Bone head decision: .NET 2.0 Not For Windows XP Pro SP1

[Jim Rand]

The simple plan was to upgrade from VS 2003 Pro to VS 2005 Pro for $500.
Unfortunately, my three-year-old XP Pro SP1 laptop did not take kindly to
SP2 required for .NET 2.0. Ironically, .NET 2.0 still supports Windows 98 -
go figure.

The new plan, just initiated, has escalated to a mere $3,001.36 which covers
the new computer plus VS 2005 Pro with the MSDN Pro subscription that
includes an operating system (Windows Server 2003) that does support .NET
2.0.

In all fairness, Windows Server 2003 was on the purchase list for 2006 but
not right after Christmas and just before the 4/15 tax day.

The purpose of this post is for two reasons:

1) I'm really ticked off for being forced by Microsoft to spend the extra
$2,500 to stay current. Now that I've said it, I feel better and can move
on emotionally.

2) The real reason - right now, "Smart Client" applications developed with
VS 2005 will not be compatible with a significant number of XP Pro systems.
How do we deal with this issue and, more importantly, why has Microsoft put
us in this position in the first place?

Your thoughts,

 

[Naveen]

I think you should read this.

http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/01/16/513018.aspx

 

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

Why? SP2 is a free downloadable service pack which should install without
any problem on XP SP1.

Willy.

| The simple plan was to upgrade from VS 2003 Pro to VS 2005 Pro for $500.
| Unfortunately, my three-year-old XP Pro SP1 laptop did not take kindly to
| SP2 required for .NET 2.0. Ironically, .NET 2.0 still supports Windows
98 -
| go figure.
|
| The new plan, just initiated, has escalated to a mere $3,001.36 which
covers
| the new computer plus VS 2005 Pro with the MSDN Pro subscription that
| includes an operating system (Windows Server 2003) that does support .NET
| 2.0.
|
| In all fairness, Windows Server 2003 was on the purchase list for 2006 but
| not right after Christmas and just before the 4/15 tax day.
|
| The purpose of this post is for two reasons:
|
| 1) I'm really ticked off for being forced by Microsoft to spend the extra
| $2,500 to stay current. Now that I've said it, I feel better and can move
| on emotionally.
|
| 2) The real reason - right now, "Smart Client" applications developed with
| VS 2005 will not be compatible with a significant number of XP Pro
systems.
| How do we deal with this issue and, more importantly, why has Microsoft
put
| us in this position in the first place?
|
| Your thoughts,
|
|
|

 

[Ilya Tumanov [MS]]

I'm sorry, what exactly stops you from simply installing SP2 on to your
current laptop with XP SP1?


Best regards,

Ilya

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

*** Want to find answers instantly? Here's how... ***

1. Go to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework?hl=en
2. Type your question in the text box near "Search this group" button.
3. Hit "Search this group" button.
4. Read answer(s).

 

[Scott M.]

Why not just download .NET 2.0 as a stand-alone application via Windows
Update [FREE]?

 

[Alan Pretre]

Unfortunately, my three-year-old XP Pro SP1 laptop did not take kindly to
SP2 required for .NET 2.0.

I would have worked harder at getting XP SP2 to install.

But come on, honestly, you were just looking for an excuse to get a new
computer, weren't you. ;-)

-- Alan

 

[Vipul Patel]

If you want support for .NET 2.0 on your XP machine, you do need to upgrade
to SP2. Thats a plain fact. Do you have any apps which you believe will not
work on SP2?

 

[Gabriel Magaña]

Unfortunately, my three-year-old XP Pro SP1 laptop did not take kindly to

SP2 required for .NET 2.0.

If it were me, I would have reinstalled the O/S from scratch, since such an
update failure is indicative of a messed up Windows install... With a blank
machine with a fresh O/S XP SP2 should install very easily.

.... That is, unless I'm looking for an excuse to get a new machine, that's
when problems of this sort are more easily fixed by buying a new computer
;-). I take the side of those who think you used this subconsciosly to get
a new machine you wanted... In which case you should really be thanking MS!

 

[Michael D. Ober]

After reading all these messages, I tend to agree that if an OS is still in
support, especially mainstream support, but preferably in mainstream and
extended support, any new development platform's runtime environment should
be supported on this OS. This should include the development environment as
well so we can test on this platform.

Mike Ober.

 

[Jim Rand]

Thank you for pointing me to the discussion thread concerning XP and
SP1. From a business perspective, I'll let the client decide which
Framework they want to use. If they do want to go with the newer
technology, it will only be with the understanding that XP/SP1 will not
be supported.

For those that think installing SP2 is a slam dunk, just be forewarned.
It's not.

 

[Scott M.]

But for those thinking that an XP box with SP1 is going to give you major
trouble when you go to SP2, it shouldn't.

 

[Jim Rand]

No it shouldn't, unless the upgrade freezes and leaves the system in "an
inconsistent state" that only allows for a reboot in "Safe Mode".

In my case, the installation of SP2 requires wiping the hard drive and
spending two days reinstalling everything. For a three-year-old laptop,
which by the way is well protected with anti-virus software, Zone Alarm Pro
and is hidden behind a hardware firewall, it's not worth it.

My PC was not singled out. A major insurance company in the area had
significant problems with a number of their PCs when upgrading to SP2.

From personal experience and other anecdotal evidence I'm telling my clients
that upgrading to SP2 probably will work but there is a possibility that it
might not. They can weigh the evidence and make a business decision
concerning .NET 2.0 and its requirements.

I've put my money where my mouth is and am going forward with VS 2005 and
..NET 2.0.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

In my case, the installation of SP2 requires wiping the hard drive and

spending two days reinstalling everything. For a three-year-old laptop,
which by the way is well protected with anti-virus software, Zone Alarm
Pro
and is hidden behind a hardware firewall, it's not worth it.

It is entirely possible that Zone Alarm or anti-virus software is preventing
certain things from happening when installing the Service Pack.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
You can lead a fish to a bicycle,
but it takes a very long time,
and the bicycle has to *want* to change.

 

[Scott M.]

FYI - I have several machines (XP Pro.) that are all about 3 years old as
well (P4's, 2GHz, 1GB RAM) and these machines run ZA Pro. as well. I had no
problems with any of them when I went to SP2.

 

[Jim Rand]

So it's 2 in the afternoon. You are sitting at the client site. Mary, the
bookkeeper, is back from lunch and really needs to use her computer again.
You call one of your friends who suggests uninstalling Zone Alarm to install
SP2. Scott, drops by and says he had no problem with Zone Alarm.
Meanwhile, the other 8 people in the department are happy because the
upgrade went great for them. Of course, Mary's computer is toast because
the only way you could even reboot to safe mode was to pull the plug.

Then, you think back to the good old days of VB6 when the first dialog box
you got when installing your app was "Your operating system is out of date.
Would you like to continue the installation which will require a reboot of
the system and, if your really lucky today, won't destroy the other mission
critical applications on this computer - yes/no"

Remember Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown in the Peanuts cartoon?
You know, she knows and Charlie knows what's going to happen a split second
before the kick.

Having the ball pulled once, I will never install SP2 on a client's
computer. I'll let the poor "network" guy do that. Chances are it will
install without a hitch but there is a possiblity he will be flat on his
back swearing at Lucy.

Personally, I'm really excited about VS 2005 and .Net 2.0: MTOM web
services, binary serialization of datasets, compression, master web pages,
cross page post backs and the list goes on.

I just think it's unfortunate the security zealots have made the 2.0 sell
more difficult then it needs to be.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

So it's 2 in the afternoon. You are sitting at the client site. Mary, the
bookkeeper, is back from lunch and really needs to use her computer again.
You call one of your friends who suggests uninstalling Zone Alarm to install
SP2. Scott, drops by and says he had no problem with Zone Alarm.
Meanwhile, the other 8 people in the department are happy because the
upgrade went great for them. Of course, Mary's computer is toast because
the only way you could even reboot to safe mode was to pull the plug.

And of course, I assume you *did* take a backup (preferably of the
Ghost variety) before installing the (pretty major) service pack?

<snip>

 

[Jim Rand]

Hi Jon,

In hindsight, that would have been really good.

Microsoft support worked me through the rollback process to rid the system
of the evil SP2 demons. For the next month it was flacky but after
reinstalling various drivers and software it got better.

Jim

 

[Peter Franks]

The simple plan was to upgrade from VS 2003 Pro to VS 2005 Pro for $500.
Unfortunately, my three-year-old XP Pro SP1 laptop did not take kindly to
SP2 required for .NET 2.0. Ironically, .NET 2.0 still supports Windows 98 -
go figure.

The new plan, just initiated, has escalated to a mere $3,001.36 which covers
the new computer plus VS 2005 Pro with the MSDN Pro subscription that
includes an operating system (Windows Server 2003) that does support .NET
2.0.

In all fairness, Windows Server 2003 was on the purchase list for 2006 but
not right after Christmas and just before the 4/15 tax day.

The purpose of this post is for two reasons:

1) I'm really ticked off for being forced by Microsoft to spend the extra
$2,500 to stay current. Now that I've said it, I feel better and can move
on emotionally.

2) The real reason - right now, "Smart Client" applications developed with
VS 2005 will not be compatible with a significant number of XP Pro systems.
How do we deal with this issue and, more importantly, why has Microsoft put
us in this position in the first place?

Your thoughts,

I've yet to read/hear about any *TECHNOLOGICAL* reason for the SP2
requirement -- I'm sure there is none.

From the blog link that someone else posted:

"Microsoft is making concerted efforts to ensure that systems are as
secure as possible by default"
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/01/16/513018.aspx

This statement is flat-out not true.

It should read: Microsoft is making coercive efforts to give the
appearance that systems are as secure as possible while maximizing
profits at the expense of true security.

 

[Jevon]

I fail to see how insisting on SP2 makes them more money? Last I heard, SPs
were free...

Jevon

 

[Scott M.]

"Microsoft is making concerted efforts to ensure that systems are as

secure as possible by default"
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/01/16/513018.aspx

This statement is flat-out not true.

I really don't think you have any factual merits to this statement. The
simple fact that SP2 installs Windows Firewall and turns it on by default,
negates your statement.

It should read: Microsoft is making coercive efforts to give the
appearance that systems are as secure as possible while maximizing profits
at the expense of true security.

Do you think that the software engineers that developed, tested and rolled
out SP2 did it on thier own time, without compensation. And, did you know
that SP2 is free?

Seems like you've just got a Microsoft "chip" on your shoulder and would
rather spew out incorrect statements to ease your frustration than to
actually say what's on your mind without making up stuff.