Hi Shaun, As I said there was a number of major changes made between 1.1 and 2.0. Those changes introduced compatibility issues between 1.x and 2.0 .NET applications. As it happens newer .NET Frameworks like 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and 5.0 come with backward compatible libraries for .NET 2.0 and later but have no backward compatible libraries for 1.0 and 1.1. The .NET 1.x libraries are deprecated and so were removed from the .NET Framework and .NET developers are expected to update their code to reflect this change accordingly.
However, in principle the .NET Framework is suppose to provide developers with a write once run anywhere solution by targeting the .NET Framework rather than any specific Windows platform. If You write a .NET 4.0 application on a Windows 7 system it should run fine on older systems running Windows XP and Vista that have .NET 4.0 installed, various mobile phones, and of course is forward compatible with Windows 8. While in principle that is suppose to be how it works I've encountered cases where it does not really work out that way. For example, 32-bit and 64-bit compatibility issues. By default .NET apps are compiled using the Any CPU flag. This usually works most of the time, but if you include 32-bit libraries in a .NET app and try to run it on a 64-bit OS it will crash. Same if you include a 64-bit library in a .NET app and try to run it on a 32-bit system. It will blow up big time. The solution for those sorts of problems is to specifically target the .NET platform such as x86 or x64 so that your .NET app will initialize the proper runtime environment and compatibility libraries rather than choose the default for the system. All I am saying is while Microsoft has tried to make .NET into a write once run everywhere solution sometimes things go wrong and it doesn't quite work out that way. Not all .NET apps are compatible with every version of the .NET Framework, and it is up to the developer to resolve those compatibility issues.. Most of the time compatibility issues are due to error on the .NET developers part such as using the Any CPU flag when x86 was required for compatibility reasons, or the app was built using some now deprecated library or API that was removed from the framework. Cheers! On 4/12/13, shaun everiss <sm.ever...@gmail.com> wrote: > isn't all dotnets compatible with all lower versions? > dotnet 5 4 and 3 are compatible with 2 and 1? > I thought that was the idea. > you can't update 1.1 on anything over vista or 2.0 3.0. > if you have outdated frameworks then they are not secure. > Technically you could hack them to be as secure as they should be but hmmm. > and if you have iis then 1.1 may or may not work anyway. > --- Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
