There is a dot net remover I had to use to clean up a XP laptop, then start with 2.0 and install everything from there, it will make sure that from that point nothing bombs. Google it, I believe it is at MS downloads.
Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -----Original Message----- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 7:27 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE! 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
