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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
MS Update Site failures after a clean installation
Good job Greegor,
Now you know you a 100% right, Have a good Day! |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|