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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 3:24 PM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DSinc >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:35 AM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
