| Groups | Blog | Home |
dotnet general : Q: .Net Framework - Upgrade v1.1 to v2.0 or skip v1.1 altogether ?
I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question answered... This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0. Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the same job? (**) *: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new features **: like MS' and Sun's JVM If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1 and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and update to v1.1 I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite. PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime. Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to it. Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;) Thanks! PS: email is a decoy. ==
HI,
How could it 2.0 compatible to 1.1 withouth what you ask.(It has to be it is not but that is because there are corrected not registrated and described bugs in previous versions) , I hope this helps, Cor <x9012590125@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1148164531.130578.54440@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [quoted text, click to view] > Hi. > > I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question > answered... > > This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0. > > Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new > features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the > same job? (**) > > *: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new > features > > **: like MS' and Sun's JVM > > > If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1 > and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can > both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and > update to v1.1 > > I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page > doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite. > > PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime. > > > Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to > it. > Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;) > > > Thanks! > > PS: email is a decoy. > == >
2.0 should have all parts that are in the previous versions.
I did nowhere write "some level" so why are you telling that I did?. Because of some bugs at the moment you can install both. Surely as long as SP1 is not there, however normally this should not have been needed. In a normal situation there should only be one NET Framework on a computer. But as I said because of some bugs I would not do that now. (This for endusers for developing are different rules. Visual Studio uses always the Framework from the same version) Cor <x9012590125@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1148197173.279616.294800@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text, click to view] > Cor, > > I don't really understand your answer. > > If you mean that 1.1 and 2.0 have to be compatible at some level, of > course that should be so. > > My question is: > > Can 2.0 be installed without 1.1 (does 2.0 contain all of 1.1, plus > updates)... > Or are both required? > > In the case of Java for example, some sites still use the JVM from > Microsoft; some others only Sun's; and some other sites use whichever > is installed. But for maximum functionality, it is still customary to > install both. > > > Anyway, I don't see how I can make my question any clearer... > > M.T. > > > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote: >> HI, >> >> How could it 2.0 compatible to 1.1 withouth what you ask.(It has to be it >> is >> not but that is because there are corrected not registrated and described >> bugs in previous versions) , >> >> I hope this helps, >> >> Cor >> >> >> <x9012590125@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht >> news:1148164531.130578.54440@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > Hi. >> > >> > I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question >> > answered... >> > >> > This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0. >> > >> > Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new >> > features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the >> > same job? (**) >> > >> > *: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new >> > features >> > >> > **: like MS' and Sun's JVM >> > >> > >> > If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1 >> > and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can >> > both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and >> > update to v1.1 >> > >> > I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page >> > doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite. >> > >> > PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime. >> > >> > >> > Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to >> > it. >> > Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;) >> > >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > PS: email is a decoy. >> > == >> > >
Cor,
I don't really understand your answer. If you mean that 1.1 and 2.0 have to be compatible at some level, of course that should be so. My question is: Can 2.0 be installed without 1.1 (does 2.0 contain all of 1.1, plus updates)... Or are both required? In the case of Java for example, some sites still use the JVM from Microsoft; some others only Sun's; and some other sites use whichever is installed. But for maximum functionality, it is still customary to install both. Anyway, I don't see how I can make my question any clearer... M.T. [quoted text, click to view] Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> HI, > > How could it 2.0 compatible to 1.1 withouth what you ask.(It has to be it is > not but that is because there are corrected not registrated and described > bugs in previous versions) , > > I hope this helps, > > Cor > > > <x9012590125@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:1148164531.130578.54440@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Hi. > > > > I've been looking high and low, but nowhere is this simple question > > answered... > > > > This concerns .NET Framework v1.1 vs. v2.0. > > > > Does .NET Framework v2.0 include v1.1, + SP1, + post-SP1 bug fixes/new > > features (*); or are they two separate applications that perform the > > same job? (**) > > > > *: like a Windows SP2 would contain SP1, plus post-SP1 bug fixes/new > > features > > > > **: like MS' and Sun's JVM > > > > > > If .NET v2.0 is [presumably] better than 1.1, can I simply skip v1.1 > > and install only v2.0, or is that not advisable? I read that they can > > both coexist, which seems to indicate that v2.0 is not [really] and > > update to v1.1 > > > > I find this very confusing, as Microsoft's .NET Framework dowload page > > doesn't list v1.1 as a prerequisite. > > > > PS: I'm not talking about the SDK here, just the runtime. > > > > > > Please don't flame me if the answer already exists, just point me to > > it. > > Or better yet, post the answer in this thread. ;) > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > PS: email is a decoy. > > == > >
V1.1 and V2.0 are separate. V2.0 is new and can be installed on the
same machine with V1.1, but v2.0 is not just a combination ov v1.1 plus service packs. In fact, there are no service packs to version 1.1 to my knowledge. You can install v2.0 without installing v1.1. You only need v1.1 if you have apps that are compiled against that version and you still need to maintain them. Apps converted from v1.1 to v2.0 will probably require some changes to accomodate new features, but it should be fairly painless. This, of course, is dependent on the individual app in question. If you use VS2005, then you must have v2.0 as it only compiles for v2.0. Hope this helps
That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Thanks Chris! M.T. [quoted text, click to view] Chris Dunaway wrote:
> V1.1 and V2.0 are separate. V2.0 is new and can be installed on the > same machine with V1.1, but v2.0 is not just a combination ov v1.1 plus > service packs. In fact, there are no service packs to version 1.1 to > my knowledge. > > You can install v2.0 without installing v1.1. You only need v1.1 if > you have apps that are compiled against that version and you still need > to maintain them. Apps converted from v1.1 to v2.0 will probably > require some changes to accomodate new features, but it should be > fairly painless. This, of course, is dependent on the individual app > in question. > > If you use VS2005, then you must have v2.0 as it only compiles for > v2.0. > > Hope this helps
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |