Microsoft .NET framework

[darmstadt]

Would this work? It's a sort of old windows simulator for new windows. There;s also a link to a program compatibility list.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/vir.../download.aspx

I doubt 64 bit would matter, windows 7 seems brill at properly installing and running 32 bit stuff.

Ooh, I thought to myself, lets have a look:

You are not eligible to download Windows XP Mode. You must have Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate to run Windows XP Mode.

In the past I've been pretty carefree about installing all types of stuff on systems and the amount of times I've had to rebuild the system because the uninstall doesn't clean up properly has got on the proverbial. With this new system I'm trying to keep it clean (I've already been bitten installing DB2-C as it requires certain priviledges in order to create databases plus the built in tools don't seem to recognise newer versions of browsers!) As the laptop has a 640gb drive I can build quick vBox images to try out stuff. I did this for the .NET in the end and its also running DB2 Enterprise along with the full Tivoli Monitoring stuff. Another one has Linux for tryinf out the Linux versions of software its just some products I want to use more often and it would be nice to just use them rather than booting un a virtual machine.

[xoggoth]

Would this work? It's a sort of old windows simulator for new windows. There;s also a link to a program compatibility list.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/vir.../download.aspx

I doubt 64 bit would matter, windows 7 seems brill at properly installing and running 32 bit stuff.

[Not So Wise]

Well I nearly went ahead just now but am not going to:



I'm running Windows 7 64 bit which aiun't on the list so ain't going to risk it

Might not be on list but having vista and 2008 on there generally means it will work (most documentation has not been updated to indicate Win7 compatibility).

Most get to work without to much hassle some have to go though the following steps

[darmstadt]

As others have said yes you can run all versions side by side on same machine

Well I nearly went ahead just now but am not going to:

Windows 2000; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 for Itanium-based Systems; Windows Server 2003 x64 editions; Windows Server 2008 Datacenter; Windows Server 2008 Enterprise; Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems; Windows Server 2008 Standard; Windows Vista Business; Windows Vista Enterprise; Windows Vista Home Basic; Windows Vista Home Premium; Windows Vista Starter; Windows Vista Ultimate; Windows XP; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

I'm running Windows 7 64 bit which aiun't on the list so ain't going to risk it

[Not So Wise]

As others have said yes you can run all versions side by side on same machine

[hyperD]

I'm running all three side by side, including all three VS's. Seems to be OK, running on Vista. I'm sure I installed vs2003/.net 1.1 afterwards to do some work for an old client.

[darmstadt]

Thanks for the replies. I read the blog post plus a couple of others and it probably won't be a problem and I'm 99% certain I've run multiple versions of the framework before. As this is a new system and I've got it pretty well configured to how I want it I'm going to play safe and run it in a WIN2003 VM. Cheers.

[NickFitz]

I can't track down the relevant URL at the moment, but I know that the .NET mob at MS have put in a fair bit of effort to make it possible to run multiple versions of the framework.

<digs around="a bit"/>

Ah, I was probably thinking of this stuff from 2007 by LukeH from MS about .NET framework multitargeting in Visual Studio - if you read through to the end of the post, he mentions something about using VS2003 with .NET 1.1. Although he doesn't seem to specifically address your question, the overall tone suggests that you probably won't have any problems having several framework versions on the same machine other than developer tools insisting on targeting a specific one from the same version range. This suggests that said version ranges can exist happily side-by-side, and their co-existence will only really be a problem for developers using certain versions of Visual Studio, not for end users.

Still, I gave up on .NET as a bad job getting worse some years ago, so I haven't really kept up with it. Read the blog post and see if you come to the same conclusions as I did or determine that it isn't relevant

[thunderlizard]

I did once install 1.1 on top of 2.0 and it went fine

(though VS2003 wasn't happy to find VS2005 already in situ...)

[AtW]

You should be fine - 1.1 can work side by side with 2.0 (3.5), i've got it on my dev PC.

[xoggoth]

I wouldn't totally take my word for it as I have struggled to get a really definite answer to this sort of question myself but I don't think so. The versions are distinct and you can have more than 1 installed. The application should pick up what it needs.

I haven't tried 1.1 but speaking for 2.0, MS's instal procedures appear to be sane enough not to overwrite new stuff with older versions. I seem to recall reading that full backward compatibility went back to 2.0 so 3.5 might not work for 1.1 programs. Even then it is not backward compatibility in the sense that one version suits all. If you instal 3.5 on an XP machine without .net and then check in control panel you will find three or four instals of different packs with increasing versions.

[darmstadt]

I need to install the IBM Standalone Software Configuration Tool but it blows out because it needs Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installed. I presume that this is a bug with the software as looking at what is installed I have the 3.51 Framework already installed (Windows 7.) Would it crap my system out if I installed the 1.1 as well? I'm sure I've come up against this before and just went ahead but don't want to bugger up this OS now otherwise I'll stick it on the VM. Cheers.