MS Update Site failures after a clean installation

[Greegor]

http://groups.google.com/group/micr...c4668/01dfe3478b98afb2?hl=en#01dfe3478b98afb2

[ Tony cited problems with SP3 from MS Update site
and success with downloaded standalone version. ]

Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are
successful.  Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a
non-problem.  That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during
the installation.

For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I have
installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.

I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista or
Win Seven.
YMMV, as always.

You do know this is an XP usenet group, don't ya Glen?

Your argument that it works fine on
MOST computers is weak.

Your assertion that SP3 doesn't fail from
the update site because you say it works
on MOST computers is illogical.

I have a small fleet of identical computers
chosen because this exact model sold in the
tens of thousands, maybe more.

Fresh install and all updates brought current
only a month ago yet some updates
can't install because the ones they replace
refuse to uninstall.

That's not the kind of thing that should
be machine specific.

Rebuilding from the OEM install CD
(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates
worked just fine, but building a clean
install with all of the updates should
not be like a game of Jenga.

Updates that FAIL to uninstall when they
need to be replaced by new ones
should be an embarassment to Microsoft.

KB2656405 KB2656353 KB2633880 and KB2633870
refused to uninstall, preventing updates to
KB2737019 KB2698023 KB2729450 and KB2729449

errors were 0x66A 0x64C 0x645 and 0x66A respectively.

On my new build with all updates, I WONDER
how many MS updates would FAIL to uninstall?

I realize that some are never supposed to be
uninstalled, but how many do you think would
FAIL to uninstall if I tested this question?

There are so many Framework updates and
they take so LONG to install that I'm getting a
sneaking suspicion that HALF of my time doing
updates on a fresh system install is just
Framework, like 2 hours worth...

I may take more copious notes with time
annotations next time.

WHY does SP3 update fail
so much from MS Update site?

Even on a fresh clean install with no
malware software installed yet!

 

[Greegor]

Framework just in stall .net3.5 and it up dates

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=25150

That might work.

Then again, Why isn't Framework 4.0 backward
compatible with all previous versions of Framework?

JS > Because you need IE8 or newer.
JS > For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43

If I need IE8 before installing SP3 then why
doesn't MS update site install IE8 before SP3?

Is this dependency you describe documented somewhere?

JS > Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483

MS Update makes absolutely no attempt to push
MSI 4.5 at any point in the update process.

MSI 4.5 might even fix some installs but apparently
some old updates and installs have FAULTY
uninstall files that MSI 4.5 does not fix.

For example, Microsoft Security Essentials
installed before August 2012 apparently has
faulty uninstall files, mistakenly looking
for some crucial files in a bizarre directory
named with a long string of random characters.
Directory names like that are apparently for
temporary scratch files.

Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
have it installed and offers the exact identical
revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.

 

[John Smith]

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=25150

That might work.

Then again, Why isn't Framework 4.0 backward
compatible with all previous versions of Framework?

..NET 3.5 is all versions of Framework,
After all updates,
..NET 4.0 is the next versions of Framework..
It you install MS software that need,
it it will be update to .NET 4.0 for you.

JS > Because you need IE8 or newer.
JS > For you are running IE6 sp1 with a clean install.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43

If I need IE8 before installing SP3 then why
doesn't MS update site install IE8 before SP3?

Is this dependency you describe documented somewhere?

JS > Plus MS Update need to be Windows Installer 4.5 Redistributable

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8483

MS Update makes absolutely no attempt to push
MSI 4.5 at any point in the update process.

MSI 4.5 might even fix some installs but apparently
some old updates and installs have FAULTY
uninstall files that MSI 4.5 does not fix.

For example, Microsoft Security Essentials
installed before August 2012 apparently has
faulty uninstall files, mistakenly looking
for some crucial files in a bizarre directory
named with a long string of random characters.
Directory names like that are apparently for
temporary scratch files.

Faulty uninstall files.
Now you need to know how to use MS Fix-It

Curiously, even though MS Update Site does not
push MSI 4.5, it apparently notices whether you
have it installed and offers the exact identical
revision of MS Security Essentials in MSI 3.1
or MSI 4.5 format, accordingly.

The MS Update Website need it,
to in stall .NET 4.0,

For today New MS Software use MSI 4.5,
For MSI 3.1 is for old MS Software,
like Windows SP1....

 

[Greegor]

.NET 3.5 is all versions of Framework,
After all updates,

Got any links to Microsoft documentation
that this is the case?

If it were true then why does MS Update
push FW1,2 and 3 installs after FW 3.5
is installed already?

.NET 4.0 is the next versions of Framework..
It you install MS software that need,
it it will be update to .NET 4.0 for you.

MS Update pushes all Framework updates
before any application SW actually needs them.

Faulty uninstall files.
Now you need to know how to use MS Fix-It
<http://fixitcenter.support.microsoft.com/Portal>

FAILED to fix MSE uninstall failure
due to faulty uninstall file.

Does Microsoft pretend that either version of Fixit
repairs badly written uninstall files?

The MS Update Website need it,
to in stall .NET 4.0,

If so, then why doesn't MS Update
PUSH MSI 4.5 before pushing out FW 4.0?

 

[John Smith]

If it were true then why does MS Update
push FW1,2 and 3 installs after FW 3.5
is installed already?

MS Updates for FW1,2
Because you install them,
they come not with SP1 or SP2

MS Update pushes all Framework updates
before any application SW actually needs them.

FAILED to fix MSE uninstall failure
due to faulty uninstall file.

Does Microsoft pretend that either version of Fixit
repairs badly written uninstall files?


If so, then why doesn't MS Update
PUSH MSI 4.5 before pushing out FW 4.0?

Because sp1 did not have all of it updates,
Because SP2 did not have all of it updates,
Because SP2-RollUp-1 did not have all of it updates,
Because SP2-RollUp-2 did not have all of it updates,
and Because SP3 did not have all of it updates..
that is why!

You see the Roll-Up you miss before you can move on to SP3

Always turning on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP,
it will up date Sp1 all the to Sp3 for you,
So it will take 3 or 4 days or more to do it,
By Restart and I know logging in gets old,
but is the right way.
Just look how many day,
you been doing your way..


Just Start over and do it the right way with,
Automatic Updates feature for Windows XP..
Just take the time and do it right..

I just like you all I have is;
a Windows XP Sp-1 CD

Plus all way get all of you Updates first,
in the Sp1, Sp2, and ,
before install new Software,
that go for .NET's, MS Security Essentials,
Do not install,
until Automatic Updates get you pass the Sp3 Update

 

[Greegor]

Do you have any documentation that FW 3.5
will run software written for previous versions?

Is there documentation that FW 4.0 will run
software written for previous FW versions?

If FW 4.0 will run SW written for all previous
FW versions, then perhaps update site
should stop pushing the old versions once
somebody has FW 4.0 on an XT system?

In fact, if that's true, why even maintain the old versions at all?

Does FW 4.0 really supercede previous versions of FW?

Is this documented from Microsoft?

Is backwards compatability of FW documented anywhere?

 

[glee]

Do you have any documentation that FW 3.5
will run software written for previous versions?

Is there documentation that FW 4.0 will run
software written for previous FW versions?

If FW 4.0 will run SW written for all previous
FW versions, then perhaps update site
should stop pushing the old versions once
somebody has FW 4.0 on an XT system?

In fact, if that's true, why even maintain the old versions at all?

Does FW 4.0 really supercede previous versions of FW?

Is this documented from Microsoft?

Is backwards compatability of FW documented anywhere?

If you spend just a few minutes doing some online searching, you'd have
had your answers long ago:

Mailbag: Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my
system after installing .NET Framework 3.5 SP1?
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2009/04/20/9557946.aspx

Mailbag: Do I need still need older versions of the .NET Framework on my
system after installing the .NET Framework 4?
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2011/10/02/10219046.aspx

 

[glee]

[ Tony cited problems with SP3 from MS Update site
and success with downloaded standalone version. ]

Well, it doesn't... the majority of installs via auto-update are
successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had
a
non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active
during
the installation.

For SP2 and SP3 installs I have done in my shop, I use the standalone
because I already have it downloaded, but on the occasions that I
have
installed them on-site via auto-update, I have not had any problems.

I've never had a problem with service packs via auto-update on Vista
or
Win Seven.
YMMV, as always.

You do know this is an XP usenet group, don't ya Glen?

Yes, I do. I specifically posted about XP service packs, and rarely
seeing issues installing them via automatic updates. I then mentioned I
have also not seen an issue installing Vista and Seven service packs.
Again, you seem to be having a problem reading what is written.

Your argument that it works fine on
MOST computers is weak.

Your assertion that SP3 doesn't fail from
the update site because you say it works
on MOST computers is illogical.

That's because I did NOT make such an assertion. Once again, you can't
read. I did NOT state "SP3 doesn't fail from the update site" as you
claim.... I specifically stated:

"the majority of installs via auto-update are
successful. Failures are reported in forums and newsgroups, the much
larger numbers with no problems don't report in forums that they had a
non-problem. That said, many of the failures can be attributed to
leaving an aggressive anti-virus/Internet security suite active during
the installation."

I have a small fleet of identical computers
chosen because this exact model sold in the
tens of thousands, maybe more.

Fresh install and all updates brought current
only a month ago yet some updates
can't install because the ones they replace
refuse to uninstall.

What updates are you referring to, from the past month? What "refuses
to uninstall"? You don't uninstall updates to "replace" them with
others. If an update supersedes an older one (described as "replacing"
it in a KB article), it's installation routine takes care of
replacement. It sounds like you don't know how to install updates in
the first place.

That's not the kind of thing that should
be machine specific.

Rebuilding from the OEM install CD
(Win XP Pro SP2), SP3 and all updates
worked just fine, but building a clean
install with all of the updates should
not be like a game of Jenga.

Updates that FAIL to uninstall when they
need to be replaced by new ones
should be an embarassment to Microsoft.

KB2656405 KB2656353 KB2633880 and KB2633870
refused to uninstall, preventing updates to
KB2737019 KB2698023 KB2729450 and KB2729449

You don't uninstall the older updates prior to installing the newer ones
listed. Again, you are installing updates incorrectly, then complaining
that the process gives you errors due to your own interference.

errors were 0x66A 0x64C 0x645 and 0x66A respectively.

On my new build with all updates, I WONDER
how many MS updates would FAIL to uninstall?

I realize that some are never supposed to be
uninstalled, but how many do you think would
FAIL to uninstall if I tested this question?

It depends on what was installed since they were. Some updates no
longer uninstall because they were superseded during a later update's
installation.

There are so many Framework updates and
they take so LONG to install that I'm getting a
sneaking suspicion that HALF of my time doing
updates on a fresh system install is just
Framework, like 2 hours worth...

I install updates, including .NET updates, on client machines all the
time. It takes nowhere near two hours to install the .NET updates.

I may take more copious notes with time
annotations next time.

WHY does SP3 update fail
so much from MS Update site?

It doesn't "fail so much".... the majority of installations are
successful from Microsoft Upodate or via Automatic Updates.

 

[Greegor]

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.

The interdependence of Framework on all previous
versions of itself, rather than backward compatible
is atrociously bad software design, amateurish, kludgy.

I'm sorry I ever "bought into" the promise of Framework.

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?


http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2011/10/02/10219046.aspx

Question:

I recently installed the .NET Framework 4 on my system. Afterwards, I
looked in Add/Remove Programs, and it shows that I have all of the
following versions of the .NET Framework installed on my system:

•Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 SP2
•Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 SP1
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile
•Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Extended

Do I need any of these older versions of the .NET Framework now that
I’ve installed the .NET Framework 4, or can I safely uninstall them?

Answer:

In general, my recommendation is to leave the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2,
3.0 SP2, 3.5 SP1 and 4 installed on your computer.

Unlike previous versions of the .NET Framework, the .NET Framework 4
does not allow an application that was built with previous versions of
the .NET Framework to migrate forward and run on it if the previous
version is not installed. If you are using any applications that were
built with any version of the .NET Framework before version 4, then I
recommend leaving both the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and the .NET
Framework 4 installed.

You cannot use the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 unless you also have
the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 and 3.0 SP2 installed. Therefore, you will
not be allowed to uninstall the .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 or 3.0 SP2 if
you have the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 installed. If you try to uninstall
the .NET Framework 2.0 or 3.0 when the .NET Framework 3.5 is
installed, their uninstall processes will block and tell you that they
are needed by another application on your system.

The .NET Framework 1.0 and .NET Framework 1.1 can be installed side-by-
side with the .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and 4. Most applications
that were created for the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 will automatically
use the .NET Framework 2.0 instead if it is installed on the system.
In most cases, that means you do not need to keep the .NET Framework
1.0 or 1.1 installed on your system if you already have the .NET
Framework 2.0 installed.

However, there are some applications that are configured to require a
specific version of the .NET Framework, even if later versions of
the .NET Framework are installed. If you have any applications like
that on your system and try to run them without installing the .NET
Framework 1.0 or 1.1, you will get an error message that looks like
the following:

---------------------------
MyApplication.exe - .NET Framework Initialization Error
---------------------------
To run this application, you first must install one of the following
versions of the .NET Framework:
v1.1.4322
Contact your application publisher for instructions about obtaining
the appropriate version of the .NET Framework.
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------

In the above error message, the version number will be v1.0.3705 if
you need to install the .NET Framework 1.0, and it will be v1.1.4322
if you need to install the .NET Framework 1.1.

If you end up seeing any error messages like this, you can re-install
the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1 in order to resolve the errors. If you
don't end up seeing any error messages like this, then you don't need
to worry about re-installing the .NET Framework 1.0 or 1.1.

Comments:

royi 15 May 2012 4:14 AM
where did you read that " .NET Framework 4 does not allow an
application that was built with previous version"

Stebner 15 May 2012 7:42 AM
Hi Royi - This behavior is described in the Application Compatibility
and Deployment section of the MSDN page at

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171868.aspx

 

[John Smith]

Good job Greegor,
Now you know you a 100% right,
Have a good Day!

 

[Greegor]

Good job Greegor,
Now you know you a 100% right,
Have a good Day!

You too, anonymous poster!

 

[glee]

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.

 

[Greegor]

Somebody claimed that you can install just one

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"".

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 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.

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!