Subj : Re: MS Update Site failures after a clean installation
To   : All
From : [email protected]
Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 07:14 pm

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: [email protected]
Injection-Info: m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.189.229.221;
posting-account=5SXNEQkAAAC6SFadCHPE9O-jLMHq7h-Y
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.189.229.221
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<92176dca-38cd-4665-a599-d26aeb35dbac@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
<[email protected]>
<015184a8-457c-453e-93f7-1d4811947016@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
<[email protected]>
<8eaa7094-1dd3-4e55-8f3f-f6ccf53adb51@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
<[email protected]>
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: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: MS Update Site failures after a clean installation
From: Greegor <[email protected]>
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)

You are viewing proxied material from cvs.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.