azagahl Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 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 isMicrosoft's USB Flash Drive manager.There are countless others.So you still need to install 1.1...Anyone else notice this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsenellenelvian Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 They work fine for me with 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glent Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Warning again !.NET FrameWork 2.0 isn't an update of the 1.1 version ... 1.1 is must needed to preserve compatilbity ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azagahl Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glent Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Warning again !.NET FrameWork 2.0 isn't an update of the 1.1 version ... 1.1 is must needed to preserve compatilbity ...DOH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcyphure Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonu27 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 I say F*CK .NET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryad Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyperHacker Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I say F*CK .NET.This has been my opinion since I heard of it. Now you know why! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now