 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / New Users / August 2007CLR20r3 - what am I missing?
Hi, Using VS 2003, compiled an EXE, runs fine on XP. I just tried to run it on Vista, crashes with DllNotFoundException and mentions "CLR20r3". I have run other .NET apps on the Vista machine. Why does this build specifically require CLR20r3 (.NET 2.0 I assume)? I removed .NET 2.0 from my XP development machine and the EXE runs fine. Under References, I have System, System.Data, System.Drawing, System.Windows.Forms, and System.XML - all have "Runtime Version" as v1.1.4322 and Version as 1.0.5000.0. Using VS 2003, is there a setting to force the use of .NET 1.0 or 2.0? DLL Hell? :) Thanks in advance, Hilton > Using VS 2003, is there a setting to force the use of .NET 1.0 or 2.0? No, because when 2003 came out 2.0 hadn't been created yet. Each version of VS is uses a specific version of the Framework. Although you can target your assembly to run on a previous Framework version, you can't go forward. -Scott > > Using VS 2003, is there a setting to force the use of .NET 1.0 or 2.0? > > No, because when 2003 came out 2.0 hadn't been created yet. Each version of > VS is uses a specific version of the Framework. Although you can target > your assembly to run on a previous Framework version, you can't go forward. That's great. But the question was: why does VS 2003 on XP produce an EXE which runs fine on XP but crashes with DllNotFoundException "CLR20r3".on Vista. Perhaps the answer can be found here: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=328111&SiteID=1&mode=1 I'm pretty sure there wer 2 questions asked and I answered the second one. In fact, I included the part I was answering in my reply. >> > Using VS 2003, is there a setting to force the use of .NET 1.0 or 2.0? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "CLR20r3".on Vista. Perhaps the answer can be found here: > http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=328111&SiteID=1&mode=1 > I'm pretty sure there wer 2 questions asked and I answered the second one. > In fact, I included the part I was answering in my reply. When posting, please stick to either "replies below previous message" or "replies above previous message". Using both in the same post creates unnecessary confusion and may unintentionally reduce the helpfulness of what you write. Otherwise, great post. I've been posting in these ng's for about 10 years, so I really don't need a lesson. Seems like the only one confused is you. >> I'm pretty sure there wer 2 questions asked and I answered the second >> one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > creates unnecessary confusion and may unintentionally reduce the > helpfulness of what you write. Otherwise, great post. Also, I did not top and bottom post in the same message, as you suggest I did. But, if I had, it would be called "inline" posting, which is perfectly reasonable. >> I'm pretty sure there wer 2 questions asked and I answered the second >> one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > creates unnecessary confusion and may unintentionally reduce the > helpfulness of what you write. Otherwise, great post. > Also, I did not top and bottom post in the same message, as you suggest I > did. But, if I had, it would be called "inline" posting, which is perfectly > reasonable. What I meant was that your post used both inline-replying (all older replies) and top-posting (your reply) in the same message. This has the side effect of making it impossible to reply using anything but top-posting unless you discard all the previously quoted text (which I had to do now). I think it's better to keep an entire conversation quoted the same way, so it's always possible to continue the conversation while keeping the context. Don't you agree? Wether top quoting, bottom quoting or inline quoting is used, is entirely up to the poster. AFAIR, there are no guidelines for the newsgroups telling which to use. Besides, the post mentioned DID only use top quoting. Best regards Benny >> Also, I did not top and bottom post in the same message, as you suggest I >> did. But, if I had, it would be called "inline" posting, which is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > quoted the same way, so it's always possible to continue the > conversation while keeping the context. Don't you agree? > Wether top quoting, bottom quoting or inline quoting is used, is entirely up > to the poster. AFAIR, there are no guidelines for the newsgroups telling > which to use. Instead of guidelines, I feel that well argumented advocacy is much more productive. For example, my argument against using both quote styles in the same message was that it "creates unnecessary confusion and may unintentionally reduce the helpfulness of what you write", and specifically, because it "has the side effect of making it impossible to reply using anything but top-posting unless you discard all the previously quoted text". (Programming methodology is also up to the poster, but I like to see this newsgroup as a good opportunity to make arguments for my views on the subject.) > Besides, the post mentioned DID only use top quoting. Like I said; in the strictest sense of the word, perhaps. But who are we to judge? Let's see if Hilton agrees when they come back to see all our CLR20r3-related responses. Greetings from sunny Sweden! > For example, my argument against using both quote > styles in the same message was that it "creates unnecessary confusion > and may unintentionally reduce the helpfulness of what you write", and > specifically, because it "has the side effect of making it impossible > to reply using anything but top-posting unless you discard all the > previously quoted text". First, I'm not using both styles in one message (as being done here). Second, your preference is just that, your preference. There are many people out there (myself included) that prefer top-posting over bottom posting so you don't have to scroll down through lengthy posts just to add a short comment to it and others won't have to scroll down through hundreds of lines of text just to read a short response. The point is people have their own styles of posting. But, the main point of my responses to you in this thread is that you are saying I've used multiple styles in one response (inline and top-posting) and I did not do that. My reply to the OP was written just as this message is written to you - - a bottom post with an included <snip>. When you said that I used both inline and top posting, I had only posted one message, which did NOT use both of these styles. The message was a simple <snip> of the OP, with a bottom-posted response. Your replies since then have been talking about something I didn't do. >> Also, I did not top and bottom post in the same message, as you suggest I >> did. But, if I had, it would be called "inline" posting, which is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > quoted the same way, so it's always possible to continue the > conversation while keeping the context. Don't you agree? Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.