You still need .NET Framework 1.1!

[azagahl]

90% of the programs Ive' tried that are built for .NET Framework 1.1 do not work with .NET Framework 2.0.

One example is Microsoft's own free Time Zone utility (TimeZone.msi). I think another is

Microsoft's USB Flash Drive manager.

There are countless others.

So you still need to install 1.1...

Anyone else notice this?

[Kelsenellenelvian]

They work fine for me with 2.0

[glent]

Well I just did a fresh install with someones switchles .net 2.0 installer and one of microsoft powertoys also gave me troubles. It would try to download .net 1.1 so im thinking there was an issue with new switchless installer for 2.0 . Did you download one also?

[Sonic]

Warning again !

.NET FrameWork 2.0 isn't an update of the 1.1 version ... 1.1 is must needed to preserve compatilbity ...

[azagahl]

I've been noticing these compatibility problems after a full install of .NET framework 2.0 redistributable. (I'm not nliting a hotfix.) The programs complain .NET isn't installed; then I Install .NET 1.1 and the programs work fine.

FYI, it may be that the actual applications might run fine with .NET 2.0, but the installers are checking for .NET 1.1 and aborting when it's not found. Either way, you still need .NET 1.1 to use install and use such programs successfully.

I suspect there are similar compatibility problems with MSXML 2.4/2.5 and all the MDAC and JET versions (I forget the version numbers).

Also the last several bimonthly releases of DirectX 9.0c SDK cause games using D3DX to depend on a DLL's whose name keeps changing; most people with DX 9.0c do not have all of these DLL's. (I have a d3dx9_24.dll and d3dx9_27.dll but nothing in between, for example.) Games will either have to install the DLL's at installation time, or the games will fail due to absence of the needed DLL. It would be nice to have all of these DLL's and not have games install the DX9.0c redistributable over and over.

I wish Microsoft made these issues more clear. Installing just .NET 2.0 is NOT adequate. Also, I am not sure whether 1.1 is an adequate substitute for programs explicitly checking for 1.0. I also wish that update packages like AutoPatcher and the planned Win2K USP Extreme, etc.. paid more attention to these issues.

Edited November 10, 2005 by azagahl

[glent]

Warning again !

.NET FrameWork 2.0 isn't an update of the 1.1 version ... 1.1 is must needed to preserve compatilbity ...

DOH

[dcyphure]

Warning again !

.NET FrameWork 2.0 isn't an update of the 1.1 version ... 1.1 is must needed to preserve compatilbity ...

DOH

i made the same mistake once too, i dont understand why .net exists, its an annoyance more than anything

[sonu27]

I say F*CK .NET.

[Sonic]

It's good idea but not really good implemented, during my studies I have tried programming in C++ / .NET (Visual 2k5) and they are cool features and big api ... no more problems of memory management & co.

But .Net programs aren't many ... so it's annoyance for most people ... imho

[suryad]

Well people are expecting too much out of these platforms. They are for getting heavy duty work done in the Enterprise applications space not for end users with dinky little problems. Java and .NET platforms are very similar to each other....they are both very heavyweight. They both have their places where they can be used and misused. I dont bother with .NET myself but certain softwares written using the .NET platform are quite awesome.

Edited November 14, 2005 by suryad

[HyperHacker]

I say F*CK .NET.

This has been my opinion since I heard of it. Now you know why!