Hello everyone!

I just finished writing a small app in VB 2005. I paid very close attention
to using only Framework 1.1 commands since my client has not yet installed
the Framework 2.0 across their enterprise.

When I tested my app on another system, my app tells me that I must install
the 2.0 Framework for it to work even though 1.1 is installed. I thought .NET
projects were backward compatible as long as the functions are compatible.

What should I do to distribute my app? Any help would be gretaly appreciated.

Sean

afaik, Framework 2.0 is required for any VS2005 project, regardless.

I strongly recommend to install .NET Framework 2.0.  Almost any VB project
adds .NET 2.0-dependent stuff behind the scenes.  If you want to target .NET
1.1, use VS.NET 2003 for development.

Sean,

No forwards compatible. (should be because it is at the moment not true with
1.x to 2.0, I hope the new SP will fix that).

A program language can be backwards compatible.

Cor

Cor, I'm a little confused by your answer.  Suppose I have a machine that
only has .Net 2.0 installed.  I have another machine that I developed my
application using VB.Net 2003 and .Net 1.1 installed.  Can I take my
application I developed with VB.Net 2003 and .Net 1.1 and run it on the
machine that only has .Net 2.o installed?
Show quoteHide quote

It is possible to run an app developed with framework 1.1 on a machine that
only has 2.0 on it. BUT, there are no guarantees that everything will work
correctly. That is why it is recommended that you install the framework that
the app was developed on , on the target machine. That way, there is less
likely to be problems. And all of the frameworks ( 1.0,1.1, & 2.0) are
supposed to be able to con-exist without any interference or problems
between them. Before, a major hard drive failure, I had all three
development enviroments and frameworks installled, along with Visual Studio
6.0 , and never had any problems.
( YMMV)
james

Show quoteHide quote

Dennis,

This is as it AFAIK should have been, however in version Net 2.0 are some
classes working as they probably should (only fair to read in the
documentation) have been. By instance the dataview is now on more places in
2.0 really dynamic.

I don't know how Microsoft will solve this.

I can not imaging a future with on one computer needed

Net 1.0 (SP1, SP2), Net 1.x (SP1), Net 2.0 (Sp1, SP2, SP3, SP4), Net 2.1,
Net 3,0

That is worse than the Dll hell.

Cor

Thanks for your insight...agree dll hell maybe wasn't so bad after all.  I
wonder if Vista will come with all the frameworks.  Anyway, best answer is
just to try the application under framework 2.0 and see if it works.

I did notice that Microsoft has kept quiet about this topic.
Show quoteHide quote

¤ Hello everyone!
¤
¤ I just finished writing a small app in VB 2005. I paid very close attention
¤ to using only Framework 1.1 commands since my client has not yet installed
¤ the Framework 2.0 across their enterprise.
¤
¤ When I tested my app on another system, my app tells me that I must install
¤ the 2.0 Framework for it to work even though 1.1 is installed. I thought .NET
¤ projects were backward compatible as long as the functions are compatible.
¤
¤ What should I do to distribute my app? Any help would be gretaly appreciated.

If you compile your application in 2005 the minimum supported version of the Framework is 2.0.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Show quote Hide quote My thanks to all who answered. I will have to copy/paste my 2005 code into a
2003 project. It does suck to have to do this but waddya gonna do? This would
be a great enhancement to all Visual languages (VB, C# and C++) to have an
option to be backward compatible at compile time. IMHO.

Sean

I agree with you that it would be great if new versions of VS could still be
compile for older versions of the .NET Framework.

¤
¤
¤ > ¤ Hello everyone!
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ I just finished writing a small app in VB 2005. I paid very close attention
¤ > ¤ to using only Framework 1.1 commands since my client has not yet installed
¤ > ¤ the Framework 2.0 across their enterprise.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ When I tested my app on another system, my app tells me that I must install
¤ > ¤ the 2.0 Framework for it to work even though 1.1 is installed. I thought .NET
¤ > ¤ projects were backward compatible as long as the functions are compatible.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ What should I do to distribute my app? Any help would be gretaly appreciated.
¤ >
¤ > If you compile your application in 2005 the minimum supported version of the Framework is 2.0.
¤ >
¤ >
¤ > Paul
¤ > ~~~~
¤ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
¤ >
¤
¤ My thanks to all who answered. I will have to copy/paste my 2005 code into a
¤ 2003 project. It does suck to have to do this but waddya gonna do? This would
¤ be a great enhancement to all Visual languages (VB, C# and C++) to have an
¤ option to be backward compatible at compile time. IMHO.

That's fine as long as you aren't using any of the newer features that are not supported in the
prior version.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

DateTimePicker + DataBinding + Null-Value: THE solution?
Is there a simple way to email?
What is Instrumentation?
ptr to string ?
How to remove Volume Name on removable drive?
Help please Creating web page of links and content
AcroRd32.exe left open
System.IO.Ports.SerialPort.GetPortNames return wrog names above CO
Unit Testing and Test Cases
NEWBIE question