Cool, but we both had issues :) And there's this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee941656.aspx Also, to note, I don't use .net other than for applications such as vmware vsphere client so YMMV. On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:11:26PM -0400, Bobby Heid wrote: > Again, I installed V4 via a VS 2010 install and had no problems on XP SP3 > and Win 7 64-bit. > > Bobby > > -----Original Message----- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 3:24 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE! > > Bryan, > Thanks for this OBS. Thought it was just me. Damn code install fine; > then generates never-ending event log entries. > Holding at v1.1 until I can get smarter. LOL! > Best, > Duncan > > > On 08/16/2010 14:11, Bryan Seitz wrote: > > 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
