ASP.NET 1.1 on 64 bit?

[Guest]

Is ASP.NET 1.1 available on the 64 bit extended version of Windows 2003
Server? When I install VS.NET 2003 I then get Service Unavailable from IIS
when navigating to the main under construction site (http://localhost) and I
get error 'HTTP/1.1 503 Service Unavailable' when trying to start a new
ASP.NET project. I uninstalled IIS and reinstalled IIS, and the under
construction default page comes up normally, I ran aspnet_regiis -i and then
get the same service unavailable error. I get the following errors in the
event log.

A process serving application pool 'DefaultAppPool' reported a failure. The
process id was '1876'. The data field contains the error number.

A process serving application pool 'DefaultAppPool' reported a failure. The
process id was '2904'. The data field contains the error number.

A process serving application pool 'DefaultAppPool' reported a failure. The
process id was '820'. The data field contains the error number.

A process serving application pool 'DefaultAppPool' reported a failure. The
process id was '204'. The data field contains the error number.

A process serving application pool 'DefaultAppPool' reported a failure. The
process id was '2884'. The data field contains the error number.

Application pool 'DefaultAppPool' is being automatically disabled due to a
series of failures in the process(es) serving that application pool.

Thanks!

 

[Guest]

Yo uknow what I find curious here? I am supposed to get an answer within 72
hours as an MSDN subscriber posting in the Managed Newsgroups. I posted this
2 months ago. Thank you Microsoft for you usual level of support.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

You know what *I* found curious, Bob ?

I found the answer to your question in less than
2 minutes of browsing msdn.microsoft.com :

All I did was search MSDN for
"64-Bit .NET Framework Development"
and the very first link in the returned list was :

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/programming/64bit/devtools/

You need the 64-bit .NET Framework SDK and Visual Studio 2005.

 

[Guest]

So you sent me a link to the 2.0 framework. I will infer from that almost
response that the answer to my question is no, the question of course
actually being 'can I use the 1.1 framework on my 64 bit machine'. I was
assuming that being Windows 2003, even the 64 bit version, that I would have
support for my 1.1 apps recompiled in 64 bit or run through WoW. Thank you
for at least hazarding a reply though.

 

[Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]]

Hi Bob,

Yo uknow what I find curious here? I am supposed to get an answer within
72
hours as an MSDN subscriber posting in the Managed Newsgroups. I posted
this
2 months ago. Thank you Microsoft for you usual level of support.

You might want to verify that (e-mail address removed) is the email
alias that is registered with MSDN. Otherwise, their system won't be able to
flag your posts.

 

[Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]]

Is ASP.NET 1.1 available on the 64 bit extended version of Windows 2003
It doesn't look like it is supported:

"The .NET Framework SDK 1.1 cannot be installed on 64-bit computers"
"The .NET Framework 1.1 Redistributable cannot be installed on 64-bit
computers"

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/technologyinfo/sysreqs/default.aspx

 

[DalePres]

The 24 hour response thing has long been a farce. It has been a common
complaint in the newsgroups for as long as I can remember.

Apparently, though, Microsoft has finally figured it out. On the MSDN
subscribers start page (right after you log in and accept the license
agreement) they have added a link to register a spam-free address with MSDN
that they will track and respond to.

I haven't had to try it out yet, but I am hoping for better response to that
commitment in the future.

DalePres
MCAD, MCDBA, MCSE

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

Yes, Bob.

You asked if you could use VS NET 2003 and .NET 1.1,
and I told you that you *need* .NET 2.0 and VS.NET 2005.

re:

I will infer from that almost response
that the answer to my question is no

Be careful.

You might not want to take inferences of that magnitude.

Maybe, if you *need* .NET 2.0 and VS.NET 2005,
you might squeak by with .NET 1.1 and VS.NET 2003.

re:

the question of course actually being 'can I use

the 1.1 framework on my 64 bit machine"

And the answer you got is : you *need* VS.NET 2005,
and you *need* the 64-bit version of .NET 2.0 listed
at the link sent.

You can't even *install* .NET 1.1 on 64-bit systems,
as you painfully found out.

Sorry if you expected a different answer, or you think
that the answer you were given was "hazarded".

It was quite precise.

In sum, I sent you a link to a page titled
"64-Bit .NET Framework Development Tools".

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/programming/64bit/devtools/

The tools with which you can do 64-bit .NET
development are listed at that very same page.

Take some time to read through the link sent,
and the other links on that page, if you are interested
in 64-bit .NET development, as you apparently are.

The rest of the answers/links you need are at that page.

 

[DalePres]

Just thought you may have forgotten...

From the MVP FAQ page:

Because the MVP Award is an award-based program with criteria based on past
contributions, Microsoft has no expectations of MVPs beyond the expectations
of courtesy, professionalism, code of conduct and adherence to the community
rules that we ask of all Microsoft community members.

and:

Inspired community, Inspiring people. MVPs are dedicated professionals,
passionate about sharing their knowledge and experience with others.


DalePres

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

Thank you, DalePres.

I'd imagine that the "rules that we ask of all Microsoft
community members" apply to *all* community members,
don't they ?

Bob got the information he needed and,
in response, sent a biting reply.

I replied with a bit of satire to his incorrect "inference".

That was not "discourteous", nor "unprofessional",
nor did it violate any MVP "code of conduct", as you allege.

And, yes, I *am* "passionate about sharing
my knowledge and experience with others."

Bob asked whether he could use VS NET 2003 and .NET 1.1,
and I told him that he *needs* .NET 2.0 and VS.NET 2005.

If he, or you, misunderstood my reply, I'm sorry.
I find your current reply to be unwarranted and an overreaction.

Reply what you will, as is your right,
if you think you need to make your point clearer.

I won't be replying any more to this thread.