4 is definitely a no-install for us here as well. (on all servers and workstations)
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 01:27:52PM -0400, DSinc wrote: > For Scott/Chris, > Apologies! I ended this thread too soon. Dot-Net V4 does NOT work on > this new build. > After checking my even log, I find chronic errors; all of then coded > against the V4 install. > I have deleted it and gone back to what now appears to be an > NON-Upgadable V1.1 initial install of V1.1. More surprising is that > even though I had deleted/removed V1/1, it was still present and happily > re-installed. > Truly, I do NOT wish to know why. I grasp that it may be beyond my > understanding. In any case, my new build XP-pro that appears to be > fully patched (08/13/10) and happy so far with just the base V1.1 dot-net. > > For now, I will truck on from here. Should I do/load something needing > more mature dot-net, I will deal with it then. For the moment, LIB now > runs error-free and again crash-free. > > End Status: > o-The keyboard may not have been bad (sticky Enter key). Still > evaluating this. > o-The HD still appears to be OK, though I watch it daily. (?) > o-The original psu is the reason this rebuild was so dynamic and fraught > with additional time wasted on the previous two items. New psu is in > research at this time. Plan is for Seasonic (2x)! Suspect the current > psu in (lib) is not long for this world; it is 1 s/n away from the > suspect unit! So, new is a good thing. > > More LIB status to follow as I finish base apps needed for possible > replacement "AS" my old W2KServer OS machine. Study continues. > Thank you all for your suggestions and opinions. The collective wins again! > Best, > Duncan > > > On 08/14/2010 20:26, DSinc wrote: > > All, > > I am confused with what MS is doing with dot-net versions. I asked > > before, and installed it on my clients whether needed or not. Yes, I > > believe 1 or 2 of my clients need it due to their app-stacks. The > > collective was correct. A mostly painless addition. > > > > My new build client would not move dot-net forward from the initial > > [optional] v1.1 install. The client would fail and/or crash trying to > > install the v1.1 sp1 patch also. Odd. > > But, I suspect that MS wished me to be somewhere else. Humorous how this > > works when I allow WGA and WinUpdates ! > > > > Most confusing to me during this fal-der-al, this XP client was never > > granted visibility / access to the V2 compendium I have seen on my other > > XP clients. Odd. > > > > Problem is now solved. > > I deleted the original v1.1 install of dot-net on the client. This > > client freely accepted ONLY the V4 dot-net [optional] install KB. Every > > earlier version of dot-net offered failed. Ho-hum? Again, I > > suspect/accept MS direction. > > No matter any longer. > > > > The new rebuilt client is built, fully patched and using V4 dot-net. > > Now I can complete burn-in and future integration. > > Thank you all who shared suggestions, opinions, links, other. > > This "dot-net" thread is now dead. > > I will think about V4 updates to remaining clients. Later. Much later!! > > LOL! > > Best, > > Duncan > > > > > > On 08/09/2010 23:45, DSinc wrote: > >> Bobby, > >> OK. Then this is just my bad. V4 croaked on 3 of my clients w/3.5sp2. > >> I just gave up. Not really worth knowing why. With XP I do not go > >> looking for extra challenges! > >> I am not good at TS any OS. I found W2K to be bullet-proof. XP is > >> getting to that status "for me!" > >> I have bigger problems to deal with! LOL! > >> Best, > >> Duncan > >> > >> > >> On 08/09/2010 16:38, Bobby Heid wrote: > >>> I have no problems installing 4.0 on my XP VM at home or XP PC at work. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > >>> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc > >>> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:35 AM > >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >>> Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET > >>> > >>> Joe/Bobby/Rick/Scott, > >>> We can close this thread. I'll figure something out. > >>> > >>> I understand. Yes, I started using a program that needed dot-net 2 years > >>> ago. Probably still use, but can not recall which ATM. Could be Mozilla > >>> TBird, Intuit, Nolo, Bond Wizard, or, some subtle change my online > >>> banking software implemented in a major update years back. Sorry. Stuff > >>> happens. LOL! > >>> > >>> I asked here and was convinced to just start using dot.net. I have seen > >>> no negative behavior since. I started at v1.1. I seem to be at v3.x sp1 > >>> now on my main office client. > >>> > >>> The newest version 4.x does not work with XP. Fine. No issue. I am > >>> completing a new build of XP on what has turned out to be a very > >>> challenging set of hdw. Years back I researched dot-net via MS KB's. I > >>> was lead to believe I DID NOT have to re-install all the previous > >>> versions of dot-net to come current; that all new versions contained all > >>> the necessary links and bits of the old version. OK. That makes sense. > >>> It just does not seem to work....... Fails to install ATM. > >>> > >>> Summary: I'll just reload v1.1 base and wait for MS to decide what else > >>> is necessary! > >>> Thanks, > >>> Duncan > >>> > >>> > >>> On 08/08/2010 17:34, Joe User wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> You will be assimilated. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sunday, August 8, 2010, 1:33:25 PM, Bobby wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The .Net libraries are kind of like the C libraries of old. The > >>> libraries > >>>>> contain methods that the calling programs can use. > >>>> > >>>>> Bobby > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- Bryan G. Seitz
