Framework 1.1

**Lunatic3** · Apr 12th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Today I faced Framework 1.1 in my windows update list. Is it 100% compatible with Framework 1.0?

**Lunatic3** · Apr 12th, 2003, 03:29 AM

It seems that you can not work it VS.NET 2002 and Framework 1.1 unless you add
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>
to the exe config file. You think its all one has to do?
I uninstalled Framework 1.0 but it seems that if you dont insert that line it still uses old runtime files. Now I am kinda stuck what to do? should i switch to 1.1 ?

**DevGrp** · Apr 12th, 2003, 09:45 AM

You did'nt need to uninstall 1.0, the can run side by side.

**Lunatic3** · Apr 12th, 2003, 10:59 AM

I just unistalled it to test. But despite that it still uses old run time files. I dont know from where

However I reinstalled it again.

**Pirate** · Apr 12th, 2003, 12:28 PM

I installed it among Windows XP Update . It seems running fine but didn't go in details yet .

**JustAProg** · Apr 12th, 2003, 02:23 PM

I also installed the updated .NET Framework v1.1.

In the about of Visual Studio .NET it still says .NET Framework 1.0 Version 1.0.3705

Am I missing something?

**Edneeis** · Apr 12th, 2003, 02:34 PM

If they run side by side then I don't think it updates your current stuff that uses 1.0. I think they are rolling it out because VS.NET 2003 uses it and it comes out on the 24th. Windows Server 2003 also uses it.

**Lunatic3** · Apr 12th, 2003, 02:37 PM

It seems that VS.NET 2002 is hard coded with Framework 1.0. However you can force your application to use Framework 1.1 . There are some really useful fixes in 1.1. Like that of closing of modal forms in load event.

**MrPolite** · Apr 12th, 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Lunatic3
It seems that VS.NET 2002 is hard coded with Framework 1.0. However you can force your application to use Framework 1.1 . There are some really useful fixes in 1.1. Like that of closing of modal forms in load event.

have you read any thing else about 1.1 anywhere ?any other fixes?

oh and when is vs2003 comming? 24 of this month?

**Lunatic3** · Apr 12th, 2003, 04:03 PM

Backwards Breaking Changes from version 1.0 to 1.1
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/change...1/default.aspx

**JustAProg** · Apr 12th, 2003, 04:34 PM

It seems that VS.NET 2002 is hard coded with Framework 1.0. However you can force your application to use Framework 1.1 .

How?

**MrPolite** · Apr 12th, 2003, 04:48 PM

looks like no fixes in system.drawing

some parts of it are still INCOMPELETE!

**Lunatic3** · Apr 12th, 2003, 04:57 PM

How?

add this to your exe config file

<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v1.1.4322"/>
</startup>

it should be nameed app.config in the IDE, <assemblyname>.exe.config in bin folder. If you dont have it already add it to your project.

**JustAProg** · Apr 12th, 2003, 07:27 PM

lol, ok, looks like I'm getting the 'stupid forum reader of the day' award today.

I haven't a clue what you mean by 'exe config file', the only file in my project that I ever have in the IDE is an 'AssemblyInfo.vb' file.

And in my exe's bin folder the only other file I get is a '*.pdb' file.

Can you give us a 'idiot' guide to what I need to do.

Cheers...

**hellswraith** · Apr 12th, 2003, 10:04 PM

Here is a great article from MSDN magazine:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...s/default.aspx

It should really help everyone figure out what is really going on in the background.

Here is part of the article to kind of show what is in the article:

The version of the CLR that's loaded at run time depends on the version that the EXE assembly was built against. So, if you build a Windows Forms application against .NET Framework 1.0, even on a machine that has .NET Framework 1.1 (or later) installed on it, the 1.0 version of the CLR will be loaded to host your application. However, if a 1.0 application is launched on a machine without version 1.0 installed, will automatically be loaded into CLR version 1.1. This is to prevent every Windows Forms 1.0 application from requiring a .config file that says that it's OK to load a 1.0 application under 1.1. If you'd prefer to turn this behavior off, you can create your own .config file and turn off this auto-upgrade feature:

**JustAProg** · Apr 16th, 2003, 08:02 PM

OK, I got the 'config' thing sorted, I can now tell my 'exe' to use v1.0 framework only.

What if I wanted it to use v1.1 only, which I would prefer, yes, I can change the config file to use v1.1 but wouldn't I surely need to take advantage of that also in the IDE whilst I'm compiling e.t.c. so the actually development environment is using 1.1?

**Pirate** · Apr 17th, 2003, 07:13 AM

See the link posted by DevGrp , it's great article that must answers all of your questions .

**nemaroller** · Apr 17th, 2003, 04:57 PM

So are we gonna get a 'free' update to .Net 2003?

Because I particularly think its ridiculous to think a developer is forced to pay again for the newest IDE which isn't all that new..

**SomethinCool** · Apr 17th, 2003, 10:54 PM

Will there be a service pack for VS.net 2002 on April 24th or do you have to go out and buy VS.net 2003 to get the full updates?

**SomethinCool** · Apr 17th, 2003, 10:55 PM

hmm..thats basically what nemaroller asked..lol sorry

**DevGrp** · Apr 18th, 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by nemaroller
So are we gonna get a 'free' update to .Net 2003?

Because I particularly think its ridiculous to think a developer is forced to pay again for the newest IDE which isn't all that new..

Well if you warezed VS.NET 2002, you might as well warez VS.NET 2003. If you bought a legitimate copy of VS.NET 2002 and registered it, then VS.NET 2003 will only cost you $29 bucks.

**nemaroller** · Apr 18th, 2003, 02:55 PM

then VS.NET 2003 will only cost you $29 bucks

I haven't seen that statement anywhere on Microsoft's site, can you provide a link?

**DevGrp** · Apr 18th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Full details of pricing and availability for Visual Studio "Everett" will be announced closer to product release. Active MSDN subscribers (Universal, Enterprise, or Professional levels) will be among the first to receive "Everett" as part of their active MSDN Subscription. For Visual Studio .NET 2002 customers who do not subscribe to MSDN or to a Microsoft volume licensing program, Microsoft is committed to providing an inexpensive path to "Everett." Registered users of Visual Studio .NET 2002 will be able to license "Everett" for $29 US, the cost of materials, shipping and handling, for a limited time after release. Availability will be roughly concurrent with Windows Server 2003. For those customers who prefer not to upgrade to Visual Studio "Everett," a service pack offering only bug fixes for Visual Studio .NET 2002 will be available soon after the "Everett" release.

Here is the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...fo/roadmap.asp

**nemaroller** · Apr 18th, 2003, 04:43 PM

thanks!

**MrPolite** · Apr 19th, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by DevGrp
Here is the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/roadmap.asp

what's this "Source code obfuscation" that it talks about?

I gotto love this one: "Faster integrated development environment (IDE)"

**DevGrp** · Apr 19th, 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by MrPolite
what's this "Source code obfuscation" that it talks about?

I gotto love this one: "Faster integrated development environment (IDE)"

They are talking about Dotfuscator. Its a stripped down version from a company called Preemtive Solutions.

Also, when they said Faster intergrated development environment, they were'nt joking. I've have the final version for about a week now and its much faster than VS.NET 2002. Your .net programs even loads fasters. This is a big improvement.

**Edneeis** · Apr 19th, 2003, 08:22 PM

Here is a link to information about Dotfuscator.

http://www.preemptive.com

**SomethinCool** · Apr 19th, 2003, 11:56 PM

What is obfuscation?

**Lunatic3** · Apr 20th, 2003, 12:24 AM

To ensure platform independence, mobile programs are distributed in forms that are isomorphic to the original source code. Such codes are easy to decompile, and hence they increase the risk of malicious reverse engineering attacks.
Several methods have been proposed to alleviate this situation. The highest level of protection is achieved with cryptographic solutions, but, unfortunately, this requires dedicated hardware with integrated decryption and execution units.

A more modest level of protection is achieved through obfuscation. An obfuscator is a tool which -- through the application of code transformations -- converts a program into an equivalent one that is more difficult to reverse engineer. The advantage of this method is that it runs on standard hardware and without any changes to virtual machines or available interpreters.

**MrPolite** · Apr 20th, 2003, 01:28 AM

hmm so an application compiled with vs2003 has already gone through that "obfuscation" process?

**Pirate** · Apr 20th, 2003, 06:38 AM

If I'm not going dumb then this stuff would protect any .NET Application . right ? If so , read the post here entitled "Decompilation" or something like that . There's small tool came with VS.NET that compile the code directly to the machine language not IL .

**MrPolite** · Apr 20th, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Pirate
If I'm not going dumb then this stuff would protect any .NET Application . right ? If so , read the post here entitled "Decompilation" or something like that . There's small tool came with VS.NET that compile the code directly to the machine language not IL .

that wouldn't be the best solution, because the code compiled to machine language wouldnt run on multiple platforms.

**Pirate** · Apr 20th, 2003, 03:09 PM

Do you mean this "obfuscation" solution thing would protect my projs and let them run on multiple Platforms ?

**MrPolite** · Apr 20th, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Pirate
Do you mean this "obfuscation" solution thing would protect my projs and let them run on multiple Platforms ?

I believe so. Compiling to machine language is nothing new! heh
this obfuscation thingie is supposed to make it more complicated to decompile through "code transformations"

**Pirate** · Apr 20th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Ofcourse on the account of performance ! does it use some kind of encryption ? I don't get it MrPolite ..lol

**MrPolite** · Apr 20th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Pirate
Ofcourse on the account of performance ! does it use some kind of encryption ? I don't get it MrPolite ..lol

I dont get it either

it says it even loads faster

so the performance is actually better

**hellswraith** · Apr 20th, 2003, 05:47 PM

Obfusification is what Java users have been using for a while. Yes it makes it faster, your code smaller, and more secure (but not one hundred percent, even binaries can be reconstructed by someone with time on thier hands).

http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~collberg/...h/Obfuscation/

http://www.semdesigns.com/Products/F...fuscators.html

http://www.semdesigns.com/Products/F...onExample.html

Thread: Framework 1.1

Thread Tools

Display

Framework 1.1

Posting Permissions