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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
