Different .NET Framework versions?

[terrypin]

A couple of weeks ago, in this thread,
https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=300301&highlight=vob2mpg
I had a lot of help on my question about how best to convert a video_vts folder to reliable MPG files.

I finally decided to take jimmalenko's advice and try VOB2MPG. So last night I decided to bite the bullet and install the vast Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 which is unfortunately needed for that (free) program. Anyway, it took me ages, but by the early hours I had it working and went to bed. (It's another issue, but I'm really puzzled why an apparently simple program should need such an enormously complex 'base'?)

This morning I decided as an act of faith to pay up 20 UKP (36 USD) for another program by the same author, SVCD2DVD. I'd read good reviews and I knew it used .NET Framework, so I judged that would capitalise a bit more on the effort I'd just made. So I duly registered and downloaded. But on starting the install I got this message:
"This setup requires the .NET Framework version 1.1.4322. Please install the .NET Framework and run this setup again."

It was a nasty surprise that I needed to install .NET Framework again. But why an OLDER version of this beast? IOW, why would the free program use a NEWER version? I've no idea how much HD space version Framework 2.0 has taken, but it was one heck of a lot, plus hundreds of new registry entries.

Ironically, before I installed version 2.0 last night I'd taken what I thought was the sensible precaution of uninstalling 1.1!

Any insights would be appreciated please.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

[guns1inger]

You can run both together. Even Sony is not immune to this issue. Vegas also required .Net 1.1, and will not install if only .Net 2.0 is on the machine.

[mats.hogberg]

Yup - That's the way it works. New .net framework install side by side with old. The way MS has done this, we'll all soon need a dedicated framework HDD
OK, the developers should be more active on their parts too, since an app built using 1.0 or 1.1 only needs to be recompiled against 2.0 to work with just 2.0 Framework, as so far, the new versions are backwards compatible.

/Mats

[terrypin]

OK, thanks both. Duly gone ahead and (re) installed 1.1. Happily it was much, much faster to do than 2.0.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK