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)

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)