.NET Questions (CLOSED)

Questions and Answers on any aspect of .NET. Now closed.

This discussion group is now closed.

Have a question about .NET development? Try stackoverflow.com, a worldwide community of great developers asking and answering questions 24 hours a day.

The archives of .NET Questions contain years of Q&A. Even older .NET Questions are still online, too.

.NET 2.0 or .NET 1.1?

I'm working on a project which currently has unmanaged MFC C++ code using VS 2005. There are some new pieces to be written which will be separate executables and I'd like to use .NET and C# for the new stuff.

It seems most straightforward to just use .NET 2.0 but it seems that under XP, Service Pack 2 is required. I know there is at least one customer of a prior version that has XP with Service Pack 1. (The product works under Windows 2000 but we already require SP4 so that's not a problem.)

Is it reasonable to require customers to have SP2 if they want to use our product? Or is it safer to stick to .NET 1.1? Or is there some sort of compromise solution?
Thursday, July 20, 2006
You may want to read this as to whether 2.0 requires SP2 or not. The answer seems to be no, but it may not always work with SP1. No one came up with an example of it not working (other than Windows Installer possibly needing to be updated).

Brian Send private email
Thursday, July 20, 2006
I don't think you can even install the 2.0 framework without sp2 installed.  I have run into this issue before.
Dan Hirsch Send private email
Thursday, July 20, 2006
It looks like Windows XP SP 1 is being dropped in October 2006.  You should be able to count on SP 2 soon.
Jeremy Send private email
Thursday, July 20, 2006
SP2 is such an important service pack that it should be viewed as almost mandatory.  Unless there's a specific reason for your customer to not upgrade, it's kind of silly to still be on SP1.

As for .NET, 2.0 is a big step ahead of 1.1.  You'll get generics, nullable value types, anonymous methods, delegate inference, and a bunch of additional and improved framework classes.  .NET 1.1 didn't cease to be useful just because its successor was released, but you'll miss out on some useful stuff.
Charlie Williams Send private email
Thursday, July 20, 2006
I was able to successfully make the case for .NET 2.0, and requiring SP2 for XP was agreed to be OK.

Thanks for all the comments!
Thursday, July 20, 2006

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
Powered by FogBugz