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:    
       
       
   <92176dca-38cd-4665-a599-d26aeb35dbac@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>   
      
   <015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-1d4811947016@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>   
      
   <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"  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)