• Re: MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

    From glee29@spamindspring.com@1:124/5013 to All on Thu Jan 31 19:14:17 2019
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.PO STED!not-for-mail
    From: "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com>
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Subject: Re: MS Update Site failures after a clean installation
    Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:35:17 -0500
    Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
    Lines: 85
    Message-ID: <k97rqt$rm4$1@dont-email.me>
    References: <VK6dnWWirfHdngjNnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@bt.com> <k73etb$vvg$1@dont-email.me> <TcKdnVmiDu7C3wjNnZ2dnUVZ7tadnZ2d@bt.com> <k748oj$2ge$2@speranza.aioe.org> <k77cqb$b9v$1@dont-email.me> <92176dca-38cd-4665-a599-d26aeb35dbac@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <k82me1$i3k$1@dont-email.me> <015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-1d4811947016@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <k91ikd$dul$1@dont-email.me> <8eaa7094-1dd3-4e55-8f3f-f6ccf53adb51@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:35:09 +0000 (UTC)
    Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ccf6a07c37fd525f116978f5ad44b4b6";
    logging-data="28356"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ejQ8q6PV31ZVF6K7IoHWk"
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
    Cancel-Lock: sha1:JmgdftGqpeMXCXnwTCRfhJg7izM=
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:3912 alt.os.windows-xp:5336 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2390 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30762 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:105626

    "Greegor" <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8eaa7094-1dd3-4e55-8f3f-f6ccf53adb51@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

    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+
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
  • From greegor47@gmail.com@1:124/5013 to All on Thu Jan 31 19:14:17 2019
    Received: by 10.66.72.134 with SMTP id d6mr4726755pav.20.1354223851782;
    Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:17:31 -0800 (PST)
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Received: by 10.50.151.175 with SMTP id ur15mr8992513igb.0.1354223851735; Thu,
    29 Nov 2012 13:17:31 -0800 (PST)
    Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!fee der.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!kr7no5866070pbb.0!news-out.google.com! 6ni17870pbd.1!nntp.google.com!kt20no6172617pbb.1!postnews.google.com!m4g2000pbd .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:17:31 -0800 (PST)
    Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    Injection-Info: m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.189.229.221; posting-account=5SXNEQkAAAC6SFadCHPE9O-jLMHq7h-Y
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.189.229.221
    References: <VK6dnWWirfHdngjNnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@bt.com> <k73etb$vvg$1@dont-email.me>
    <TcKdnVmiDu7C3wjNnZ2dnUVZ7tadnZ2d@bt.com> <k748oj$2ge$2@speranza.aioe.org>
    <k77cqb$b9v$1@dont-email.me> <92176dca-38cd-4665-a599-d26aeb35dbac@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
    <k82me1$i3k$1@dont-email.me> <015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-1d4811947016@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k91ikd$dul$1@dont-email.me> <8eaa7094-1dd3-4e55-8f3f-f6ccf53adb51@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
    <k97rqt$rm4$1@dont-email.me>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
    Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152;
    .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
    Message-ID: <3be1e39b-ff77-494b-b11b-8c815c8cbda9@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: MS Update Site failures after a clean installation
    From: Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:17:31 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:3918 alt.os.windows-xp:5342 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2396 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30770 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:105635

    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!
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
    * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)