.NET Framework 3.0 backwards compatible with .NET 1 and 2?

[Schadenfroh]

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta...-4A14-83F5-25634C3BF043&displaylang=en

I would really dislike having to have all three .net framework versions on my system to run certain applications.

 

[Mark R]

.net 2 is backwards compatible with .NET 1.0 and 1.1 (i.e. programs written with 1.1 will run fine with 2.0). .Net 2.0 is a complete framework, capable of replacing 1.1 and 1.0.

.Net 3.0 isn't a whole framework, but is an add-on to .net 2.0. So if you install 3.0, .net 2.0 will be installed as well.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Mark R
.net 2 is backwards compatible with .NET 1.0 and 1.1 (i.e. programs written with 1.1 will run fine with 2.0). .Net 2.0 is a complete framework, capable of replacing 1.1 and 1.0.

Really? I always thought there were incompatible changes.

Aside from hearsay, my only evidence is that I witnessed a 1.1->2.0 upgrade in one place I was working (as in, we were the developers) and, while it didn't take very long, there were definitely some quirky bugs to be found. Iirc, a lot of the gui stuff started looking funny (but it was very poorly written code) and there was a dll naming conflict (one of ours could no longer be loaded without being renamed).

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Mark R
.net 2 is backwards compatible with .NET 1.0 and 1.1 (i.e. programs written with 1.1 will run fine with 2.0). .Net 2.0 is a complete framework, capable of replacing 1.1 and 1.0.

Really? I always thought there were incompatible changes.

They are intended to be compatible. But, you are right, there are some very minor changes between the 2, and some minor bug fixes.

In general, the majority of 1.1 applications run just fine on 2.0 - but there are possibly a few places where things could go a bit wrong (some 2.0 methods handle errors slight differently, or events get fired at slightly different times).

There is a complete list of changes here.

 

[bruceb]

I tried to use on Microsoft app ... I think it was MS Sync Toy and it flat out refused to install with .NET 2.0
It insisted on .NET 1.1 to be able to install ... very odd as it is a MS App

 

[Nothinman]

It insisted on .NET 1.1 to be able to install ... very odd as it is a MS App

That's not odd at all, it's very common for one MS department to not know what the others are doing. For example, MS Office has always been one of the most problematic apps to make work properly on a terminal server.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It insisted on .NET 1.1 to be able to install ... very odd as it is a MS App

That's not odd at all, it's very common for one MS department to not know what the others are doing. For example, MS Office has always been one of the most problematic apps to make work properly on a terminal server.

There's lite installer that ships with visual studio. There you can set-up with framework version is required... perhaps it is simply problem with the installer.