info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cannot update Windows after a clean installation
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Tony
Nov 3, 2012, 7:43:01 AM11/3/12
to
Hello
I've just reinstalled the os on my pc using my Windows XP SP2 disc. I
cannot however update this installation from the Windows update site &
all the workrounds seem to need SP3.
Automatic updating overnight did nothing and an attempted manual update,
choosing express or custom produces the message that the website has
encounted a problem.
Tony
I've just reinstalled the os on my pc using my Windows XP SP2 disc. I
cannot however update this installation from the Windows update site &
all the workrounds seem to need SP3.
Automatic updating overnight did nothing and an attempted manual update,
choosing express or custom produces the message that the website has
encounted a problem.
Tony
glee
Nov 3, 2012, 11:13:07 AM11/3/12
to
"Tony" <tonynosp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VK6dnWWirfHdngjN...@bt.com...
Since you had a boot kit infection in your MBR, it may still be there if
you did not remove it with the Kaspersky Rescue CD (see your previous
thread). Formatting and reinstalling doesn't necessarily get rid of MBR
infections. Download, save to your desktop, and run, MBRCheck from
here:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/MBRCheck_d7076.html
Post back with what it says on the last line, which says if you have a
clean MBR.
For your Update problem, temporarily turn off Automatic Updates, go
here, download the IE8 installer, save it to your desktop:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43
Temporarily disable your anti-virus' resident shield, run the IE8
installer, say yes to installing its updates at the same time, and
install IE8.
Reboot when done... twice.
Click Start> All Programs, at the top of the Programs menu should be a
link to Windows Update web site. Click it, install the ActiveX control
when prompted, continue on till you can do a Custom scan for updates,
and install updates.
If there is still a problem installing updates, go here:
You cannot install updates after a repair install of Windows XP or after
Windows XP SP3 is installed immediately after a clean install of Windows
XP SP2
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943144
Download and install the Windows Update Agent per Method 1 in the
Resolution section of the article, then try Windows Update.
If that doesn't help, use the Fix-It button in Method 2.
You should be able to install updates after one of these steps.
After that, re-enable your AV resident shield, and turn on Automatic
Updates in Control Panel.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
news:VK6dnWWirfHdngjN...@bt.com...
you did not remove it with the Kaspersky Rescue CD (see your previous
thread). Formatting and reinstalling doesn't necessarily get rid of MBR
infections. Download, save to your desktop, and run, MBRCheck from
here:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/MBRCheck_d7076.html
Post back with what it says on the last line, which says if you have a
clean MBR.
For your Update problem, temporarily turn off Automatic Updates, go
here, download the IE8 installer, save it to your desktop:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43
Temporarily disable your anti-virus' resident shield, run the IE8
installer, say yes to installing its updates at the same time, and
install IE8.
Reboot when done... twice.
Click Start> All Programs, at the top of the Programs menu should be a
link to Windows Update web site. Click it, install the ActiveX control
when prompted, continue on till you can do a Custom scan for updates,
and install updates.
If there is still a problem installing updates, go here:
You cannot install updates after a repair install of Windows XP or after
Windows XP SP3 is installed immediately after a clean install of Windows
XP SP2
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943144
Download and install the Windows Update Agent per Method 1 in the
Resolution section of the article, then try Windows Update.
If that doesn't help, use the Fix-It button in Method 2.
You should be able to install updates after one of these steps.
After that, re-enable your AV resident shield, and turn on Automatic
Updates in Control Panel.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
Tony
Nov 3, 2012, 11:54:18 AM11/3/12
to
copied the numbers correctly) - Windows XP MBR Code Detected
SHAI:DA38B874B7713D1B51CBC449F4EF809BODEC644A
Tony
philo
Nov 3, 2012, 11:57:30 AM11/3/12
to
BTW: How did you solve the problem of not being able to reinstall XP
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
philo
Nov 3, 2012, 12:00:54 PM11/3/12
to
Just recalled that you will not be able to do a Windows update using IE6
you will need to install IE7 or IE8 first
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/downloads/ie-8
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=2
Tony
Nov 3, 2012, 12:10:07 PM11/3/12
to
news:comdnQZfTu-4owjN...@bt.com...
Oops managed to cut & paste from the notepad summary : 232 GB
\\.\PhysicalDrive0 Windows XP MBR code detected
SHA1: DA38B874B7713D1B51CBC449F4EF809B0DEC644A
\\.\PhysicalDrive0 Windows XP MBR code detected
SHA1: DA38B874B7713D1B51CBC449F4EF809B0DEC644A
Tony
Nov 3, 2012, 12:12:12 PM11/3/12
to
"philo " <"philo "@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:k73etb$vvg$1...@dont-email.me...
have been damaged & remembered that Dell sent me two copies. I found the
other copy & installed from that
glee
Nov 3, 2012, 12:31:29 PM11/3/12
to
"Tony" <tonynosp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ofmdnY1kGuR-3AjN...@bt.com...
Install IE8, as I mentioned. If updates still don't work after that,
follow the rest of my instructions.
Tony
Nov 3, 2012, 1:33:44 PM11/3/12
to
installer and followed the other links. ,I've now installed 81 updates
and most importantly SP3. I turned automatic updates back on &
restarted my AV.
Thank you so much for your help
Tony
glee
Nov 3, 2012, 4:10:59 PM11/3/12
to
"Tony" <tonynosp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IKqdnTAT2LLuyAjN...@bt.com...
philo
Nov 3, 2012, 7:18:43 PM11/3/12
to
to me. For me to give the right help I always like to have feed back.
Now, once you get IE7 or IE8 installed you should be able to properly
update your system from now on
glee
Nov 4, 2012, 10:46:33 PM11/4/12
to
"philo" <" philo"@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:k748oj$2ge$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 11/03/2012 11:12 AM, Tony wrote:
>>> snip
>>> BTW: How did you solve the problem of not being able to reinstall XP
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Following from what you said to my previous post I thought that the
>> cd might
>> have been damaged & remembered that Dell sent me two copies. I found
>> the
>> other copy & installed from that
>>
>
>
> Great...that confirms my theory then and I appreciate your getting
> back to me. For me to give the right help I always like to have feed
> back.
Yes.... good to know what the cause actually was in this case.
>> cd might
>> have been damaged & remembered that Dell sent me two copies. I found
>> the
>> other copy & installed from that
>>
>
>
> Great...that confirms my theory then and I appreciate your getting
> back to me. For me to give the right help I always like to have feed
> back.
Greegor
Nov 15, 2012, 4:11:42 AM11/15/12
to
Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
and installing it.
I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
and installing it.
glee
Nov 15, 2012, 7:16:17 AM11/15/12
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92176dca-38cd-4665...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a
non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during
the installation.
For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I have
installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.
I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista or
Win Seven.
YMMV, as always.
news:92176dca-38cd-4665...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
>
> I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
> and installing it.
Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are
>
> I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
> and installing it.
successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a
non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during
the installation.
For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I have
installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.
I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista or
Win Seven.
YMMV, as always.
philo
Nov 15, 2012, 7:37:23 AM11/15/12
to
Over the weekend I ended up having to update a number of XP machines
and it looks like things have changed just a bit.
The machines had IE6 and I was able to perform Windows updates
with no problem.
However...to get MSE directly from Microsoft, you cannot get to the page
unless you first install IE8
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
and it looks like things have changed just a bit.
The machines had IE6 and I was able to perform Windows updates
with no problem.
However...to get MSE directly from Microsoft, you cannot get to the page
unless you first install IE8
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
glee
Nov 17, 2012, 8:04:21 AM11/17/12
to
"philo " <ph...@privacy.not> wrote in message
news:k82nm3$mp6$1...@dont-email.me...
really mean it doesn't work with IE6, which I can't test at the moment,
but you don't need IE8.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/security-essentials-download
works just fine here with IE7.
It also works with Opera and Firefox.
news:k82nm3$mp6$1...@dont-email.me...
> Over the weekend I ended up having to update a number of XP machines
> and it looks like things have changed just a bit.
>
> The machines had IE6 and I was able to perform Windows updates
> with no problem.
>
> However...to get MSE directly from Microsoft, you cannot get to the
> page unless you first install IE8
I don't know what problem you had, but that isn't true. I assume you
> and it looks like things have changed just a bit.
>
> The machines had IE6 and I was able to perform Windows updates
> with no problem.
>
> However...to get MSE directly from Microsoft, you cannot get to the
> page unless you first install IE8
really mean it doesn't work with IE6, which I can't test at the moment,
but you don't need IE8.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/security-essentials-download
works just fine here with IE7.
It also works with Opera and Firefox.
philo
Nov 17, 2012, 8:16:18 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 07:04 AM, glee wrote:
> "philo " <ph...@privacy.not> wrote in message
> news:k82nm3$mp6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Over the weekend I ended up having to update a number of XP machines
>> and it looks like things have changed just a bit.
>>
>> The machines had IE6 and I was able to perform Windows updates
>> with no problem.
>>
>> However...to get MSE directly from Microsoft, you cannot get to the
>> page unless you first install IE8
>
>
> I don't know what problem you had, but that isn't true. I assume you
> really mean it doesn't work with IE6,
correct
> "philo " <ph...@privacy.not> wrote in message
> news:k82nm3$mp6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Over the weekend I ended up having to update a number of XP machines
>> and it looks like things have changed just a bit.
>>
>> The machines had IE6 and I was able to perform Windows updates
>> with no problem.
>>
>> However...to get MSE directly from Microsoft, you cannot get to the
>> page unless you first install IE8
>
>
> I don't know what problem you had, but that isn't true. I assume you
> really mean it doesn't work with IE6,
which I can't test at the moment,
> but you don't need IE8.
> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/security-essentials-download
> works just fine here with IE7.
>
> It also works with Opera and Firefox.
all I am saying is it does not work so fine with IE6.
The page redirects to the "Update your browser" page which in turn leads
to an IE8 download.
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
glee
Nov 18, 2012, 2:00:41 AM11/18/12
to
"philo " <ph...@privacy.not> wrote in message
news:k882n3$qmp$1...@dont-email.me...
Greegor
Nov 23, 2012, 2:11:02 PM11/23/12
to
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support/browse_frm/thread/5bc28cce9a6c4668/01dfe3478b98afb2?hl=en#01dfe3478b98afb2
[ Tony cited problems with SP3 from MS Update site
and success with downloaded standalone version. ]
> > Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
>
> > I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
> > and installing it.
Your argument that it works fine on
MOST computers is weak.
Your assertion that SP3 doesn't fail from
the update site because you say it works
on MOST computers is illogical.
I have a small fleet of identical computers
chosen because this exact model sold in the
tens of thousands, maybe more.
Fresh install and all updates brought current
only a month ago yet some updates
can't install because the ones they replace
refuse to uninstall.
That's not the kind of thing that should
be machine specific.
Rebuilding from the OEM install CD
(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates
worked just fine, but building a clean
install with all of the updates should
not be like a game of Jenga.
Updates that FAIL to uninstall when they
need to be replaced by new ones
should be an embarassment to Microsoft.
KB2656405 KB2656353 KB2633880 and KB2633870
refused to uninstall, preventing updates to
KB2737019 KB2698023 KB2729450 and KB2729449
errors were 0x66A 0x64C 0x645 and 0x66A respectively.
On my new build with all updates, I WONDER
how many MS updates would FAIL to uninstall?
I realize that some are never supposed to be
uninstalled, but how many do you think would
FAIL to uninstall if I tested this question?
There are so many Framework updates and
they take so LONG to install that I'm getting a
sneaking suspicion that HALF of my time doing
updates on a fresh system install is just
Framework, like 2 hours worth...
I may take more copious notes with time
annotations next time.
WHY does SP3 update fail
so much from MS Update site?
Even on a fresh clean install with no
malware software installed yet!
[ Tony cited problems with SP3 from MS Update site
and success with downloaded standalone version. ]
> > Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
>
> > I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
> > and installing it.
On Nov 15, 6:16 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
> Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are
> successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
> larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a
> non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
> leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during
> the installation.
>
> For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
> because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I have
> installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.
>
> I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista or
> Win Seven.
> YMMV, as always.
You do know this is an XP usenet group, don't ya Glen?
> Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are
> successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
> larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a
> non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
> leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during
> the installation.
>
> For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
> because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I have
> installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.
>
> I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista or
> Win Seven.
> YMMV, as always.
Your argument that it works fine on
MOST computers is weak.
Your assertion that SP3 doesn't fail from
the update site because you say it works
on MOST computers is illogical.
I have a small fleet of identical computers
chosen because this exact model sold in the
tens of thousands, maybe more.
Fresh install and all updates brought current
only a month ago yet some updates
can't install because the ones they replace
refuse to uninstall.
That's not the kind of thing that should
be machine specific.
Rebuilding from the OEM install CD
(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates
worked just fine, but building a clean
install with all of the updates should
not be like a game of Jenga.
Updates that FAIL to uninstall when they
need to be replaced by new ones
should be an embarassment to Microsoft.
KB2656405 KB2656353 KB2633880 and KB2633870
refused to uninstall, preventing updates to
KB2737019 KB2698023 KB2729450 and KB2729449
errors were 0x66A 0x64C 0x645 and 0x66A respectively.
On my new build with all updates, I WONDER
how many MS updates would FAIL to uninstall?
I realize that some are never supposed to be
uninstalled, but how many do you think would
FAIL to uninstall if I tested this question?
There are so many Framework updates and
they take so LONG to install that I'm getting a
sneaking suspicion that HALF of my time doing
updates on a fresh system install is just
Framework, like 2 hours worth...
I may take more copious notes with time
annotations next time.
WHY does SP3 update fail
so much from MS Update site?
Even on a fresh clean install with no
malware software installed yet!
John Smith
Nov 23, 2012, 7:52:00 PM11/23/12
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:015184a8-457c-453e...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Framework just in stall .net3.5
and it up dates
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=25150 >
> I may take more copious notes with time
> annotations next time.
>
> WHY does SP3 update fail
> so much from MS Update site?
>
Because you need IE8 or newer.
For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483 >
and it up dates
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=25150 >
> I may take more copious notes with time
> annotations next time.
>
> WHY does SP3 update fail
> so much from MS Update site?
>
For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483 >
Greegor
Nov 25, 2012, 2:45:00 AM11/25/12
to
On Nov 23, 6:52 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote
That might work.
Then again, Why isn't Framework 4.0 backward
compatible with all previous versions of Framework?
> > I may take more copious notes with time
> > annotations next time.
>
> > WHY does SP3 update fail
> > so much from MS Update site?
JS > Because you need IE8 or newer.
JS > For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43
If I need IE8 before installing SP3 then why
doesn't MS update site install IE8 before SP3?
Is this dependency you describe documented somewhere?
JS > Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483
MS Update makes absolutely no attempt to push
MSI 4.5 at any point in the update process.
MSI 4.5 might even fix some installs but apparently
some old updates and installs have FAULTY
uninstall files that MSI 4.5 does not fix.
For example, Microsoft Security Essentials
installed before August 2012 apparently has
faulty uninstall files, mistakenly looking
for some crucial files in a bizarre directory
named with a long string of random characters.
Directory names like that are apparently for
temporary scratch files.
Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
have it installed and offers the exact identical
revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote
Then again, Why isn't Framework 4.0 backward
compatible with all previous versions of Framework?
> > I may take more copious notes with time
> > annotations next time.
>
> > WHY does SP3 update fail
> > so much from MS Update site?
JS > For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43
If I need IE8 before installing SP3 then why
doesn't MS update site install IE8 before SP3?
Is this dependency you describe documented somewhere?
JS > Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483
MS Update makes absolutely no attempt to push
MSI 4.5 at any point in the update process.
MSI 4.5 might even fix some installs but apparently
some old updates and installs have FAULTY
uninstall files that MSI 4.5 does not fix.
For example, Microsoft Security Essentials
installed before August 2012 apparently has
faulty uninstall files, mistakenly looking
for some crucial files in a bizarre directory
named with a long string of random characters.
Directory names like that are apparently for
temporary scratch files.
Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
have it installed and offers the exact identical
revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
John Smith
Nov 25, 2012, 1:51:40 PM11/25/12
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a6eab260-86af-4215...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
.NET 3.5 is all versions of Framework,
After all updates,
.NET 4.0 is the next versions of Framework..
It you install MS software that need,
it it will be update to .NET 4.0 for you.
>> > I may take more copious notes with time
>> > annotations next time.
>>
>> > WHY does SP3 update fail
>> > so much from MS Update site?
>
> JS > Because you need IE8 or newer.
> JS > For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43
>
> If I need IE8 before installing SP3 then why
> doesn't MS update site install IE8 before SP3?
>
> Is this dependency you describe documented somewhere?
>
> JS > Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483
>
> MS Update makes absolutely no attempt to push
> MSI 4.5 at any point in the update process.
>
> MSI 4.5 might even fix some installs but apparently
> some old updates and installs have FAULTY
> uninstall files that MSI 4.5 does not fix.
>
> For example, Microsoft Security Essentials
> installed before August 2012 apparently has
> faulty uninstall files, mistakenly looking
> for some crucial files in a bizarre directory
> named with a long string of random characters.
> Directory names like that are apparently for
> temporary scratch files.
>
Faulty uninstall files.
Now you need to know how to use MS Fix-It
< http://fixitcenter.support.microsoft.com/Portal >
> Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
> push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
> have it installed and offers the exact identical
> revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
> or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
The MS Update Website need it,
to in stall .NET 4.0,
For today New MS Software use MSI 4.5,
For MSI 3.1 is for old MS Software,
like Windows SP1....
After all updates,
.NET 4.0 is the next versions of Framework..
It you install MS software that need,
it it will be update to .NET 4.0 for you.
>> > I may take more copious notes with time
>> > annotations next time.
>>
>> > WHY does SP3 update fail
>> > so much from MS Update site?
>
> JS > Because you need IE8 or newer.
> JS > For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43
>
> If I need IE8 before installing SP3 then why
> doesn't MS update site install IE8 before SP3?
>
> Is this dependency you describe documented somewhere?
>
> JS > Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483
>
> MS Update makes absolutely no attempt to push
> MSI 4.5 at any point in the update process.
>
> MSI 4.5 might even fix some installs but apparently
> some old updates and installs have FAULTY
> uninstall files that MSI 4.5 does not fix.
>
> For example, Microsoft Security Essentials
> installed before August 2012 apparently has
> faulty uninstall files, mistakenly looking
> for some crucial files in a bizarre directory
> named with a long string of random characters.
> Directory names like that are apparently for
> temporary scratch files.
>
Now you need to know how to use MS Fix-It
< http://fixitcenter.support.microsoft.com/Portal >
> Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
> push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
> have it installed and offers the exact identical
> revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
> or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
to in stall .NET 4.0,
For today New MS Software use MSI 4.5,
For MSI 3.1 is for old MS Software,
like Windows SP1....
Greegor
Nov 25, 2012, 3:24:57 PM11/25/12
to
On Nov 25, 12:51 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a6eab260-86af-4215...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Got any links to Microsoft documentation
that this is the case?
If it were true then why does MS Update
push FW1,2 and 3 installs after FW 3.5
is installed already?
> .NET 4.0 is the next versions of Framework..
> It you install MS software that need,
> it it will be update to .NET 4.0 for you.
MS Update pushes all Framework updates
before any application SW actually needs them.
FAILED to fix MSE uninstall failure
due to faulty uninstall file.
Does Microsoft pretend that either version of Fixit
repairs badly written uninstall files?
> > Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
> > push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
> > have it installed and offers the exact identical
> > revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
> > or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
>
> The MS Update Website need it,
> to in stall .NET 4.0,
If so, then why doesn't MS Update
PUSH MSI 4.5 before pushing out FW 4.0?
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a6eab260-86af-4215...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
that this is the case?
If it were true then why does MS Update
push FW1,2 and 3 installs after FW 3.5
is installed already?
> .NET 4.0 is the next versions of Framework..
> It you install MS software that need,
> it it will be update to .NET 4.0 for you.
before any application SW actually needs them.
due to faulty uninstall file.
Does Microsoft pretend that either version of Fixit
repairs badly written uninstall files?
> > Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
> > push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
> > have it installed and offers the exact identical
> > revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
> > or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
>
> The MS Update Website need it,
> to in stall .NET 4.0,
PUSH MSI 4.5 before pushing out FW 4.0?
John Smith
Nov 25, 2012, 7:19:18 PM11/25/12
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:67b51042-eec8-46ad...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 12:51 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote :)
Because you install them,
they come not with SP1 or SP2
> MS Update pushes all Framework updates
> before any application SW actually needs them.
Because SP2 did not have all of it updates,
Because SP2-RollUp-1 did not have all of it updates,
Because SP2-RollUp-2 did not have all of it updates,
and Because SP3 did not have all of it updates..
that is why!
You see the Roll-Up you miss before you can move on to SP3
Always turning on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP,
it will up date Sp1 all the to Sp3 for you,
So it will take 3 or 4 days or more to do it,
By Restart and I know logging in gets old,
but is the right way.
Just look how many day,
you been doing your way..
Just Start over and do it the right way with,
Automatic Updates feature for Windows XP..
Just take the time and do it right..
I just like you all I have is;
a Windows XP Sp-1 CD
Plus all way get all of you Updates first,
in the Sp1, Sp2, and ,
before install new Software,
that go for .NET's, MS Security Essentials,
Do not install,
until Automatic Updates get you pass the Sp3 Update
> On Nov 25, 12:51 pm, "John Smith" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote :)
>
> If it were true then why does MS Update
> push FW1,2 and 3 installs after FW 3.5
> is installed already?
MS Updates for FW1,2
> If it were true then why does MS Update
> push FW1,2 and 3 installs after FW 3.5
> is installed already?
Because you install them,
they come not with SP1 or SP2
> MS Update pushes all Framework updates
> before any application SW actually needs them.
> FAILED to fix MSE uninstall failure
> due to faulty uninstall file.
>
> Does Microsoft pretend that either version of Fixit
> repairs badly written uninstall files?
>
>> > Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
>> > push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
>> > have it installed and offers the exact identical
>> > revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
>> > or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
>>
>> The MS Update Website need it,
>> to in stall .NET 4.0,
>
> If so, then why doesn't MS Update
> PUSH MSI 4.5 before pushing out FW 4.0?
Because sp1 did not have all of it updates,
> due to faulty uninstall file.
>
> Does Microsoft pretend that either version of Fixit
> repairs badly written uninstall files?
>
>> > Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
>> > push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
>> > have it installed and offers the exact identical
>> > revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
>> > or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.
>>
>> The MS Update Website need it,
>> to in stall .NET 4.0,
>
> If so, then why doesn't MS Update
> PUSH MSI 4.5 before pushing out FW 4.0?
Because SP2 did not have all of it updates,
Because SP2-RollUp-1 did not have all of it updates,
Because SP2-RollUp-2 did not have all of it updates,
and Because SP3 did not have all of it updates..
that is why!
You see the Roll-Up you miss before you can move on to SP3
Always turning on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP,
it will up date Sp1 all the to Sp3 for you,
So it will take 3 or 4 days or more to do it,
By Restart and I know logging in gets old,
but is the right way.
Just look how many day,
you been doing your way..
Just Start over and do it the right way with,
Automatic Updates feature for Windows XP..
Just take the time and do it right..
I just like you all I have is;
a Windows XP Sp-1 CD
Plus all way get all of you Updates first,
in the Sp1, Sp2, and ,
before install new Software,
that go for .NET's, MS Security Essentials,
Do not install,
until Automatic Updates get you pass the Sp3 Update
Greegor
Nov 25, 2012, 11:45:05 PM11/25/12
to
Do you have any documentation that FW 3.5
will run software written for previous versions?
Is there documentation that FW 4.0 will run
software written for previous FW versions?
If FW 4.0 will run SW written for all previous
FW versions, then perhaps update site
should stop pushing the old versions once
somebody has FW 4.0 on an XT system?
In fact, if that's true, why even maintain the old versions at all?
Does FW 4.0 really supercede previous versions of FW?
Is this documented from Microsoft?
Is backwards compatability of FW documented anywhere?
will run software written for previous versions?
Is there documentation that FW 4.0 will run
software written for previous FW versions?
If FW 4.0 will run SW written for all previous
FW versions, then perhaps update site
should stop pushing the old versions once
somebody has FW 4.0 on an XT system?
In fact, if that's true, why even maintain the old versions at all?
Does FW 4.0 really supercede previous versions of FW?
Is this documented from Microsoft?
Is backwards compatability of FW documented anywhere?
glee
Nov 26, 2012, 9:10:02 AM11/26/12
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af43fde-27f2-433e...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
had your answers long ago:
Mailbag: Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my
system after installing .NET Framework 3.5 SP1?
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2009/04/20/9557946.aspx
Mailbag: Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my
system after installing the .NET Framework 4?
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2011/10/02/10219046.aspx
glee
Nov 26, 2012, 9:32:45 AM11/26/12
to
"John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5nh$ju3$1...@news.mixmin.net...
>> snip
Windows or Microsoft Update. If you have XP Gold or SP1, you have IE6
SP1 and cannot access Windows Update.... but if you have XP SP2 or SP3,
you have at least IE6 SP2. Formerly there was a problem accessing
Windows Update with IE6 SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case
and you can update using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere
to confirm this. You can also access Windows Update with IE7. There is
no requirement for IE8 whatsoever.
> Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483 >
Wrong again. Windows Installer 4.5 is NOT needed to use Windows Update
or Microsoft Update, or to install XP service packs.
news:k8p5nh$ju3$1...@news.mixmin.net...
> "Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-
>> snip
>> WHY does SP3 update fail
>> so much from MS Update site?
>>
>
> Because you need IE8 or newer. For you are running IE6 sp1 with a
> clean install.
> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
>
No.... you do NOT need IE8 to update to SP3 or to get updates via
>> so much from MS Update site?
>>
>
> Because you need IE8 or newer. For you are running IE6 sp1 with a
> clean install.
> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
>
Windows or Microsoft Update. If you have XP Gold or SP1, you have IE6
SP1 and cannot access Windows Update.... but if you have XP SP2 or SP3,
you have at least IE6 SP2. Formerly there was a problem accessing
Windows Update with IE6 SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case
and you can update using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere
to confirm this. You can also access Windows Update with IE7. There is
no requirement for IE8 whatsoever.
> Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483 >
or Microsoft Update, or to install XP service packs.
John Smith
Nov 26, 2012, 12:48:38 PM11/26/12
to
"Greegor"
all Usenet do not have::::
alt.windows-xp,
alt.os.windows-xp,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
and have Errors if we post to more then Two Groups
I on:::::
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Only............................
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4af43fde-27f2-433e...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
for all it have and START OUT WITH is:
Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile
38.8MB Version 4.0.30319
> In fact, if that's true, why even maintain the old versions at all?
>
Because you running a Old OS call XP.....
>
> Does FW 4.0 really supercede previous versions of FW?
>
Yes in Windows 7, 7sp1, 8, and 9.
for it was not made for Win-XPsp3 or 2000sp4
> Is this documented from Microsoft?
>
yes use www.bing.com < for all Microsoft documents..
> Is backwards compatability of FW documented anywhere?
>
Full Package
To download the full package, rather than the bootstrapper, click on the link below:
.NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (Full Package)
< http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/0/e/20e90413-712f-438c-988e-fdaa79a8ac3d/dotnetfx35.exe >
IMPORTANT: After installing the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 package (either the bootstrapper or the full package) you should immediately
install the update KB959209 to address a set of known application compatibility issues.
< http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959209 >
In addition, on Windows Vista x64 and Windows Server 2008 x64, install the update KB967190 to address a file association issue for
XPS documents.
You Said:
> > Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
>
> > I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
> > and installing it.
Because you use a standalone installing,
Not the Automatic Updates feature....
For the Automatic Updates feature will install,
Web-site update for you to use,
For the Web-site have to be in stall to be use,
So that Win95 and 98 will not to be able to use it,
Because Automatic Updates feature have been disable,
in older versions of windows,
And the to is coming that XP to will be disable..
--
Always turning on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP.
all Usenet do not have::::
alt.windows-xp,
alt.os.windows-xp,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
and have Errors if we post to more then Two Groups
I on:::::
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Only............................
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4af43fde-27f2-433e...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> Do you have any documentation that FW 3.5
> will run software written for previous versions?
>
> Is there documentation that FW 4.0 will run
> software written for previous FW versions?
>
> If FW 4.0 will run SW written for all previous
> FW versions, then perhaps update site
> should stop pushing the old versions once
> somebody has FW 4.0 on an XT system?
>
You have a Windows 7 with on an UI system
> will run software written for previous versions?
>
> Is there documentation that FW 4.0 will run
> software written for previous FW versions?
>
> If FW 4.0 will run SW written for all previous
> FW versions, then perhaps update site
> should stop pushing the old versions once
> somebody has FW 4.0 on an XT system?
>
for all it have and START OUT WITH is:
Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile
38.8MB Version 4.0.30319
> In fact, if that's true, why even maintain the old versions at all?
>
>
> Does FW 4.0 really supercede previous versions of FW?
>
for it was not made for Win-XPsp3 or 2000sp4
> Is this documented from Microsoft?
>
> Is backwards compatability of FW documented anywhere?
>
To download the full package, rather than the bootstrapper, click on the link below:
.NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (Full Package)
< http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/0/e/20e90413-712f-438c-988e-fdaa79a8ac3d/dotnetfx35.exe >
IMPORTANT: After installing the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 package (either the bootstrapper or the full package) you should immediately
install the update KB959209 to address a set of known application compatibility issues.
< http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959209 >
In addition, on Windows Vista x64 and Windows Server 2008 x64, install the update KB967190 to address a file association issue for
XPS documents.
You Said:
> > Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
>
> > I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
> > and installing it.
Not the Automatic Updates feature....
For the Automatic Updates feature will install,
Web-site update for you to use,
For the Web-site have to be in stall to be use,
So that Win95 and 98 will not to be able to use it,
Because Automatic Updates feature have been disable,
in older versions of windows,
And the to is coming that XP to will be disable..
--
Always turning on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP.
John Smith
Nov 26, 2012, 1:42:38 PM11/26/12
to
"glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me...
I requirement a latest software........
for that OS
>> Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
>> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483 >
>
> Wrong again. Windows Installer 4.5 is NOT needed to use Windows Update
> or Microsoft Update, or to install XP service packs.
Need for .NET4 and up....
Mr. Glen Ventura
He stated whit XP Service Pack 1,
He needed to Automatic Updates too,
XP Service Pack 2,
It would Update Internet Explorer 6 for XP Service Pack 2,
Before moving on to all Updates to XP Service Pack 3....
Update for Internet Explorer 6 for XP Service Pack 2 (KB888240)
System requirements
Supported operating systems: Windows XP Service Pack 2
This update applies to Internet Explorer 6.0 with the following operating systems:
XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=22 >
Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP
System requirements
Supported operating systems:
Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Service Pack 3
Supported Operating Systems:
Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2); Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3)
Computer/Processor:
Computer with a 233MHz processor or higher (Pentium processor recommended)
Memory:
Memory requirements listed below are for Internet Explorer itself.
Any machine with the recommended amount of memory for Windows
(for example, 128 MB for Windows XP)
will meet the memory requirements for Internet Explorer 7.
Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) - 64 MB
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) - 64 MB
Drive:
CD-ROM drive (if installation is done from a CD-ROM)
Display:
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors
Peripherals:
Modem or Internet connection; Microsoft Mouse,
Microsoft IntelliMouse, or compatible pointing device
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=2 >
Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP
System requirements
Supported operating systems:
Windows XP Service Pack 2,
Windows XP Service Pack 3
Internet Explorer 8 runs on any of
the following operating systems:
Windows 7,
32-bit versions
Windows 7,
64-bit versions
Windows Vista,
32-bit versions
Windows Vista,
64-bit versions
Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (SP 1)
or a later version
Windows XP,
32-bit versions with Service Pack 2 (SP2) or a later version
Windows XP Professional,
64-bit Edition
Windows Server 2003,
32-bit versions with Service Pack 2 (SP2) or a later version
Windows Server 2003,
64-bit versions with Service Pack 2 (SP2) or a later version
Windows Server 2008,
32-bit, or a later version
Windows Server 2008,
64-bit, or a later version
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
> "John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:k8p5nh$ju3$1...@news.mixmin.net...
>> "Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-
>>> snip
>>> WHY does SP3 update fail
>>> so much from MS Update site?
>>>
>>
>> Because you need IE8 or newer. For you are running IE6 sp1 with a
>> clean install.
>> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
>>
>
> No.... you do NOT need IE8 to update to SP3 or to get updates via
> Windows or Microsoft Update. If you have XP Gold or SP1, you have IE6
> SP1 and cannot access Windows Update.... but if you have XP SP2 or SP3,
> you have at least IE6 SP2. Formerly there was a problem accessing
> Windows Update with IE6 SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case
> and you can update using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere
> to confirm this. You can also access Windows Update with IE7. There is
> no requirement for IE8 whatsoever.
>
He running IE6sp1 on a XPsp3,
> news:k8p5nh$ju3$1...@news.mixmin.net...
>> "Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-
>>> snip
>>> WHY does SP3 update fail
>>> so much from MS Update site?
>>>
>>
>> Because you need IE8 or newer. For you are running IE6 sp1 with a
>> clean install.
>> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
>>
>
> No.... you do NOT need IE8 to update to SP3 or to get updates via
> Windows or Microsoft Update. If you have XP Gold or SP1, you have IE6
> SP1 and cannot access Windows Update.... but if you have XP SP2 or SP3,
> you have at least IE6 SP2. Formerly there was a problem accessing
> Windows Update with IE6 SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case
> and you can update using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere
> to confirm this. You can also access Windows Update with IE7. There is
> no requirement for IE8 whatsoever.
>
I requirement a latest software........
for that OS
>> Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
>> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483 >
>
> Wrong again. Windows Installer 4.5 is NOT needed to use Windows Update
> or Microsoft Update, or to install XP service packs.
Mr. Glen Ventura
He stated whit XP Service Pack 1,
He needed to Automatic Updates too,
XP Service Pack 2,
It would Update Internet Explorer 6 for XP Service Pack 2,
Before moving on to all Updates to XP Service Pack 3....
Update for Internet Explorer 6 for XP Service Pack 2 (KB888240)
System requirements
Supported operating systems: Windows XP Service Pack 2
This update applies to Internet Explorer 6.0 with the following operating systems:
XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=22 >
Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP
System requirements
Supported operating systems:
Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Service Pack 3
Supported Operating Systems:
Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2); Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3)
Computer/Processor:
Computer with a 233MHz processor or higher (Pentium processor recommended)
Memory:
Memory requirements listed below are for Internet Explorer itself.
Any machine with the recommended amount of memory for Windows
(for example, 128 MB for Windows XP)
will meet the memory requirements for Internet Explorer 7.
Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) - 64 MB
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) - 64 MB
Drive:
CD-ROM drive (if installation is done from a CD-ROM)
Display:
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors
Peripherals:
Modem or Internet connection; Microsoft Mouse,
Microsoft IntelliMouse, or compatible pointing device
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=2 >
Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP
System requirements
Supported operating systems:
Windows XP Service Pack 2,
Windows XP Service Pack 3
Internet Explorer 8 runs on any of
the following operating systems:
Windows 7,
32-bit versions
Windows 7,
64-bit versions
Windows Vista,
32-bit versions
Windows Vista,
64-bit versions
Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (SP 1)
or a later version
Windows XP,
32-bit versions with Service Pack 2 (SP2) or a later version
Windows XP Professional,
64-bit Edition
Windows Server 2003,
32-bit versions with Service Pack 2 (SP2) or a later version
Windows Server 2003,
64-bit versions with Service Pack 2 (SP2) or a later version
Windows Server 2008,
32-bit, or a later version
Windows Server 2008,
64-bit, or a later version
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
glee
Nov 27, 2012, 12:21:35 AM11/27/12
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:015184a8-457c-453e...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>[ Tony cited problems with SP3 from MS Update site
>and success with downloaded standalone version. ]
>
>> > Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
>>
>> > I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
>> > and installing it.
>
>On Nov 15, 6:16 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>> Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are
>> successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
>> larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had
>> a
>> non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
>> leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active
>> during
>> the installation.
>>
>> For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
>> because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I
>> have
>> installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.
>>
>> I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista
>> or
>> Win Seven.
>> YMMV, as always.
>
>You do know this is an XP usenet group, don't ya Glen?
Yes, I do. I specifically posted about XP service packs, and rarely
>[ Tony cited problems with SP3 from MS Update site
>and success with downloaded standalone version. ]
>
>> > Why does SP3 fail from the update site so much?
>>
>> > I too had better luck with downloading it standalone
>> > and installing it.
>
>On Nov 15, 6:16 am, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>> Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are
>> successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
>> larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had
>> a
>> non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
>> leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active
>> during
>> the installation.
>>
>> For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
>> because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I
>> have
>> installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.
>>
>> I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista
>> or
>> Win Seven.
>> YMMV, as always.
>
>You do know this is an XP usenet group, don't ya Glen?
seeing issues installing them via automatic updates. I then mentioned I
have also not seen an issue installing Vista and Seven service packs.
Again, you seem to be having a problem reading what is written.
>Your argument that it works fine on
>MOST computers is weak.
>
>Your assertion that SP3 doesn't fail from
>the update site because you say it works
>on MOST computers is illogical.
read. I did NOT state "SP3 doesn't fail from the update site" as you
claim.... I specifically stated:
"the majority of installs via auto-update are
successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a
non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during
the installation."
>
>I have a small fleet of identical computers
>chosen because this exact model sold in the
>tens of thousands, maybe more.
>
>Fresh install and all updates brought current
>only a month ago yet some updates
>can't install because the ones they replace
>refuse to uninstall.
What updates are you referring to, from the past month? What "refuses
>chosen because this exact model sold in the
>tens of thousands, maybe more.
>
>Fresh install and all updates brought current
>only a month ago yet some updates
>can't install because the ones they replace
>refuse to uninstall.
to uninstall"? You don't uninstall updates to "replace" them with
others. If an update supersedes an older one (described as "replacing"
it in a KB article), it's installation routine takes care of
replacement. It sounds like you don't know how to install updates in
the first place.
>
>That's not the kind of thing that should
>be machine specific.
>
>Rebuilding from the OEM install CD
>(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates
>worked just fine, but building a clean
>install with all of the updates should
>not be like a game of Jenga.
>
>Updates that FAIL to uninstall when they
>need to be replaced by new ones
>should be an embarassment to Microsoft.
>
>KB2656405 KB2656353 KB2633880 and KB2633870
>refused to uninstall, preventing updates to
>KB2737019 KB2698023 KB2729450 and KB2729449
listed. Again, you are installing updates incorrectly, then complaining
that the process gives you errors due to your own interference.
>
>errors were 0x66A 0x64C 0x645 and 0x66A respectively.
>
>On my new build with all updates, I WONDER
>how many MS updates would FAIL to uninstall?
>
>I realize that some are never supposed to be
>uninstalled, but how many do you think would
>FAIL to uninstall if I tested this question?
longer uninstall because they were superseded during a later update's
installation.
>
>There are so many Framework updates and
>they take so LONG to install that I'm getting a
>sneaking suspicion that HALF of my time doing
>updates on a fresh system install is just
>Framework, like 2 hours worth...
time. It takes nowhere near two hours to install the .NET updates.
>
>I may take more copious notes with time
>annotations next time.
>
>WHY does SP3 update fail
>so much from MS Update site?
successful from Microsoft Upodate or via Automatic Updates.
>
>Even on a fresh clean install with no
>malware software installed yet!
glee
Nov 27, 2012, 1:02:32 AM11/27/12
to
"John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:k90d6v$uud$1...@news.mixmin.net...
> "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:k8p5nh$ju3$1...@news.mixmin.net...
>>> "Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-
>>>> snip
>>>> WHY does SP3 update fail
>>>> so much from MS Update site?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because you need IE8 or newer. For you are running IE6 sp1 with a
>>> clean install.
>>> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
>>>
>>
>> No.... you do NOT need IE8 to update to SP3 or to get updates via
>> Windows or Microsoft Update. If you have XP Gold or SP1, you have
>> IE6 SP1 and cannot access Windows Update.... but if you have XP SP2
>> or SP3, you have at least IE6 SP2. Formerly there was a problem
>> accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2 but apparently this is no
>> longer the case and you can update using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6
>> installed anywhere to confirm this. You can also access Windows
>> Update with IE7. There is no requirement for IE8 whatsoever.
>>
>
> He running IE6sp1 on a XPsp3,
> I requirement a latest software........
> for that OS
When you install SP3 in Windows XP, it includes SP3 of Internet Explorer
> news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:k8p5nh$ju3$1...@news.mixmin.net...
>>> "Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-
>>>> snip
>>>> WHY does SP3 update fail
>>>> so much from MS Update site?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because you need IE8 or newer. For you are running IE6 sp1 with a
>>> clean install.
>>> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43 >
>>>
>>
>> No.... you do NOT need IE8 to update to SP3 or to get updates via
>> Windows or Microsoft Update. If you have XP Gold or SP1, you have
>> IE6 SP1 and cannot access Windows Update.... but if you have XP SP2
>> or SP3, you have at least IE6 SP2. Formerly there was a problem
>> accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2 but apparently this is no
>> longer the case and you can update using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6
>> installed anywhere to confirm this. You can also access Windows
>> Update with IE7. There is no requirement for IE8 whatsoever.
>>
>
> He running IE6sp1 on a XPsp3,
> I requirement a latest software........
> for that OS
unless you already have IE7 or IE8 installed..... so how would he have
IE6 SP1 installed on XP SP3?
>>> Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
>>> < http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483 >
>>
>> Wrong again. Windows Installer 4.5 is NOT needed to use Windows
>> Update or Microsoft Update, or to install XP service packs.
>
> Need for .NET4 and up....
Installer 3.1 or higher.... Windows installer 4 is not required.
Microsoft .NET Framework 4 (Web Installer)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17851#system-requirements
Microsoft .NET Framework 4 (Standalone Installer)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17718#system-requirements
>
> Mr. Glen Ventura
>
> He stated whit XP Service Pack 1,
> irrelevant info snipped
BillW50
Nov 27, 2012, 7:13:46 AM11/27/12
to
In news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me,
glee typed:
> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2
and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
glee typed:
> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2
> but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update using IE6
> SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm this.
I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
> SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm this.
and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
glee
Nov 27, 2012, 9:23:34 AM11/27/12
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:k92apr$tsp$1...@dont-email.me...
news:k92apr$tsp$1...@dont-email.me...
> In news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me,
> glee typed:
>> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6
>> SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update
>> using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm
>> this.
>
> I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
> and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
> that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
Thanks for the confirmation.
> glee typed:
>> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6
>> SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update
>> using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm
>> this.
>
> I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
> and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
> that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
John Smith
Nov 27, 2012, 10:18:19 AM11/27/12
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message news:k92apr$tsp$1...@dont-email.me...
> In news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me,
> glee typed:
>> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2
>> but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update using IE6
>> SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm this.
>
> I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
> and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
> that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
>
Windows XP SP2 have IE6 SP2
> glee typed:
>> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2
>> but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update using IE6
>> SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm this.
>
> I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
> and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
> that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
>
< http://www.update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us >
with Windows XP SP1 have IE6 SP1 the like will not work..
Now do it with Windows XP SP1 & IE6 SP1........
John Smith
Nov 27, 2012, 10:25:30 AM11/27/12
to
>> Mr. Glen Ventura
>>
>> He stated whit XP Service Pack 1,
>
>
> I don't see anywhere that he stated XP SP1 in this thread at all.
>
Maybe we need to look at:::
>>
>> He stated whit XP Service Pack 1,
>
>
> I don't see anywhere that he stated XP SP1 in this thread at all.
>
Message-ID: <015184a8-457c-453e...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Rebuilding from the OEM install CD
(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates
worked just fine, but building a clean
install with all of the updates should
not be like a game of Jenga.
(Win XP Pro SP2)
You right this time.......
Greegor
Nov 28, 2012, 1:49:46 AM11/28/12
to
Somebody claimed that you can install just one
version of FW. I doubted what they said and
asked them to back up what they said.
The references you posted support the impression that
I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
to be backward compatible like it should have.
The interdependence of Framework on all previous
versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.
I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.
Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
hell with Windows XP users?
Is that what they're doing?
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2011/10/02/10219046.aspx
Question:
I recently installed the .NET Framework 4 on my system. Afterwards, I
looked in Add/Remove Programs, and it shows that I have all of the
following versions of the .NET Framework installed on my system:
•Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 SP1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Extended
Do I need any of these older versions of the .NET Framework now that
I’ve installed the .NET Framework 4, or can I safely uninstall them?
Answer:
In general, my recommendation is to leave the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2,
3.0 SP2, 3.5 SP1 and 4 installed on your computer.
Unlike previous versions of the .NET Framework, the .NET Framework 4
does not allow an application that was built with previous versions of
the .NET Framework to migrate forward and run on it if the previous
version is not installed. If you are using any applications that were
built with any version of the .NET Framework before version 4, then I
recommend leaving both the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and the .NET
Framework 4 installed.
You cannot use the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 unless you also have
the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 and 3.0 SP2 installed. Therefore, you will
not be allowed to uninstall the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 or 3.0 SP2 if
you have the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 installed. If you try to uninstall
the .NET Framework 2.0 or 3.0 when the .NET Framework 3.5 is
installed, their uninstall processes will block and tell you that they
are needed by another application on your system.
The .NET Framework 1.0 and .NET Framework 1.1 can be installed side-by-
side with the .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and 4. Most applications
that were created for the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 will automatically
use the .NET Framework 2.0 instead if it is installed on the system.
In most cases, that means you do not need to keep the .NET Framework
1.0 or 1.1 installed on your system if you already have the .NET
Framework 2.0 installed.
However, there are some applications that are configured to require a
specific version of the .NET Framework, even if later versions of
the .NET Framework are installed. If you have any applications like
that on your system and try to run them without installing the .NET
Framework 1.0 or 1.1, you will get an error message that looks like
the following:
---------------------------
MyApplication.exe - .NET Framework Initialization Error
---------------------------
To run this application, you first must install one of the following
versions of the .NET Framework:
v1.1.4322
Contact your application publisher for instructions about obtaining
the appropriate version of the .NET Framework.
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
In the above error message, the version number will be v1.0.3705 if
you need to install the .NET Framework 1.0, and it will be v1.1.4322
if you need to install the .NET Framework 1.1.
If you end up seeing any error messages like this, you can re-install
the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 in order to resolve the errors. If you
don't end up seeing any error messages like this, then you don't need
to worry about re-installing the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1.
Comments:
royi 15 May 2012 4:14 AM
where did you read that " .NET Framework 4 does not allow an
application that was built with previous version"
Stebner 15 May 2012 7:42 AM
Hi Royi - This behavior is described in the Application Compatibility
and Deployment section of the MSDN page at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171868.aspx
version of FW. I doubted what they said and
asked them to back up what they said.
The references you posted support the impression that
I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
to be backward compatible like it should have.
The interdependence of Framework on all previous
versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.
I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.
Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
hell with Windows XP users?
Is that what they're doing?
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2011/10/02/10219046.aspx
Question:
I recently installed the .NET Framework 4 on my system. Afterwards, I
looked in Add/Remove Programs, and it shows that I have all of the
following versions of the .NET Framework installed on my system:
•Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 SP1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Extended
Do I need any of these older versions of the .NET Framework now that
I’ve installed the .NET Framework 4, or can I safely uninstall them?
Answer:
In general, my recommendation is to leave the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2,
3.0 SP2, 3.5 SP1 and 4 installed on your computer.
Unlike previous versions of the .NET Framework, the .NET Framework 4
does not allow an application that was built with previous versions of
the .NET Framework to migrate forward and run on it if the previous
version is not installed. If you are using any applications that were
built with any version of the .NET Framework before version 4, then I
recommend leaving both the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and the .NET
Framework 4 installed.
You cannot use the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 unless you also have
the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 and 3.0 SP2 installed. Therefore, you will
not be allowed to uninstall the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 or 3.0 SP2 if
you have the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 installed. If you try to uninstall
the .NET Framework 2.0 or 3.0 when the .NET Framework 3.5 is
installed, their uninstall processes will block and tell you that they
are needed by another application on your system.
The .NET Framework 1.0 and .NET Framework 1.1 can be installed side-by-
side with the .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and 4. Most applications
that were created for the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 will automatically
use the .NET Framework 2.0 instead if it is installed on the system.
In most cases, that means you do not need to keep the .NET Framework
1.0 or 1.1 installed on your system if you already have the .NET
Framework 2.0 installed.
However, there are some applications that are configured to require a
specific version of the .NET Framework, even if later versions of
the .NET Framework are installed. If you have any applications like
that on your system and try to run them without installing the .NET
Framework 1.0 or 1.1, you will get an error message that looks like
the following:
---------------------------
MyApplication.exe - .NET Framework Initialization Error
---------------------------
To run this application, you first must install one of the following
versions of the .NET Framework:
v1.1.4322
Contact your application publisher for instructions about obtaining
the appropriate version of the .NET Framework.
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
In the above error message, the version number will be v1.0.3705 if
you need to install the .NET Framework 1.0, and it will be v1.1.4322
if you need to install the .NET Framework 1.1.
If you end up seeing any error messages like this, you can re-install
the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 in order to resolve the errors. If you
don't end up seeing any error messages like this, then you don't need
to worry about re-installing the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1.
Comments:
royi 15 May 2012 4:14 AM
where did you read that " .NET Framework 4 does not allow an
application that was built with previous version"
Stebner 15 May 2012 7:42 AM
Hi Royi - This behavior is described in the Application Compatibility
and Deployment section of the MSDN page at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171868.aspx
John Smith
Nov 28, 2012, 5:22:43 PM11/28/12
to
Good job Greegor,
Now you know you a 100% right,
Have a good Day!
Now you know you a 100% right,
Have a good Day!
Greegor
Nov 29, 2012, 7:59:13 AM11/29/12
to
glee
Nov 29, 2012, 9:35:17 AM11/29/12
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eaa7094-1dd3-4e55...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>Somebody claimed that you can install just one
>version of FW. I doubted what they said and
>asked them to back up what they said.
>
>The references you posted support the impression that
>I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
>to be backward compatible like it should have.
Correct.... backward compatibility was not one of their aims and for the
>Somebody claimed that you can install just one
>version of FW. I doubted what they said and
>asked them to back up what they said.
>
>The references you posted support the impression that
>I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
>to be backward compatible like it should have.
most part, they are not. A lot depends on how a particular software app
that is running on .NET was written. Some s'ware written with/for .NET
2.x will run with the early .NET 3.x installed and no .NET 2.x
installed.... the early iterations of .NET 3.x did not have .NET 2.x
runtimes, but some .NET 2.x apps could run on it. Some .NET 1.x apps
can run with only .NET 2.x or 3.x installed, others will not run without
their version of .NET 1.x. Even with the release of .NET 4.x, .NET apps
will need their own .NET flavor installed. It's a jungle and it's
crazy. Then mid-stream, to simplify installs and compatibility,
Microsoft changed the installer packages so that if you install .NET 3.5
SP1, you got all the .NET 2.x and 3.x runtimes included in the package,
behind the scenes. That improved things a bit, but in many cases the
old .NET installations were damaged by then, and a number of users had
to rip out all .NET with Stebner's tool, then just install the new
package of .NET 3.5.
.NET 4 was released later.... the tool also works to remove it, since
there are still .NET updating issues even after the changes.... They are
less frequent now.
>
>The interdependence of Framework on all previous
>versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
>is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.
versions. Each version has no dependency on a previous version.... it's
the software apps written with various versions that have the dependency
on that particular version. What's bad design is that the whole series
of .NET Framework was made that way in the first place. But it's not
something new. There were VB5 apps that still needed VB5 installed,
when VB6 runtimes were already installed.... not entirely backward
compatible there either.
I assume what you really mean by "interdependence on previous versions"
is that once you install .NET 3.5 SP1, you can't remove .NET 2.x
versions anymore, without removing .NET 3.5 also. That's not so much
"interdependence" as the fact that the .NET 2.x and early 3.x runtimes
are part of the parcel now, and you can't separate them. It's not
interdependence, it's just how they dealt with having a simplified
package to get all the 2.x and 3.x runtimes at once, to minimize issues
with apps needing their .NET flavor.
>
>I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.
common update failures are updating .NET.... damage to the Frameworks
became so common, Stebner had to write his tools. You still haven't
answered why you have .NET 4.x installed in the first place.... do you
have any apps that run on it? There is no reason to install it
otherwise, other than to have something to aggravate you.
>
>Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
>jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
>could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
>hell with Windows XP users?
>
>Is that what they're doing?
works via the EOL.
>snip
BillW50
Nov 29, 2012, 10:13:10 AM11/29/12
to
In news:k92ljt$b3a$1...@news.mixmin.net,
John Smith typed:
I haven't had any machines running XP SP1 for about 7 years now.
John Smith typed:
John Smith
Nov 29, 2012, 11:40:43 AM11/29/12
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message news:k97u27$a57$1...@dont-email.me...
But if Reinstalling counts,
Yes 3 mouth a go......
It's not E-Z to work back up to Windows XP SP2
It Mostly like have a Win98 that go no where..
> In news:k92ljt$b3a$1...@news.mixmin.net,
> John Smith typed:
>> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message
>> news:k92apr$tsp$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> In news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me,
>>> glee typed:
>>>> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6
>>>> SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update
>>>> using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP
>>> SP2 and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can
>>> confirm that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
>>
>> Windows XP SP2 have IE6 SP2
>> <
>> http://www.update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us
>> > with Windows XP SP1 have IE6 SP1 the like will not work..
>>
>> Now do it with Windows XP SP1 & IE6 SP1........
>
> I haven't had any machines running XP SP1 for about 7 years now.
No Bill,
> John Smith typed:
>> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message
>> news:k92apr$tsp$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> In news:k8vui7$3qj$1...@dont-email.me,
>>> glee typed:
>>>> ... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6
>>>> SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update
>>>> using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP
>>> SP2 and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can
>>> confirm that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.
>>
>> Windows XP SP2 have IE6 SP2
>> <
>> http://www.update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us
>> > with Windows XP SP1 have IE6 SP1 the like will not work..
>>
>> Now do it with Windows XP SP1 & IE6 SP1........
>
> I haven't had any machines running XP SP1 for about 7 years now.
But if Reinstalling counts,
Yes 3 mouth a go......
It's not E-Z to work back up to Windows XP SP2
It Mostly like have a Win98 that go no where..
Greegor
Nov 29, 2012, 4:17:31 PM11/29/12
to
That "jungle" as you described it are exactly the kinds
of problems that make a standard not a standard
and seriously cripples a "platform".
ie: Defeats the main purposes of such a ""platform"".
> >The interdependence of Framework on all previous
> >versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
> >is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.
>
> Incorrect, inasmuch as the .NET versions are not
> dependent on previous versions.
> Each version has no dependency on a previous version.... it's
> the software apps written with various versions that have the dependency
> on that particular version. What's bad design is that the whole series
> of .NET Framework was made that way in the first place. But it's not
> something new. There were VB5 apps that still needed VB5 installed,
> when VB6 runtimes were already installed.... not entirely backward
> compatible there either.
principles, aren't they almost INVITING security
problems that virus coders use?
> I assume what you really mean by "interdependence on previous versions"
> is that once you install .NET 3.5 SP1, you can't remove .NET 2.x
> versions anymore, without removing .NET 3.5 also. That's not so much
> "interdependence" as the fact that the .NET 2.x and early 3.x runtimes
> are part of the parcel now, and you can't separate them. It's not
> interdependence, it's just how they dealt with having a simplified
> package to get all the 2.x and 3.x runtimes at once, to minimize issues
> with apps needing their .NET flavor.
nice neat standalone Framework 4.5 "platform"
after putting up with all of that idiocy.
But then again, the artificial 3GB memory limit
Microsoft created on XP for MARKETING
reasons makes me feel like that also.
No wonder so many Microsoft customers
have such a LOVE/HATE feeling toward them..
> >I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.
> I'm sorry they developed .NET in the first place. I'd guess the most
> common update failures are updating .NET.... damage to the Frameworks
> became so common, Stebner had to write his tools. You still haven't
> answered why you have .NET 4.x installed in the first place.... do you
> have any apps that run on it? There is no reason to install it
> otherwise, other than to have something to aggravate you.
all of the updates, tools and support functions we use
( or would likely use ) to serve as a master for cloning
across a tiny ""fleet"" of 5+ identical OEM systems.
The more I've learned about Framework, myself and
from others including yourself, the more I conclude
that Framework is a monstrosity to be AVOIDED completely.
> >Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
> >jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
> >could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
> >hell with Windows XP users?
>
> >Is that what they're doing?
> They don't need to do that to kiss off XP
> .... that's already in the works via the EOL.
it did when they phased out W98SE and ME.
(See new topic thread elsewhere in a few days )
But I wasn't even thinking about their efforts
to kill off WinXP. I just thought they wanted
to use WinXP users as guinea pigs, to perfect
Framework and then take it away without
letting the guinea pigs benefit from a
perfected product. Then again, the notion of Microsoft
actually perfecting anything is an absurdity.
Thanks, Glen!
0 new messages