A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cannot update Windows after a clean installation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 27th 12, 07:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"glee" wrote in message
...
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Greegor" wrote in message
news:015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-
snip
WHY does SP3 update fail
so much from MS Update site?


Because you need IE8 or newer. For you are running IE6 sp1 with a
clean install.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...ils.aspx?id=43


No.... you do NOT need IE8 to update to SP3 or to get updates via
Windows or Microsoft Update. If you have XP Gold or SP1, you have
IE6 SP1 and cannot access Windows Update.... but if you have XP SP2
or SP3, you have at least IE6 SP2. Formerly there was a problem
accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2 but apparently this is no
longer the case and you can update using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6
installed anywhere to confirm this. You can also access Windows
Update with IE7. There is no requirement for IE8 whatsoever.


He running IE6sp1 on a XPsp3,
I requirement a latest software........
for that OS



When you install SP3 in Windows XP, it includes SP3 of Internet Explorer
unless you already have IE7 or IE8 installed..... so how would he have
IE6 SP1 installed on XP SP3?


Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...s.aspx?id=8483


Wrong again. Windows Installer 4.5 is NOT needed to use Windows
Update or Microsoft Update, or to install XP service packs.


Need for .NET4 and up....



No... one of the system requirements for .NET Framework 4 is Windows
Installer 3.1 or higher.... Windows installer 4 is not required.

Microsoft .NET Framework 4 (Web Installer)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...m-requirements

Microsoft .NET Framework 4 (Standalone Installer)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...m-requirements



Mr. Glen Ventura

He stated whit XP Service Pack 1,



I don't see anywhere that he stated XP SP1 in this thread at all.

irrelevant info snipped


--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

Ads
  #32  
Old November 27th 12, 01:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

In ,
glee typed:
... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2
but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update using IE6
SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm this.


I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2


  #33  
Old November 27th 12, 03:23 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6
SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update
using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm
this.


I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.


Thanks for the confirmation.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #34  
Old November 27th 12, 04:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
John smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

"BillW50" wrote in message ...
In ,
glee typed:
... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6 SP2
but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update using IE6
SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm this.


I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP SP2
and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can confirm
that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.


Windows XP SP2 have IE6 SP2
http://www.update.microsoft.com/micr....aspx?ln=en-us
with Windows XP SP1 have IE6 SP1 the like will not work..

Now do it with Windows XP SP1 & IE6 SP1........
  #35  
Old November 27th 12, 04:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
John smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

Mr. Glen Ventura

He stated whit XP Service Pack 1,



I don't see anywhere that he stated XP SP1 in this thread at all.


Maybe we need to look at:::
Message-ID:

Rebuilding from the OEM install CD
(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates
worked just fine, but building a clean
install with all of the updates should
not be like a game of Jenga.


OK Glen is was OEM install CD
(Win XP Pro SP2)
You right this time.......


--
Always turning on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP.

Faulty uninstall files.
Now you need to know how to use MS Fix-It
http://fixitcenter.support.microsoft.com/Portal
  #36  
Old November 28th 12, 07:49 AM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

Somebody claimed that you can install just one
version of FW. I doubted what they said and
asked them to back up what they said.

The references you posted support the impression that
I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
to be backward compatible like it should have.

The interdependence of Framework on all previous
versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.

I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.

Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
hell with Windows XP users?

Is that what they're doing?


http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/arc.../10219046.aspx

Question:

I recently installed the .NET Framework 4 on my system. Afterwards, I
looked in Add/Remove Programs, and it shows that I have all of the
following versions of the .NET Framework installed on my system:

•Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 SP1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Extended

Do I need any of these older versions of the .NET Framework now that
I’ve installed the .NET Framework 4, or can I safely uninstall them?

Answer:

In general, my recommendation is to leave the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2,
3.0 SP2, 3.5 SP1 and 4 installed on your computer.

Unlike previous versions of the .NET Framework, the .NET Framework 4
does not allow an application that was built with previous versions of
the .NET Framework to migrate forward and run on it if the previous
version is not installed. If you are using any applications that were
built with any version of the .NET Framework before version 4, then I
recommend leaving both the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and the .NET
Framework 4 installed.

You cannot use the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 unless you also have
the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 and 3.0 SP2 installed. Therefore, you will
not be allowed to uninstall the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 or 3.0 SP2 if
you have the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 installed. If you try to uninstall
the .NET Framework 2.0 or 3.0 when the .NET Framework 3.5 is
installed, their uninstall processes will block and tell you that they
are needed by another application on your system.

The .NET Framework 1.0 and .NET Framework 1.1 can be installed side-by-
side with the .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and 4. Most applications
that were created for the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 will automatically
use the .NET Framework 2.0 instead if it is installed on the system.
In most cases, that means you do not need to keep the .NET Framework
1.0 or 1.1 installed on your system if you already have the .NET
Framework 2.0 installed.

However, there are some applications that are configured to require a
specific version of the .NET Framework, even if later versions of
the .NET Framework are installed. If you have any applications like
that on your system and try to run them without installing the .NET
Framework 1.0 or 1.1, you will get an error message that looks like
the following:

---------------------------
MyApplication.exe - .NET Framework Initialization Error
---------------------------
To run this application, you first must install one of the following
versions of the .NET Framework:
v1.1.4322
Contact your application publisher for instructions about obtaining
the appropriate version of the .NET Framework.
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------

In the above error message, the version number will be v1.0.3705 if
you need to install the .NET Framework 1.0, and it will be v1.1.4322
if you need to install the .NET Framework 1.1.

If you end up seeing any error messages like this, you can re-install
the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 in order to resolve the errors. If you
don't end up seeing any error messages like this, then you don't need
to worry about re-installing the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1.

Comments:

royi 15 May 2012 4:14 AM
where did you read that " .NET Framework 4 does not allow an
application that was built with previous version"

Stebner 15 May 2012 7:42 AM
Hi Royi - This behavior is described in the Application Compatibility
and Deployment section of the MSDN page at

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171868.aspx
  #37  
Old November 28th 12, 11:22 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
John smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

Good job Greegor,
Now you know you a 100% right,
Have a good Day!
  #38  
Old November 29th 12, 01:59 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

On Nov 28, 4:22*pm, "John Smith" wrote:
Good job Greegor,
Now you know you a 100% right,
Have a good Day!


You too, anonymous poster!
  #39  
Old November 29th 12, 03:35 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

"Greegor" wrote in message
...

Somebody claimed that you can install just one
version of FW. I doubted what they said and
asked them to back up what they said.

The references you posted support the impression that
I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
to be backward compatible like it should have.



Correct.... backward compatibility was not one of their aims and for the
most part, they are not. A lot depends on how a particular software app
that is running on .NET was written. Some s'ware written with/for .NET
2.x will run with the early .NET 3.x installed and no .NET 2.x
installed.... the early iterations of .NET 3.x did not have .NET 2.x
runtimes, but some .NET 2.x apps could run on it. Some .NET 1.x apps
can run with only .NET 2.x or 3.x installed, others will not run without
their version of .NET 1.x. Even with the release of .NET 4.x, .NET apps
will need their own .NET flavor installed. It's a jungle and it's
crazy. Then mid-stream, to simplify installs and compatibility,
Microsoft changed the installer packages so that if you install .NET 3.5
SP1, you got all the .NET 2.x and 3.x runtimes included in the package,
behind the scenes. That improved things a bit, but in many cases the
old .NET installations were damaged by then, and a number of users had
to rip out all .NET with Stebner's tool, then just install the new
package of .NET 3.5.
..NET 4 was released later.... the tool also works to remove it, since
there are still .NET updating issues even after the changes.... They are
less frequent now.


The interdependence of Framework on all previous
versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.



Incorrect, inasmuch as the .NET versions are not dependent on previous
versions. Each version has no dependency on a previous version.... it's
the software apps written with various versions that have the dependency
on that particular version. What's bad design is that the whole series
of .NET Framework was made that way in the first place. But it's not
something new. There were VB5 apps that still needed VB5 installed,
when VB6 runtimes were already installed.... not entirely backward
compatible there either.

I assume what you really mean by "interdependence on previous versions"
is that once you install .NET 3.5 SP1, you can't remove .NET 2.x
versions anymore, without removing .NET 3.5 also. That's not so much
"interdependence" as the fact that the .NET 2.x and early 3.x runtimes
are part of the parcel now, and you can't separate them. It's not
interdependence, it's just how they dealt with having a simplified
package to get all the 2.x and 3.x runtimes at once, to minimize issues
with apps needing their .NET flavor.


I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.



I'm sorry they developed .NET in the first place. I'd guess the most
common update failures are updating .NET.... damage to the Frameworks
became so common, Stebner had to write his tools. You still haven't
answered why you have .NET 4.x installed in the first place.... do you
have any apps that run on it? There is no reason to install it
otherwise, other than to have something to aggravate you.


Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
hell with Windows XP users?

Is that what they're doing?



They don't need to do that to kiss off XP.... that's already in the
works via the EOL.

snip

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #40  
Old November 29th 12, 04:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

In ,
John Smith typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6
SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update
using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm
this.


I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP
SP2 and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can
confirm that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.


Windows XP SP2 have IE6 SP2

http://www.update.microsoft.com/micr....aspx?ln=en-us
with Windows XP SP1 have IE6 SP1 the like will not work..


Now do it with Windows XP SP1 & IE6 SP1........


I haven't had any machines running XP SP1 for about 7 years now.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2


  #41  
Old November 29th 12, 05:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
John smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

"BillW50" wrote in message ...
In ,
John Smith typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
... Formerly there was a problem accessing Windows Update with IE6
SP2 but apparently this is no longer the case and you can update
using IE6 SP2.... I don't have IE6 installed anywhere to confirm
this.

I just fired up one of my older machines that still has Windows XP
SP2 and IE6. I opened up IE6, Tools, and Update... and yes I can
confirm that SP2 and IE6 still can get Windows updates.


Windows XP SP2 have IE6 SP2

http://www.update.microsoft.com/micr....aspx?ln=en-us
with Windows XP SP1 have IE6 SP1 the like will not work..


Now do it with Windows XP SP1 & IE6 SP1........


I haven't had any machines running XP SP1 for about 7 years now.


No Bill,
But if Reinstalling counts,
Yes 3 mouth a go......
It's not E-Z to work back up to Windows XP SP2

It Mostly like have a Win98 that go no where..

  #42  
Old November 29th 12, 10:17 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

Somebody claimed that you can install just one
version of FW. *I doubted what they said and
asked them to back up what they said.


The references you posted support the impression that
I had all along, that Framework 4.0 was not written
to be backward compatible like it should have.


Correct.... backward compatibility was not one of their aims and for the
most part, they are not. *A lot depends on how a particular software app
that is running on .NET was written. *Some s'ware written with/for .NET
2.x will run with the early .NET 3.x installed and no .NET 2.x
installed.... the early iterations of .NET 3.x did not have .NET 2.x
runtimes, but some .NET 2.x apps could run on it. *Some .NET 1.x apps
can run with only .NET 2.x or 3.x installed, others will not run without
their version of .NET 1.x. *Even with the release of .NET 4.x, .NET apps
will need their own .NET flavor installed. *It's a jungle and it's
crazy. *Then mid-stream, to simplify installs and compatibility,
Microsoft changed the installer packages so that if you install .NET 3.5
SP1, you got all the .NET 2.x and 3.x runtimes included in the package,
behind the scenes. *That improved things a bit, but in many cases the
old .NET installations were damaged by then, and a number of users had
to rip out all .NET with Stebner's tool, then just install the new
package of .NET 3.5.
.NET 4 was released later.... the tool also works to remove it, since
there are still .NET updating issues even after the changes.... They are
less frequent now.


Thanks for the explanation!

That "jungle" as you described it are exactly the kinds
of problems that make a standard not a standard
and seriously cripples a "platform".

ie: Defeats the main purposes of such a ""platform"".

The interdependence of Framework on all previous
versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.


Incorrect, inasmuch as the .NET versions are not
dependent on previous versions.


Thanks for clearing that up.

Each version has no dependency on a previous version.... it's
the software apps written with various versions that have the dependency
on that particular version. *What's bad design is that the whole series
of .NET Framework was made that way in the first place. *But it's not
something new. *There were VB5 apps that still needed VB5 installed,
when VB6 runtimes were already installed.... not entirely backward
compatible there either.


When Microsoft skip such textbook software design
principles, aren't they almost INVITING security
problems that virus coders use?

I assume what you really mean by "interdependence on previous versions"
is that once you install .NET 3.5 SP1, you can't remove .NET 2.x
versions anymore, without removing .NET 3.5 also. *That's not so much
"interdependence" as the fact that the .NET 2.x and early 3.x runtimes
are part of the parcel now, and you can't separate them. *It's not
interdependence, it's just how they dealt with having a simplified
package to get all the 2.x and 3.x runtimes at once, to minimize issues
with apps needing their .NET flavor.


I sorta feel like Microsoft OWES XP users a
nice neat standalone Framework 4.5 "platform"
after putting up with all of that idiocy.

But then again, the artificial 3GB memory limit
Microsoft created on XP for MARKETING
reasons makes me feel like that also.

No wonder so many Microsoft customers
have such a LOVE/HATE feeling toward them..

I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.


I'm sorry they developed .NET in the first place. *I'd guess the most
common update failures are updating .NET.... damage to the Frameworks
became so common, Stebner had to write his tools. *You still haven't
answered why you have .NET 4.x installed in the first place.... do you
have any apps that run on it? *There is no reason to install it
otherwise, other than to have something to aggravate you.


I am trying to build a general purpose clean install with
all of the updates, tools and support functions we use
( or would likely use ) to serve as a master for cloning
across a tiny ""fleet"" of 5+ identical OEM systems.

The more I've learned about Framework, myself and
from others including yourself, the more I conclude
that Framework is a monstrosity to be AVOIDED completely.

Did Microsoft use XP users as guinea pigs for their
jury rigged Framework nightmare just so they
could get it ready for Windows 8 and say to
hell with Windows XP users?


Is that what they're doing?


They don't need to do that to kiss off XP
.... that's already in the works via the EOL.


I don't think this is going to play out the way
it did when they phased out W98SE and ME.

(See new topic thread elsewhere in a few days )

But I wasn't even thinking about their efforts
to kill off WinXP. I just thought they wanted
to use WinXP users as guinea pigs, to perfect
Framework and then take it away without
letting the guinea pigs benefit from a
perfected product. Then again, the notion of Microsoft
actually perfecting anything is an absurdity.

Thanks, Glen!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.