 1.0)
>
> Damien
>

Damien
Thu Nov 10 04:46:52 CST 2005

Lloyd Dupont wrote:
> >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
> >
> > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
> I believe that is incorrect.
> I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest framework
> available would be used.
>
>
Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
(Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
connecting to 2.0

Damien

Patrice
Thu Nov 10 06:20:39 CST 2005

It could perhaps try to run in 2.0 if only this version is available ?

Anyway my advice would be :
- if the default behavior for the runtime selection doesn't fit your needs
you could update the config file for your application to specify which
runtimes are supported

IMO it's better as you'll likely run one day in a situation where another
app needs the 2.0 runtime so isntead of blocking 2.0 based applications,
just tell those who can't run with 2.0 they shouldn't...

See :
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk for details
--
Patrice

"Damien" <Damien_The_Unbeliever@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1131619612.548569.222570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Lloyd Dupont wrote:
> > >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
> > >
> > > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> > > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> > > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> > > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
> > I believe that is incorrect.
> > I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest
framework
> > available would be used.
> >
> >
> Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
> VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
> (Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
> tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
> config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
> Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
> believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
> and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
> connecting to 2.0
>
> Damien
>

Kevin
Thu Nov 10 08:21:08 CST 2005

> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.

No it won't.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Complex things are made up of
Lots of simple things.

"Harrison Midkiff" <HMidkiff@aviinc.com> wrote in message
news:%23MO2uSZ5FHA.2036@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
> news:Or1ozBY5FHA.1032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Why would you need to block it?
>>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> Complex things are made up of
>> Lots of simple things.
>>
>> "Harrison Midkiff" <HMidkiff@aviinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:uJfaJuX5FHA.4012@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> I need to block .NET Framework v2.0 which is now downloadable via
>>> WindowsUpdate. I am pretty sure I can block this with a gpo. When
>>> WinXP
>>> SP2 came out initially you could block that with a gpo.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know how I can do that?
>>>
>>> Harrison Midkiff
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Michael
Thu Nov 10 08:34:37 CST 2005

If their app is in Beta 2, it will break. I had the same problem. Until VS
2005 is readily available, the RTM framework needs to be blocked.

Mike Ober.

"Damien" <Damien_The_Unbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131610319.006326.15510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Harrison Midkiff wrote:
> > If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
>
> In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version is
> not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
> freaky (probably unsupported) things with System assemblies, your
> custom app should carry on working against 1.1 (or, heaven help us,
> 1.0)
>
> Damien
>
>

Harrison
Thu Nov 10 12:22:35 CST 2005

Patrice:

Thank you very much for your posting.

I am not the developer who wrote the application so please excuse me if I
get anything wrong. The developers have wrote their applications in v1.0 I
think. They have said there is something in 2.0 which will break there
applications. So far no one has installed 2.0. Knock on would. I followed
up on them regarding the configuration file, but they claim this would be
something they would have to do to each application. After reading the
article this just seems to be one update. Is that correct or do I have to
add this for each application?

Thanks again.

Harrison Midkiff

"Patrice" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ezd8rEf5FHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> It could perhaps try to run in 2.0 if only this version is available ?
>
> Anyway my advice would be :
> - if the default behavior for the runtime selection doesn't fit your needs
> you could update the config file for your application to specify which
> runtimes are supported
>
> IMO it's better as you'll likely run one day in a situation where another
> app needs the 2.0 runtime so isntead of blocking 2.0 based applications,
> just tell those who can't run with 2.0 they shouldn't...
>
> See :
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk for details
> --
> Patrice
>
> "Damien" <Damien_The_Unbeliever@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1131619612.548569.222570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Lloyd Dupont wrote:
>> > >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
>> > >
>> > > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
>> > > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
>> > > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version
>> > > is
>> > > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
>> > I believe that is incorrect.
>> > I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest
> framework
>> > available would be used.
>> >
>> >
>> Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
>> VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
>> (Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
>> tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
>> config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
>> Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
>> believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
>> and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
>> connecting to 2.0
>>
>> Damien
>>
>
>

Kevin
Thu Nov 10 17:32:58 CST 2005

Man, I have lots of both 1.1 and 2.0 apps running on the same machines all
over this office. Each uses its own version of the .Net Framework, and none
of them influences any of the others running in a different version in any
way.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Complex things are made up of
Lots of simple things.

"Harrison Midkiff" <HMidkiff@aviinc.com> wrote in message
news:O17j1Oi5FHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Patrice:
>
> Thank you very much for your posting.
>
> I am not the developer who wrote the application so please excuse me if I
> get anything wrong. The developers have wrote their applications in v1.0
> I think. They have said there is something in 2.0 which will break there
> applications. So far no one has installed 2.0. Knock on would. I
> followed up on them regarding the configuration file, but they claim this
> would be something they would have to do to each application. After
> reading the article this just seems to be one update. Is that correct or
> do I have to add this for each application?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Harrison Midkiff
>
> "Patrice" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ezd8rEf5FHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> It could perhaps try to run in 2.0 if only this version is available ?
>>
>> Anyway my advice would be :
>> - if the default behavior for the runtime selection doesn't fit your
>> needs
>> you could update the config file for your application to specify which
>> runtimes are supported
>>
>> IMO it's better as you'll likely run one day in a situation where another
>> app needs the 2.0 runtime so isntead of blocking 2.0 based applications,
>> just tell those who can't run with 2.0 they shouldn't...
>>
>> See :
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk for details
>> --
>> Patrice
>>
>> "Damien" <Damien_The_Unbeliever@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
>> news:1131619612.548569.222570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Lloyd Dupont wrote:
>>> > >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
>>> > >
>>> > > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
>>> > > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
>>> > > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version
>>> > > is
>>> > > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
>>> > I believe that is incorrect.
>>> > I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest
>> framework
>>> > available would be used.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
>>> VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
>>> (Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
>>> tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
>>> config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
>>> Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
>>> believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
>>> and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
>>> connecting to 2.0
>>>
>>> Damien
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Patrice
Mon Nov 14 03:58:01 CST 2005

It should be just an update in the configuration file...

My understanding is :
- the application is 1.0
- 1.1 is currently installed

The application runs with 1.1. If 2.0 is installed, it will run with 2.0
(the latest installled as 1.0 is not present). If 1.0 were installed it
could run with 1.0.

Else updating the application config file (whihc i s external to the
application) allows to tell the applicatino it should run with 1.1 even
though 2.0 is installed...

--

"Harrison Midkiff" <HMidkiff@aviinc.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:O17j1Oi5FHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Patrice:
>
> Thank you very much for your posting.
>
> I am not the developer who wrote the application so please excuse me if I
> get anything wrong. The developers have wrote their applications in v1.0
I
> think. They have said there is something in 2.0 which will break there
> applications. So far no one has installed 2.0. Knock on would. I
followed
> up on them regarding the configuration file, but they claim this would be
> something they would have to do to each application. After reading the
> article this just seems to be one update. Is that correct or do I have to
> add this for each application?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Harrison Midkiff
>
> "Patrice" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ezd8rEf5FHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > It could perhaps try to run in 2.0 if only this version is available ?
> >
> > Anyway my advice would be :
> > - if the default behavior for the runtime selection doesn't fit your
needs
> > you could update the config file for your application to specify which
> > runtimes are supported
> >
> > IMO it's better as you'll likely run one day in a situation where
another
> > app needs the 2.0 runtime so isntead of blocking 2.0 based applications,
> > just tell those who can't run with 2.0 they shouldn't...
> >
> > See :
> > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9w519wzk for details
> > --
> > Patrice
> >
> > "Damien" <Damien_The_Unbeliever@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:1131619612.548569.222570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Lloyd Dupont wrote:
> >> > >> If it is applied it will break a custome app we have developed.
> >> > >
> >> > > In what way? Have you actually tested this? Framework versions are
> >> > > designed to live side by side, and assemblies will run against the
> >> > > framework they were compiled against (unless that framework version
> >> > > is
> >> > > not available, so I've heard recently). So unless you're doing some
> >> > I believe that is incorrect.
> >> > I believe that, unless specified in a manifest file, the latest
> > framework
> >> > available would be used.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Okay, I've got both 1.1 and 2.0 installed on my machine. Fired up
> >> VS2003, did a windows form project. Stuck a button on it. Compiled
> >> (Release). Exited Visual Studio. Fired it up, and used my favourite
> >> tool (Process Explorer from sysinternals), I can clearly see it loading
> >> config information from the 1.1.4322 directories (Enterprise and
> >> Security config files) and linked to the 1.1.4322 DLLs, so I strongly
> >> believe that it's running under 1.1. It *could* be running under 2.0
> >> and just accessing 1.1 config, but I'd expect to see some trace of it
> >> connecting to 2.0
> >>
> >> Damien
> >>
> >
> >
>
>