|
|
|
Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Showing all messages in thread #1190291424 Windows XP Annoyances Discussion Forum
The following are all of the messages in this thread (13 in all), shown in chronological order. Click any message subject to view that message by itself or to view the thread hierarchy.
|
Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 5:30 am Posted by Steve Beeching
(4 messages posted)
I have two Automatic Updates (Security Updates for Microsoft.NET) that won't load.
Each shut-down I see the computer try to load these same two updates. I don't see
where they are to delete them or remove them from the shut-down.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 6:41 am Posted by appleoddity
(1643 messages posted)
I've had the same problem recently.. These two .net framework updates are quite irritating..
The solution I came up with was this..
I had to re-download directly from microsoft the .NET framework 1.1 and .net framework
2.0 installation files. (not the updates, the main installation files, do a search
on microsoft.com)
Then also download the MSI cleanup utility (search for it on Microsofts website).
Now, in my experience, I could not uninstall the .net frameworks because of a similiar
error the updates gave, and I could not reinstall the .net frameworks because the
system thinks (rightly) that they are already installed. So, I had to use the MSI
cleanup utility to remove the presence of the two .net frameworks.. Then, I could
reinstall the .net frameworks.. And then update them as normal.
You might try just uninstalling and then reinstalling each framework, but if you
get the error try the MSI utility.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 7:32 am Posted by Steve Beeching
(4 messages posted)
Thanks--I'll try that! I kept hoping the next Auto-Up would be the fix for those
two that don't load...
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 10:39 am Posted by werner
(7047 messages posted)
why needing both?
:) werner
List of Lists
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 10:49 am Posted by appleoddity
(1643 messages posted)
They're different.. One doesn't replace the other.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 10:54 am Posted by werner
(7047 messages posted)
Oh,that's good to know.
Thanks.
:) werner
List of Lists
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle
(32450 messages posted)
Firstly, you likely don't need .NET framework installed at all, unless you have software
installed that required it, and/or you run a server? You surely don't need two versions
installed at once.
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 12:38 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle
(32450 messages posted)
Yeah, they're different.. different versions. You don't need more than one version
installed, but they will display seperately in Add/Remove. The same goes for Sun's
Java.
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 12:40 pm Posted by appleoddity
(1643 messages posted)
All kinds of things utilize the .net 1.1 framework, and 2.0 is getting more popular.
I haven't seen 3.0 required yet.
Anything devleoped with Visual Studio requires the frameworks.. Just about any HP
all-in-one unit in the last couple years has required it for their software.. Many,
many things utilize it... And as time goes on it will be even more important.
As I stated earlier, 1.1 and 2.0 as well as 3.0 are not the same.... You have to
have more than one installed in order to maintain compatibility with those programs
that require it. I'm not sure if it is because 2.0 doesn't support 1.1 features,
or what.. But I do know that 2.0 does not replace 1.1. Both install in different
locations, 2.0 doesn't upgrade 1.1. That may change in the future, I'm not sure.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 12:53 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle
(32450 messages posted)
As I mentioned, Sun's Java installs the same way.. along side each other, but that
doesn't mean you need all versions installed. On the contrary, all old versions should
be removed.
While different apps were developed using different versions of .NET, that has nothing
to do with the "user" needing various versions installed, to my knowledge, only to
the developers.
If you need .NET Framework in order to install a particular app (and do not have
it installed), you'll get a message during installation of the software, that .NET
is required. Other than that, .NET is only useful to the software developers and
web hosting services.
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
Attn: Normanw, would appreciate your input :)
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 1:20 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle
(32450 messages posted)
.. on this .NET Framework controversy.
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Attn: Normanw, would appreciate your input :)
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 6:17 pm Posted by Steve Beeching
(4 messages posted)
As the guy who got this strand of the thread going, thanks to all for the discussion.
I know absolutely nothing about framework.NET and I am reading all this with interest.
Thanks, again.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Automatic Windows Update that won't load.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 8:28 am Posted by Steve Beeching
(4 messages posted)
I tried the solution offered by appleoddity--and thanks for the help. As follow-up,
the 2.0 worked like a charm, but after repeated tries the 1.1 seems still to be corrupted.
(I started all this wondering where the yet-to-be installed updates are stored. I
could remove it from there, but that would just postpone the problem, I suppose.)
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows XP Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|