Networks
by onbliss
Microsoft .Net is an application development platform used for developing Microsoft OS based applications - Windows, Web and Web services.
With a combination of programming languages, run-time libraries and framework; developers can create different kinds of applications.
Obviously you need the run time to deploy various apps such as the new SQL Servers, 2005, Express or the mobile edition.
If you have .net already be careful of trying .net 3 that broke at least one app on my box at home.
All MS's newer stuff needs .net. Vista. So not having it isn't going to be an option for a windows house that want's to stay up to date with MS's offerings.
.net 1.0 apps. If you haven't got any of the frameworks then there should be no problems.
There's no point deploying the framework unless you are going to use it though, far more relevant is going to be what OS's you are using.
You can only get 1 and 1.1 for 98, nothing for 95 and .net 3.0 which is a very nifty piece of work is XP, 2003 and of course Vista.
According to MS, apps written for a major .net version (1,2,3) can happily coexist, conflicts come from changes in minor versions so a 1.0 app may not run in 2.0 if it uses something that changed from 1.0 to 1.1
Course if you want to take that as gospel, I've a nice plot of land for sale. :D
by deepsand
In fact, I today witnessed an ASP push a download of, and install, .NET 2.0, under the quise of being an Application Update, with the result that a competitor's product, designed for .NET 1.0/1.1, broke. After un-installing .NET, it was observed that said ASP's Application continued to work just fine, demonstrating that .NET was not required.
Accident? Coincidence? Considering that the 2 ASPs offer software for ticket brokers, that the Super Bowl is this Sunday, 04FEB, and that this happened near the end of the business day on the East Coast on Friday, 02FEB, foul play would be my bet.
2 should not break it. If it was 1.0 there's a good chance that it may as 2.0 was built on 1.1.
If a 2.0 app broke a 1.1 then either MS or the developers have done something wrong.
Saw an article recently where some guy was recommending building a 2.0 app but using some 3.0 assemblies. If 3.1 comes out and someone installs it it's quite likely to kill the app.
by deepsand
If 2.0 was built on 1.1, then, since it presumably included any changes made by 1.1, an app developed on 1.0 should work on both 1.1 and 2.0.
If, on the other hand, 2.0 was built on 1.0, and did [b]not[/b] incorporate the changes made by 1.1, then an app developed on 1.0 should work under 2.0; but, an app developed on 1.1, which relied on the changes introduced by 1.1, would no longer work under 2.0.
The app that got "busted" works on either 1.0 or 1.1, but not 2.0. That it works on 1.0 implies that it was either developed on 1.0; or, if on 1.1, does [b]not[/b] rely on any of the changes effected by 1.1. Therefore, regardless of whether 2.0 was built on 1.0 or 1.1 should be of no consequence in this particular instance.
And, since there [i]is[/i] a consequence when running this app on 2.0, the implication is that there something about 2.0 which will cause problems for both 1.0 [i]and[/i] 1.1 based apps.
If you only have 2.0, then there's a possibility, that the v1 app might not work.
If you have a v2 app with 1.X framework then there's a probability that it won't work.
Found this for start at more detail.
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/
Basically MS said they try for forwards and backwards compatibility, but ....
by deepsand
As re. the app in question, it's one that was developed on 1.0.
It will run on platforms running 1.0, and those with 1.0 w/ 1.1 update.
It will [b]not[/b] run on machines with 1.0 w/ 1.1 update w/ 2.0 update.
by onbliss
If you've got .Net apps then you must already have the .net components, otherwise they wouldn't run at all.
So the only reason to get it is if you are planning to get .Net apps, such as Office 2007, SQL Server 2005 or another.
If you already have .net apps, then you could get framework conflicts, if you roll out a different one.
by deepsand
The suggested remedy is to, after 2.0 is installed, to [b]re-install[/b] 1.0 Redistributable.
I'll let you guys know how this works out.
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending