>>> So can I remove v1.1 ?
>
>Yes, you can! cheeers, it's because of side by side execution manner in earlier
>versions (1.0, 1.1, 2.0). Anyway, I keep it, cuz it doesn't occupy too much space.
>
>- But there are some breaking changes in .NET Framework 2.0 if you have an
>app which wants to run on version 1.0 or 1.1 if you remove those versions.
>
>Breaking Changes in .NET Framework 2.0
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa570326.aspx
>
>- Look at the .NET Framework 3.5 Architecture,:
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb822049.aspx
>
>"The relationship of the .NET Framework versions 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 differs from
>the relationship of versions 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. The .NET Framework versions 1.0,
>1.1, and 2.0 are completely separate from each other, and one version can be
>present on a computer regardless of whether the other versions are present.
>When versions 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 are on the same computer, each version has its
>own common language runtime, class libraries, compiler, and so forth. Application
>developers can choose which version to target."
>
>- The .NET Framework 2.0 was a generational release over the .NET Framework 1.0
>but .NET Framework 3.0 (and later) adds new technologies (additive release).
>
>How .NET Framework 3.0 Relates to .NET Framework 2.0 and Earlier
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480198.aspx#netfx30_topic3
>
>"The .NET Framework 3.0 adds new technologies to the .NET Framework 2.0,
>which makes the .NET Framework 3.0 a superset of the .NET Framework 2.0.
>You can think of .NET Framework 3.0 as an "additive" release to the .NET
>Framework 2.0, as contrasted with a generational release where software
>is revised across the board. (For example, the .NET Framework 2.0 was a
>generational release over the .NET Framework 1.0.)
>
>Because .NET Framework 3.0 is an additive release and uses the core run-time
>components from .NET Framework 2.0, it is completely backward compatible with
>the earlier version. Your existing .NET Framework 2.0 based-applications will
>continue to run without any modifications and you can safely continue your
>investments using the technologies that shipped with .NET Framework 2.0."
>
>The same question in social.msdn:
>Which version of Framework .net?
>http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/netfxsetup/thread/0387a1d6-404b-48d4-9d8c-53aefcb75d7b
>
>.NET Framework article in WiKiPedia is also interesting:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_framework
>
>HTH
>
>>>Perhaps not accurate, but if one removes eg version 2.0, then I wonder if anything will run anymore
>>>_
>>>
>
>>>>That's not quite accurate. 2.0 is an upgrade to 1.1 and actually changes some of the assemblies. Some namespaces/classes/etc are replaced with new ones. 3.0 and 3.5 do not touch the core 2.0 assemblies, but rather add additional assemblies. So, updating 1.1 and 2.0 doesn't do anything to the 3.0 or 3.5 versions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>>Framework 3.0 (and hence 3.5) is built upon 2.0. 2.0 is built upon 1.1, .....
>>>>>
>>>>>So, updating 1.1 is updating 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5
>>>>>
>>>>>I would advise against removing any earlier versions
>>
>>3.0 added WCF and WPF to the 2.0 runtime if I remember correctly. The core stayed the same and ditto for 3.5. If you remove 2.0, none of the later software will run.
>
>>> So can I remove v1.1 ?

Thank you for that detailed reply.

Looks like I have some reading to do. I would have thought that when a version is 3.0 that it would be independent of any previous version but still remain backwards compatible. Oh, wait, that would be thinking like a die hard FoxHead :) I suppose MS did it this way to make each upgrade look "smaller" in size.