stupid question?

[Nico Notter]

There is a .NET Framework version 1.0, 2.0, and 3.5
available. Is 3.5 compatible to 1.0 and 2.0, that means,
applications, which would download 1.0 or 2.0 automaticaly
if no framework already exists wouldn't have to download
anything if 3.0 is installed?

And if the insist to download 1.0 or 2.0 even when 3.5 is
already installed could these older versions cause problems
for 3.5 installation?

 

[Sylvain Lafontaine]

Versions 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are not compatible between them. Version 3.0 is
some new modules added to the 2.0 version; so it's compatible with 2.0.

Version 3.5 itself is new modules added to the version 3.0 and hence, to the
version 2.0. However, it requires the SP1 for both 2.0 and 3.0; so it's not
really compatible with 2.0 and 3.0 but with 2.0 SP1 and 3.0 SP1 instead.

--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Windows Live Platform
Email: sylvain2009 sylvainlafontaine com (fill the blanks, no spam please)
Independent consultant and remote programming for Access and SQL-Server
(French)

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

There is a .NET Framework version 1.0, 2.0, and 3.5 available. Is 3.5
compatible to 1.0 and 2.0, that means, applications, which would download
1.0 or 2.0 automaticaly if no framework already exists wouldn't have to
download anything if 3.0 is installed?

1.0 and 1.1 and 2.0 are completely different versions. 3.-0 and 3.5 sit on
top of 2.0.

If the app is 1.0, it only downloads 1.0.
If 1.1, it only downloads 1.1.
If 2.0, it only downloads 2.0.

For 3.0, you also need 2.0.
For 3.5, you also need 2.0 SP1 and 3.0 SP1.

And if the insist to download 1.0 or 2.0 even when 3.5 is already
installed could these older versions cause problems for 3.5 installation?

No.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************************************************
| Think outside the box! |
*************************************************