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

On Aug 11, 3:56 am, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:


> > 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.


"UL-Tomten"  wrote in message 
news:1186870980.037667.196280@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>
> On Aug 11, 3:56 am, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> > 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
> 

On Aug 12, 5:18 pm, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:


> 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.


"UL-Tomten"  wrote in message 
news:1186939222.744133.171830@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>
> On Aug 12, 5:18 pm, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> 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.
> 

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.


"UL-Tomten"  wrote in message 
news:1186939222.744133.171830@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>
> On Aug 12, 5:18 pm, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> 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.
> 

On Aug 13, 5:05 am, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:


> 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


"UL-Tomten"  skrev i en meddelelse 
news:1186988277.283600.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
> On Aug 13, 5:05 am, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> 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?
> 

On Aug 13, 9:15 am, "Benny Skjold Tordrup"  wrote:


> 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!

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.


"UL-Tomten"  wrote in message 
news:1186988277.283600.171160@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
> On Aug 13, 5:05 am, "Scott M." <s-...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> 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?
> 

> 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>.