Re: [H] MS dot-NET
At 08:54 PM 24/08/2010, Mark Dodge wrote: This page might work for you, it did not for me. I use this utility here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2008/08/28/8904493.aspx and it has worked in every case for me. T
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
Thane, Thanks. On the wavelength; same tool I got some time ago. Will play this afternoon. Best, Duncan On 08/25/2010 10:30, Thane Sherrington wrote: At 08:54 PM 24/08/2010, Mark Dodge wrote: This page might work for you, it did not for me. I use this utility here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2008/08/28/8904493.aspx and it has worked in every case for me. T
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
Yes that is the place I sent him, I concur. Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:31 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET At 08:54 PM 24/08/2010, Mark Dodge wrote: This page might work for you, it did not for me. I use this utility here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2008/08/28/8904493.aspx and it has worked in every case for me. T
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
Yes start with 2.0,, NOT 2.0 sp1 Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
Re: [H] MS dot-NET-COMPLETE!
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
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
Mark, I'd like to start as suggested. MS no longer lists their 'compendium' KB for v2.0. I am still doing reverse research to maybe find it. Conflicting MS docs indicate the dot-net will NOT install UNLESS there is an app previously installed the requires dot-net. OK. Now, I have to dig thru 5 other clients to find which app requires dot-net? Way too much fun. Good news: the old client is back up and running w/o BSODs and other odd crashes. This post suspect pata hd, suspect kbd, and, confirmed sagged psu. This dot-net business may just get down-graded to future noise. Best, Duncan On 08/24/2010 16:57, Mark Dodge wrote: Yes start with 2.0,, NOT 2.0 sp1 Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
As I said in a different thread there is a way to remove ALL .net stuff and start fresh, without something that requires it from 2.o forward. I will look for the specifics and post it. Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:42 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET Mark, I'd like to start as suggested. MS no longer lists their 'compendium' KB for v2.0. I am still doing reverse research to maybe find it. Conflicting MS docs indicate the dot-net will NOT install UNLESS there is an app previously installed the requires dot-net. OK. Now, I have to dig thru 5 other clients to find which app requires dot-net? Way too much fun. Good news: the old client is back up and running w/o BSODs and other odd crashes. This post suspect pata hd, suspect kbd, and, confirmed sagged psu. This dot-net business may just get down-graded to future noise. Best, Duncan On 08/24/2010 16:57, Mark Dodge wrote: Yes start with 2.0,, NOT 2.0 sp1 Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2005/04/08/406671.aspx http://cid-27e6a35d1a492af7.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Blog_Tools/dotnetfx_ cleanup_tool.zip Go to the first link, the second link is the tool. Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Mark Dodge Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:34 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET As I said in a different thread there is a way to remove ALL .net stuff and start fresh, without something that requires it from 2.o forward. I will look for the specifics and post it. Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:42 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET Mark, I'd like to start as suggested. MS no longer lists their 'compendium' KB for v2.0. I am still doing reverse research to maybe find it. Conflicting MS docs indicate the dot-net will NOT install UNLESS there is an app previously installed the requires dot-net. OK. Now, I have to dig thru 5 other clients to find which app requires dot-net? Way too much fun. Good news: the old client is back up and running w/o BSODs and other odd crashes. This post suspect pata hd, suspect kbd, and, confirmed sagged psu. This dot-net business may just get down-graded to future noise. Best, Duncan On 08/24/2010 16:57, Mark Dodge wrote: Yes start with 2.0,, NOT 2.0 sp1 Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
This page might work for you, it did not for me. Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Mark Dodge Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:34 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET As I said in a different thread there is a way to remove ALL .net stuff and start fresh, without something that requires it from 2.o forward. I will look for the specifics and post it. Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:42 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET Mark, I'd like to start as suggested. MS no longer lists their 'compendium' KB for v2.0. I am still doing reverse research to maybe find it. Conflicting MS docs indicate the dot-net will NOT install UNLESS there is an app previously installed the requires dot-net. OK. Now, I have to dig thru 5 other clients to find which app requires dot-net? Way too much fun. Good news: the old client is back up and running w/o BSODs and other odd crashes. This post suspect pata hd, suspect kbd, and, confirmed sagged psu. This dot-net business may just get down-graded to future noise. Best, Duncan On 08/24/2010 16:57, Mark Dodge wrote: Yes start with 2.0,, NOT 2.0 sp1 Mark Dodge MD Computers Houston, TX -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
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 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
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 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
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, 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
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 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
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 se...@bsd-unix.net 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!
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 se...@bsd-unix.net 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
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
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
It's Intuit... We use Quickbooks (old version even) and it needs .NET I guess the .net service packs / new versions are not successfully installing over windows update? Scott On Aug 9, 2010, at 9:34 AM, DSinc wrote: 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
Scott, I'll accept intuit also! Yes, it seems that the MS service packs offered only play nice from 1-N. But, I will test this belief this afternoon. I'll share results also. The new build has now done 5x 24/7 cycles w/o a single hiccup or BSOD. What I suspected as a wonky HD may have been a bad keyboard and a sagged psu. The keyboard has been re-tested on 3 other clients w/o trouble however; so I really suspect a bad psu now! Best, Duncan On 08/09/2010 11:09, Scott Sipe wrote: It's Intuit... We use Quickbooks (old version even) and it needs .NET I guess the .net service packs / new versions are not successfully installing over windows update? Scott On Aug 9, 2010, at 9:34 AM, DSinc wrote: 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
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
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
I have a program (or two) that needs it, so no choice. I thought it was a *new name* for older stuff. MS likes to rename things as they make them newer... I'm drawing a blank, but maybe it has its roots in Active-X??? See: http://www.microsoft.com/net/overview.aspx SilverLight even uses parts of it. Rick Glazier From: DSinc Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future.
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
The .Net libraries are kind of like the C libraries of old. The libraries contain methods that the calling programs can use. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Rick Glazier Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 1:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I have a program (or two) that needs it, so no choice. I thought it was a *new name* for older stuff. MS likes to rename things as they make them newer... I'm drawing a blank, but maybe it has its roots in Active-X??? See: http://www.microsoft.com/net/overview.aspx SilverLight even uses parts of it. Rick Glazier From: DSinc Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future.
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
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 -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key... ...now these points of data make a beautiful line...
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
I'll just toss out there, that if you DON'T need .NET, there's no reason I can think of to go out of your way to install if. If a program you use does require .NET, it will tell you exactly what version it needs. I guess it comes built-in to Vista/W7? Scott On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:42 AM, DSinc wrote: Bobby/Greg, Seems I asked a bad question. Or, I just do not understand your answers. Sorry. I now have a base Windows XP pro SP3 install;...after WGA and 79 critical updates. It was fun! Only took 3 internal Windows Update crashes and 6 hours to complete. I know. Stuff happens! Ok, I'll play dot-NET. Is there a link I can go to and start all over from scratch with a new, virgin, fully patched, MS-blessed install??? The CUSTOM choices do NOT play nice. I'd be quite happy with V3,5 sp1. ATM ..NO-Can-Do! BTW, V4 of dot-NET does not seem to play nice in XP (32-bit)). Perhaps my bad. Best, Duncan On 08/07/2010 00:14, Greg Sevart wrote: All you really need to install is 3.5 to get 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. 3.0 and 3.5 don't include a new CLR--they just extend the 2.0 CLR. That means that they must install all the previous versions back to 2.0 to operate. 4.0 is a whole new CLR and the installer only includes that version. 1.1 can probably be left off any new builds. There are a few legacy apps that still require it, but they're pretty rare now. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
That is true many times. Although some programs require that it already be installed. For most on this list, that would not be a problem. But for others... True that some versions are already installed on Vista/7. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Scott Sipe Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 4:31 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I'll just toss out there, that if you DON'T need .NET, there's no reason I can think of to go out of your way to install if. If a program you use does require .NET, it will tell you exactly what version it needs. I guess it comes built-in to Vista/W7? Scott On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:42 AM, DSinc wrote: Bobby/Greg, Seems I asked a bad question. Or, I just do not understand your answers. Sorry. I now have a base Windows XP pro SP3 install;...after WGA and 79 critical updates. It was fun! Only took 3 internal Windows Update crashes and 6 hours to complete. I know. Stuff happens! Ok, I'll play dot-NET. Is there a link I can go to and start all over from scratch with a new, virgin, fully patched, MS-blessed install??? The CUSTOM choices do NOT play nice. I'd be quite happy with V3,5 sp1. ATM ..NO-Can-Do! BTW, V4 of dot-NET does not seem to play nice in XP (32-bit)). Perhaps my bad. Best, Duncan On 08/07/2010 00:14, Greg Sevart wrote: All you really need to install is 3.5 to get 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. 3.0 and 3.5 don't include a new CLR--they just extend the 2.0 CLR. That means that they must install all the previous versions back to 2.0 to operate. 4.0 is a whole new CLR and the installer only includes that version. 1.1 can probably be left off any new builds. There are a few legacy apps that still require it, but they're pretty rare now. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
[H] MS dot-NET
Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
Re: [H] MS dot-NET
All you really need to install is 3.5 to get 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. 3.0 and 3.5 don't include a new CLR--they just extend the 2.0 CLR. That means that they must install all the previous versions back to 2.0 to operate. 4.0 is a whole new CLR and the installer only includes that version. 1.1 can probably be left off any new builds. There are a few legacy apps that still require it, but they're pretty rare now. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:55 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] MS dot-NET I love .Net! The positives are that it allows you to do so much with so little code. As for a rebuild, I usually put 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Not a lot of stuff uses 1.1 that I have come across. Windows update will put all of those on, I think. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:16 PM To: Hardware Group Subject: [H] MS dot-NET Some months back our collective convinced me that MS DOT-NET was painless and may be beneficial in the future. OK. I bit. I run it on 3 clients. It is here. It runs (I hope?). Still do not see any positive or negative effect..until... I rebuild a machine from scratch. I have DOt-NET v3.5 sp1 on running clients. I tried the optional v4 DOT-NET during last month's updates. It bombed/failed. Fine. I can stay at 3.5sp1. I've read to being blind about DOT-NET. Yes, I have mostly RTFM! On a new install should I optionally install the OLD v1.1 DOT-NET base to start the game again Then I will just let MS Update do what MS Update does. :) Best, Duncan
