Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
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
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
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
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
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
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 > ha
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
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, 2
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
I understand. I was just trying to let everyone know that it does work in some cases. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Seitz Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 5:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE! 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
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
Heard of 3.5 but not 4. Didn't know there was one.. On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:11:21 -0500, 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 sen
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
Bryan/Bobby, I suspect that I am learning an expanded version of "YMMV." Many years ago this was read (by me!) as an admonition of (Dude! You have something dorked up-Please look elsewhere!!) I have lived with YMMV this way since. I accept that none of this collective have mirrored systems. I do recall a time when this was very close to true. Sadly, Intel and AMD changed this . Such is life. I truck on with my, perhaps, dorked up machines. I accept, "3MV." No harm, no foul. Fun I am still having. Forward I move (within reason?) ! LOL! Thanks, Duncan On 08/16/2010 17:18, Bobby Heid wrote: I understand. I was just trying to let everyone know that it does work in some cases. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Seitz Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 5:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE! 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
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
ScoobyDo, Run WinUpdates. You should see it on the "Custom" selection. Best, Duncan On 08/16/2010 18:56, Scoobydo wrote: Heard of 3.5 but not 4. Didn't know there was one.. On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:11:21 -0500, 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
[H] Aurora
Downloads are hot off ms's press. Basically Vail on steroids, but I really like this concept for a small office Sent via BlackBerry
