Castle Link / .NET 2.0 FYI

[JakeE]

To make a long story short, it seems for Castle Link to work properly you need to have .NET 1.1 installed. I recently tried to get Castle Link working on a fresh install of Windows 2000 with only .NET 2.0. The app would launch but would crash once the speed control was connected. After installing .NET 1.1 everything worked as advertised.

[crazyjr]

good to know, I have XP and had no troubles

[pinolelst]

Pretty sure I have .net 2.0 on my XP SP2 machine and have had no troubles.How do I check to find out which version is installed ??
edit: I looked in "Add and remove programs " list for microsoft .net 2.0 and indeed do have it installed
Steve

[Serum]

Must be a 2000 thingy then! Running XP SP2 and have got the .net 2.0 installed. (i also have got the 1.1 version installed though)

[JakeE]

It doesn't matter if .NET 2.0 is installed as far as I can tell. You need .NET 1.1 though in order for Castle Link to properly function, at least under Windows 2000. I'll test my theory on my Windows XP machine tonight and uninstall .NET 1.1 to see if Castle Link still functions there.

[starscream]

Originally Posted by Serum

Must be a 2000 thingy then! Running XP SP2 and have got the .net 2.0 installed. (i also have got the 1.1 version installed though)

If you have both 1.1 and 2.0 installed that indeed explains why it works for you.
I hope they update thier software soon for vista

[BrianG]

Just an FYI: Uninstalling something as integrated into the OS as .NET usually leaves "stuff" behind (updated DLLs, registry entries, etc) so it never is truly uninstalled. Going back to 1.1 by uninstalling 2.0 might be using some of the files from 2.0. So, I wouldn't count on that as a true test.

[starscream]

Originally Posted by BrianG

Just an FYI: Uninstalling something as integrated into the OS as .NET usually leaves "stuff" behind (updated DLLs, registry entries, etc) so it never is truly uninstalled. Going back to 1.1 by uninstalling 2.0 might be using some of the files from 2.0. So, I wouldn't count on that as a true test.

.Net 1.1 and 2.0 are two completly different animals. 2.0 supports 64bit systems where 1.1 only runs 32bit. In this case un-installing 1.1 and installing 2.0 should work. You can run both at the same time which is why it works for Serum.

[BrianG]

OK, but I never like to count on it. To convince me, I'd have to see all the dependencies for each one to make sure they are in fact using different DLLs, reg keys, etc. Call it being paranoid after using M$ bloatware for so long...

[starscream]

Originally Posted by BrianG

OK, but I never like to count on it. To convince me, I'd have to see all the dependencies for each one to make sure they are in fact using different DLLs, reg keys, etc. Call it being paranoid after using M$ bloatware for so long...

I understand your concern.
You should be able to run 1.1 on any system but for true 64bit mode you'll have to run 2.0 or higher. Most of us probably don't even have 64bit hardware yet so I guess its kind of a moot point.

[JakeE]

After removing .NET 1.1 from my Windows XP machine, Castle Link became unresponsive when the Mamba was connected as was the case on my Windows 2000 laptop. Reinstalling .NET 1.1 resolved the issue.

[VintageMA]

Finally an easy question to answer - I spend my days as a systems engineer so this forum finally hit my area of expertise. LOL :027:

.NET 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 are four completely separate installations on a Windows Computer. They have completely different install directories located under C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework.

If a program is designed to run using a specific version of .NET, then you have to have that version installed. Having other version installed or not will generally not affect anything.