Remoting / Binary Serialization compatibility between .NET Framework 2.0 and 1.1

  • Artigo

I am getting a lot of questions about serialization compatibility between .NET Framework 2.0 and 1.1.

To make Binary Serialization (the BinaryFormatter) and.NET Remoting work across these Framework versions, a patch must be installed for .NET Framework 1.1.

To obtain the patch, first install Service Pack 1 for .NET Framework 1.1. Then, contact Microsoft Product Support Services (e.g. through here: https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?Gprid=3041) and request the Version Tolerant Serialization patch. Mention KB article 907262 - this is an unpublished article so you will not be able to find it, but PSS engineers should know what you are referring to.

Update: To make the PSS process even smoother, you can give them the internal MS hotfix numbers: 258345 and 258416 (one of them is for Win2k3 and the other for WinXP)

As far as I understand you will not be charged for the support incident (or you may be charged at first but the charges will be voided once the support engineer learns that a hotfix directly solves your problem).

If you encounter any problems during this process, please contact me directly at (my user id from my blog at microsoft.com) . In fact, I would appreciate a quick email even if the process goes smoothly - we are currently trying to find a better way to release the patch, and having more customer data will be useful.

 -- Eugene

Comments

  • Anonymous
    May 05, 2006
    The following links to .NET resources have been collated over time with the assistance of colleagues. ...

  • Anonymous
    May 14, 2006
    <doc><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; MARGIN

  • Anonymous
    May 23, 2006
    Hi Eugene,
                   I am getting the same exceptionerror messge described in 907262 but my problem is where I only have .NET 2.0 installed i.e. do not have .NET 1.1. on the machine. Therefore the fix will not install because .NET 1.1 isn't there. I had put a support request in for the 907262 fix but it did not work of course. The problem assembly was compiled on a .NET 1.1. system.
    This is proving to be a major problem for me as my product will not work on .NET 2.0.
    Do you have any suggestions or know of any fixes that address a .NET 2.0 system that gets the same exceptionerror messge described in kB article 907262?

    Thanks in advance for any help
    John Nugent

  • Anonymous
    June 05, 2006
    Hi Eugene,

    I received the HF from the tech support but I got only one exe file (is this ok?!) and the main problem is that I cann't make it run on Win2k3. The file I got is titled  NDP1.1sp1-KB911205-X86.exe - note that the KB number here is different from the one you posted.
    I would appreciate any help regarding this problem.

    Thanks in advance,
    Yossy Michaeli

  • Anonymous
    November 14, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 01, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 01, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 07, 2007
    I'm working with SAP Gui...and it needs Net-framwork 1.1(4233).  Some users have 2.0 if I install the 1.1 which one will it use and why.

  • Anonymous
    March 23, 2007
    The application will run from 1.1, because the app was compiled with that framework, both frameworks will still available, the application (any) search the framework of its native compilation if is not found in the system, will try to run with the newest version.

  • Anonymous
    April 18, 2007
    Please anyone who has the hotfix KB 907262(NDP1.1sp1-KB911205-X86.exe) available for download from thier web/ftp site? Or is it not allowed?

  • Anonymous
    April 22, 2007
    Hi Eugene, My problem is similar (if not identical) to the one from John Nugent (May 24, 2006).  My computer has .NET Framework 2.0 installed and my system keeps trying to install an update for .NET Framework 1.1.  I am trying to install some software which keeps looking for the .NET 1.1 and it keeps cancelling out because it does not detect it. Thanks for your help!

  • Anonymous
    May 07, 2007
    Hi, Our SMS plugin for MS Outlook is written in c# and using .Net 1.1 frameworks. See http://zinek.com/documents/mmanager_product_sheet.pdf We upgraded it to .Net 2.0 but it seems as we have some compability issues. It doesn't work with newer Windows XP installations (new laptops) and Outlook 2002/2203. The SMS plugin icon doesn't show up on the toolbar. Any ideas why? Please help ! Filip support@zinek.net

  • Anonymous
    May 18, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2007
    thanks eugene. as always good post and thanks for the blog

  • Anonymous
    June 06, 2007
    Eugene - since this post is a little dated, I would like to verify this hotfix is still necessary for my situation and this is the proper method of obtaining it.  My situation: We have a large number of .NET 1.1 COM+ business objects called from 1.1 websites and now we're attempting to create 2.0 websites that reference the same 1.1 COM+ objects.  This works fine until we use an object with a date whereupon we receive the following exception: "ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Ticks must be between DateTime.MinValue.Ticks and DateTime.MaxValue.Ticks. Parameter name: ticks" Is my only resolution to obtain the hotfix from your post?

  • Anonymous
    June 13, 2007
    Our company found that a .NET 1.1 website calling a .NET 2.0 web service had an issue with the primate System.DateTime as follows: "2008-11-01 00:00:00.000" would be transated to "2008-10-31 23:00:00.000" and "2010-04-01 00:00:00.000" would be translated to "2010-03-31 23:00:00.000" but other months remaind unaffected. We have not installed the patch yet to see if fixed it though. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907262

  • Anonymous
    September 30, 2008
    this makes me seriously curious of how they're going to handle it in 3.0 because now that its had a chance to age we're finding more and more unfixable problems with 2.0

  • Anonymous
    November 06, 2008
    I was thinking the same thing!

  • Anonymous
    November 18, 2008
    True, not sure how that would work in binary mode though.

  • Anonymous
    November 18, 2008
    Truth be told though, this article is a litle biased!

  • Anonymous
    January 21, 2009
    PingBack from http://www.keyongtech.com/430162-tick-must-be-datetime-minvalue

  • Anonymous
    March 13, 2009
    "2008-11-01 00:00:00.000" would be transated to "2008-10-31 23:00:00.000" i had that too and will try installing the patch too. :) cheers mate.

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2009
    PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=1967

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009
    PingBack from http://workfromhomecareer.info/story.php?id=22864

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2010
    Do the latest .NET Framework version works fine?