app.exe.config on XP but app.config on Vista x64?

On my new Vista x64 computer, I've discovered that some applications fail to
run and that the problem is corrected by renaming the application's .NET
config file from, for example, app.exe.config to just app.config.

This is nothing that I can find any information about. What is the deal?
This seems like a bizarre incompatibiilty. I cannot xcopy a functioning,
xcopyable application from XP to Vista because of this difference. As soon
as I rename app.exe.config->app.config then, voila, then it works.

Bern McCarty
Bentley Systems, Inc.

"Bern McCarty" <Bern@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
newsA3A2F3E-AA6B-4C95-BE4A-78CDFC6C3237@microsoft.com...
> On my new Vista x64 computer, I've discovered that some applications fail
> to run and that the problem is corrected by renaming the application's
> .NET config file from, for example, app.exe.config to just app.config.
>
> This is nothing that I can find any information about. What is the deal?
> This seems like a bizarre incompatibiilty. I cannot xcopy a functioning,
> xcopyable application from XP to Vista because of this difference. As
> soon as I rename app.exe.config->app.config then, voila, then it works.

It seems that a .Net application at least for a VS 2005 .Net solution can
execute without an appname.exe.config, supposedly. I don't know how but I
have seen a post made about this in the MS.Public.dotnet.languages.vb NG.

I am pretty sure that the naming conventions for a .Net app.config that the
program/exe is using or looking for will be named appname.exe.config sitting
in the same location as the exe no matter what O/S the .Net solution is
running on.

You might want to post to the VB NG mentioned above, C# or dotnet.general NG
for more help.

Thanks for the suggestion to try the dotnet.general group. I will do that.

But, to be clear, I am an experienced .NET developer and it is OUR
commercial applications that will not run on Vista x64 unless their
respective app.exe.config files are explicitly renamed to app.config. It
seems that, on my Vista x64 box anyway, the runtime just plain works
differently.

I realize that some apps run fine without a .NET config file, however ours
do not as they require certain subdirectories to be specified in privatePath
in order for some assemblies to be found by the assembly load context.

-Bern

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message
news:%23xE4CgQ1HHA.5884@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Bern McCarty" <Bern@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> newsA3A2F3E-AA6B-4C95-BE4A-78CDFC6C3237@microsoft.com...
>> On my new Vista x64 computer, I've discovered that some applications fail
>> to run and that the problem is corrected by renaming the application's
>> .NET config file from, for example, app.exe.config to just app.config.
>>
>> This is nothing that I can find any information about. What is the deal?
>> This seems like a bizarre incompatibiilty. I cannot xcopy a functioning,
>> xcopyable application from XP to Vista because of this difference. As
>> soon as I rename app.exe.config->app.config then, voila, then it works.
>
> It seems that a .Net application at least for a VS 2005 .Net solution can
> execute without an appname.exe.config, supposedly. I don't know how but I
> have seen a post made about this in the MS.Public.dotnet.languages.vb NG.
>
> I am pretty sure that the naming conventions for a .Net app.config that
> the program/exe is using or looking for will be named appname.exe.config
> sitting in the same location as the exe no matter what O/S the .Net
> solution is running on.
>
> You might want to post to the VB NG mentioned above, C# or dotnet.general
> NG for more help.
>
>