No. You need to have both installed.

Signature
Andrew Faust
andrew[at]andrewfaust.com
http://www.andrewfaust.com
Hello Andrew,
I tried the described scenario with a simple command line application and
this worked well ...
So is this just random ?????
Best regards,
Martin.
> No. You need to have both installed.
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>
>> Martin.
No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most cases.
That is, .NET 1.x applications will run on .NET2.0 only machine, unless the
1.x app specifically used something only available in .NET 1.x (almost none,
.NET2.0 still support features in 1.x that are depreciated). So, in most
cases, 1.x app would just run fine. However, if the application is
complicated, you may need to do thorough test, or to play it safe, just
install 1.x framework. After all, the .NET framework is designed to
install/run side by side (so far until 2.0. After the messy version naming
of 3.0, and coming 3.5, the version and side-by-side thing is becoming more
and more confusing).
> No. You need to have both installed.
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>
>> Martin.
Andrew Faust - 23 Oct 2007 17:49 GMT
Interesting. I hadn't realized that as I'm constantly running in to issues on
new installs of windows that only have .Net 2.0 where some app requires me to
install .Net 1.1
With how frequently I hit this issue, I thought MS had kept the frameworks
distinct.
Andrew Faust
> No, you do not need both version of .NET framework, at least in most cases.
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> >>
> >> Martin.
Norman Yuan - 23 Oct 2007 18:54 GMT
The only thing I had run into to use app built on 1.1 with computer having
.NET2.0 only is the installation, since in the 1.1 app's setup package I
included the dependency to 1.1. So when I ran setup of the 1.1 app, it stops
the installation and ask to install 1.1 framework. If I do Xcopy to that 1.1
app to 2.0 only computer, it just runs.
If 1.x not runs on 2.0 only computer, then MS would have big trouble since
Vista is 2.0 pre-installed only (of course you can install 1.x on it, but
for most users, it is not needed for sure to run 1.1 applications).
> Interesting. I hadn't realized that as I'm constantly running in to issues
> on
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>> >>
>> >> Martin.