Path:
eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.PO
STED!not-for-mail
From: "glee" 
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: 
References: 
 
 





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{at}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"  wrote in message 
news:8eaa7094-1dd3-4e55-8f3f-f6ccf53adb51{at}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