.NET Framework update issue

[Jo-Anne]

Jan got some instructions from Microsoft today, on cleanup of .NET.

<[email protected]> "Problem Solved to install KB2539631"

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<[email protected]>

It looks like they remove dotNET 3.5 using a tool from Stebner's blog.
The tool is "dotnetfx_cleanup_tool.zip".

Paul

Thank you, Paul! I saw that too. But I was concerned that the instructions
included going to a non-Microsoft site for the uninstaller. If anyone else
has tried it without a problem, I think that may be my answer too (although
I probably wouldn't reinstall the program...).

Jo-Anne

 

[Paul]

Thank you, Paul! I saw that too. But I was concerned that the instructions
included going to a non-Microsoft site for the uninstaller. If anyone else
has tried it without a problem, I think that may be my answer too (although
I probably wouldn't reinstall the program...).

Jo-Anne

Stebner is a Microsoft employee, and as far as I know, the blog is
on a Microsoft site. And I do use tools from there.

If you don't trust the tool, upload it to virustotal.com and have
it scanned, if it is small enough.

Paul

 

[Jo-Anne]

Stebner is a Microsoft employee, and as far as I know, the blog is
on a Microsoft site. And I do use tools from there.

If you don't trust the tool, upload it to virustotal.com and have
it scanned, if it is small enough.

Paul

Thank you again, Paul! That does set my mind at rest.

Jo-Anne

 

[Jo-Anne]

Guess I was a little late with the help. Probably should have read all
23 post's. Well any way I meant well
yukonron

Thank you, yukonron! Actually, you DID help! I wanted to be sure that this
procedure worked for more than the first person who tried it. I'm glad to
know it worked for you. I'm tempted to run the cleanup program and NOT
re-install .NET Framework...

Jo-Anne

 

[Yousuf Khan]

This blog, has a .NET setup verifier. As far as I know, Aaron is an
employee of Microsoft.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2008/10/13/8999004.aspx

This is the download I tried yesterday.

http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx...9-90-04/netfx_5F00_setupverifier_5F00_new.zip


I ended up with "netfx_setupverifier_new.zip" 244,336 bytes.

You can unzip that, run the netfx_setupverifier.exe and a dialog
will pop up, asking you which install of .NET you want to verify.
There is also a README file in there, which tells you what the tool
is checking for.

This is a screenshot someone took, of the verifier when it is running.

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/349/outilvrification1.jpg

As far as I know, the verifier doesn't change anything. It is
supposed to determine if anything is wrong. You can keep the
log file, by clicking "View Log" and do whatever you want with
the contents.

As far as I know, Microsoft provides support for Windows Update,
so you could either approach it as a Windows Update issue, or a
dotnet issue, and perhaps Microsoft can be convinced to fix it
without a credit card.

You know, I have continuous problems with dotNET when it comes to update
time. There's always one that will not accept its patches. The Microsoft
solution is to remove that particular dotNET and reinstall it again.

So I ran this verifier and checked all of the installed dotNETs out; I
had everything from 1.1 upto 4.0 installed. Every single one of them
came back as perfect according to the verifier, yet I had one that
wouldn't take its patch again. dotNET 2.0 is the one giving the troubles.

Now I'm thinking I think I'll take a more permanent solution to it, and
not even bother reinstalling dotNET 2.0. If I leave all of the later
dotNET's installed like 3.5 and 4.0, do I really need 2.0?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Paul]

You know, I have continuous problems with dotNET when it comes to update
time. There's always one that will not accept its patches. The Microsoft
solution is to remove that particular dotNET and reinstall it again.

So I ran this verifier and checked all of the installed dotNETs out; I
had everything from 1.1 upto 4.0 installed. Every single one of them
came back as perfect according to the verifier, yet I had one that
wouldn't take its patch again. dotNET 2.0 is the one giving the troubles.

Now I'm thinking I think I'll take a more permanent solution to it, and
not even bother reinstalling dotNET 2.0. If I leave all of the later
dotNET's installed like 3.5 and 4.0, do I really need 2.0?

Yousuf Khan

They're a "protocol stack". You need to build a stack, from 2 on upwards.
So removing 2 alone wouldn't be very useful, as it should stop the higher ones.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/DotNet.svg/250px-DotNet.svg.png

2 provides the basics. 3 adds useless things like CardSpace. And
the functions become more esoteric, the higher you go.

1.0 and 1.1 are separate, and may be "married" to older programs.
Some older programs, would not use 2 as a substitute, and may
have a discrete check for their own version (1 or 1.1). So there
is a "version divide" between 1 family and 2 family. But everything
above 2 is cumulative, with 2 as the base. That's my impression.

Paul

 

[Yousuf Khan]

They're a "protocol stack". You need to build a stack, from 2 on upwards.
So removing 2 alone wouldn't be very useful, as it should stop the
higher ones.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/DotNet.svg/250px-DotNet.svg.png


2 provides the basics. 3 adds useless things like CardSpace. And
the functions become more esoteric, the higher you go.

1.0 and 1.1 are separate, and may be "married" to older programs.
Some older programs, would not use 2 as a substitute, and may
have a discrete check for their own version (1 or 1.1). So there
is a "version divide" between 1 family and 2 family. But everything
above 2 is cumulative, with 2 as the base. That's my impression.

Okay, thanks, looks like I'm gonna have to reinstall 2.0 -- yet again!

Yousuf Khan

 

[Jo-Anne]

They're a "protocol stack". You need to build a stack, from 2 on upwards.
So removing 2 alone wouldn't be very useful, as it should stop the higher
ones.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/DotNet.svg/250px-DotNet.svg.png

2 provides the basics. 3 adds useless things like CardSpace. And
the functions become more esoteric, the higher you go.

1.0 and 1.1 are separate, and may be "married" to older programs.
Some older programs, would not use 2 as a substitute, and may
have a discrete check for their own version (1 or 1.1). So there
is a "version divide" between 1 family and 2 family. But everything
above 2 is cumulative, with 2 as the base. That's my impression.

Paul

Hi, Paul,

Your latest post reminded me to ask: What sorts of programs are likely to
use .Net? I think I remember you or someone else saying that if a program
does use it, it will tell you that you need to install .Net Framework. If I
can do without it entirely, I'd like to.

Thank you!

Jo-Anne

 

[Paul]

Hi, Paul,

Your latest post reminded me to ask: What sorts of programs are likely to
use .Net? I think I remember you or someone else saying that if a program
does use it, it will tell you that you need to install .Net Framework. If I
can do without it entirely, I'd like to.

Thank you!

Jo-Anne

Not all programs are well behaved.

I had one program die, and complain about not being able to find mscoree
or the like. And I, as a user, was supposed to piece together from that,
that I needed .NET. I had to Google, to associate a missing mscoree.dll,
as being a .NET issue.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070225114716AA4nBZr

With some programs, the *installer* may be doing a check, and
identifying that prerequisites are missing. And that's how an
ugly scene, with error messages, is avoided. I think some other
ATI video card I had, installed .NET for you, as a separate
step.

A typical .NET program, might be distinguished by having a relatively
small file size, for its functions. Other than that, I don't know
how you'd know what the program depended on. There are other runtime
libraries other than dotNET, such as visual C runtime. So this kind
of problem has happened before (program delivered, without the
needed redistributable runtime libraries).

A tool like this, can scan an executable for dependencies, but
I bet it won't pop up a dialog and say "you need .NET". They expect
developers to use a tool like this, to get low level information.

http://dependencywalker.com/

In the Linux/Unix world, I'm used to using this program, called "LDD"
which stands for "List Dynamic Dependencies". It tells you what
libraries a program is about to call. And from this,
you can kinda predict whether the program will start or not.

http://linux.die.net/man/1/ldd

*******

A famous program for demonstrating .NET, would be paint.net . I think,
as time has passed, the version(s) of .NET that have to be installed,
have increased for this program. At one time, it might have been using
2.0, but may need some of the higher ones now as well. Kind of a
shame, because when I went to test this, I didn't have the
version loaded that was needed.

http://www.getpaint.net/

Paul

 

[Jo-Anne]

Not all programs are well behaved.

I had one program die, and complain about not being able to find mscoree
or the like. And I, as a user, was supposed to piece together from that,
that I needed .NET. I had to Google, to associate a missing mscoree.dll,
as being a .NET issue.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070225114716AA4nBZr

With some programs, the *installer* may be doing a check, and
identifying that prerequisites are missing. And that's how an
ugly scene, with error messages, is avoided. I think some other
ATI video card I had, installed .NET for you, as a separate
step.

A typical .NET program, might be distinguished by having a relatively
small file size, for its functions. Other than that, I don't know
how you'd know what the program depended on. There are other runtime
libraries other than dotNET, such as visual C runtime. So this kind
of problem has happened before (program delivered, without the
needed redistributable runtime libraries).

A tool like this, can scan an executable for dependencies, but
I bet it won't pop up a dialog and say "you need .NET". They expect
developers to use a tool like this, to get low level information.

http://dependencywalker.com/

In the Linux/Unix world, I'm used to using this program, called "LDD"
which stands for "List Dynamic Dependencies". It tells you what
libraries a program is about to call. And from this,
you can kinda predict whether the program will start or not.

http://linux.die.net/man/1/ldd

*******

A famous program for demonstrating .NET, would be paint.net . I think,
as time has passed, the version(s) of .NET that have to be installed,
have increased for this program. At one time, it might have been using
2.0, but may need some of the higher ones now as well. Kind of a
shame, because when I went to test this, I didn't have the
version loaded that was needed.

http://www.getpaint.net/

Paul

Thank you, Paul! It's so tempting to just uninstall the whole mess--but it
sounds safer to simply reinstall all the .NET Framework stuff.

Jo-Anne

 

[Motor T]

Hi, Paul,

Your latest post reminded me to ask: What sorts of programs are likely to
use .Net? I think I remember you or someone else saying that if a program
does use it, it will tell you that you need to install .Net Framework. If I
can do without it entirely, I'd like to.

Thank you!

Jo-Anne

I know one program, CDBurnerXP, that requires .Net Framework. If you
go to their 'download' page and click on 'Help&FAQ' it tells you it
needs Framework to be on your system. Hence I believe a little
investigation before downloading might inform the user as to the
programs requirements. Any well put together program anyway. Perhaps
even the 'readme.txt' would make mention.
I assume any retail disk purchased would have the Net Framework
available if the program absolutely needed it. HTH.

 

[Mayayana]

| I know one program, CDBurnerXP, that requires .Net Framework. If you
| go to their 'download' page and click on 'Help&FAQ' it tells you it
| needs Framework to be on your system

Funny you should mention that. There is, indeed, a lot
of "quick and dirty" software out there that makes
use of the vast object methods available through .Net --
Wrapper software wrapping a wrapper. In general it's
a sign of probable poor quality. (One of the first programs
to switch to .Net was the formerly high-quality Drive Image
made by Powerquest. It used to fit onto a floppy and could
be used to create/restore disk images. After Powerquest
sold to Symantec, Drive Image became a useless XP backup
program that totalled 80+ MB of .Net bloat.)

Just last week I got a copy of the latest Nero CD/DVD
software with a new Samsung CD/DVD writer. It, too
requires .Net. I was going to install it because I had Nero
some years ago and it worked well. But when I found out
it needed .Net I threw away the install CD. Such a gigantic
dependency is absurd just to write CDs! They just can't be
bothered to write the code, instead using .Net objects to
provide the functionality for them.

I downloaded ImgBurn. It's free, only about 5 MB, dependable,
and it's real software. Which is to say that the author actually
writes the code to write CDs/DVDs, rather than just calling a
..Net object to do the job. ImgBurn has no dependencies
other than core Windows system libraries. I've used it on several
PCs without any problems.

Most people probably don't care enough to actually
remove .Net bloat and any dependent software. And Win7
people are stuck with .Net anyway. But for anyone who
doesn't currently have .Net software there will probably
never be any need to be saddled with it on XP. I've yet
to come across any compelling case for installing .Net.
Perhaps if one were over a barrel, with something like a
new printer that won't work without .Net....but I don't know
of any must-have software that requires .Net.

Fortunately, things have reached a point where there
is at least one compact, free, solid, well-written, often
open-source program available for just about every purpose.

 

[Jo-Anne]

I know one program, CDBurnerXP, that requires .Net Framework. If you go to
their 'download' page and click on 'Help&FAQ' it tells you it needs
Framework to be on your system. Hence I believe a little investigation
before downloading might inform the user as to the programs requirements.
Any well put together program anyway. Perhaps even the 'readme.txt' would
make mention.
I assume any retail disk purchased would have the Net Framework available
if the program absolutely needed it. HTH.
--

Thank you, Ed, for the info! Given that you and someone else mentioned some
CD burner programs using .NET, I'll check the one that came with my
laptop--Roxio Creator 9--to see if it does. I hate the Roxio program anyway
and would be happy to replace it with one of the better free ones.

I finally got the Microsoft Support person who contacted me about the .NET
Framework issue to tell me how to get rid of .NET Framework. He pointed me
to the same website others have told me about, and I'll do the uninstall
this weekend. I'm hoping I won't have to re-install any versions of .NET
Framework.

Jo-Anne

 

[Jo-Anne]

| I know one program, CDBurnerXP, that requires .Net Framework. If you
| go to their 'download' page and click on 'Help&FAQ' it tells you it
| needs Framework to be on your system

Funny you should mention that. There is, indeed, a lot
of "quick and dirty" software out there that makes
use of the vast object methods available through .Net --
Wrapper software wrapping a wrapper. In general it's
a sign of probable poor quality. (One of the first programs
to switch to .Net was the formerly high-quality Drive Image
made by Powerquest. It used to fit onto a floppy and could
be used to create/restore disk images. After Powerquest
sold to Symantec, Drive Image became a useless XP backup
program that totalled 80+ MB of .Net bloat.)

Just last week I got a copy of the latest Nero CD/DVD
software with a new Samsung CD/DVD writer. It, too
requires .Net. I was going to install it because I had Nero
some years ago and it worked well. But when I found out
it needed .Net I threw away the install CD. Such a gigantic
dependency is absurd just to write CDs! They just can't be
bothered to write the code, instead using .Net objects to
provide the functionality for them.

I downloaded ImgBurn. It's free, only about 5 MB, dependable,
and it's real software. Which is to say that the author actually
writes the code to write CDs/DVDs, rather than just calling a
.Net object to do the job. ImgBurn has no dependencies
other than core Windows system libraries. I've used it on several
PCs without any problems.

Most people probably don't care enough to actually
remove .Net bloat and any dependent software. And Win7
people are stuck with .Net anyway. But for anyone who
doesn't currently have .Net software there will probably
never be any need to be saddled with it on XP. I've yet
to come across any compelling case for installing .Net.
Perhaps if one were over a barrel, with something like a
new printer that won't work without .Net....but I don't know
of any must-have software that requires .Net.

Fortunately, things have reached a point where there
is at least one compact, free, solid, well-written, often
open-source program available for just about every purpose.

Thank you, Mayayana, for mentioning ImgBurn. I've heard good things about it
and will probably replace my Roxio Creator 9 with it.

Jo-Anne

 

[Jo-Anne]

Hi Jo-Anne
Sound's like you probably have some registry errors In your NET
Framework. I had some problems with updates before. This is what worked
for me. I downloaded the *dotnetfx_cleanup_tool *from here.
http://cid-27e6a35d1a492af7.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Blog_Tools/dotnetfx_cleanup_tool.zip
Basically this tool completly removes all traces of .NET Framework so
that you can do a clean install. Just read the readme file included.
Here is a brief description that you will find in the readme file.
-This .NET Framework cleanup tool is designed to automatically perform a
set of steps to remove selected versions of the .NET Framework from a
computer. It will remove files, directories, registry keys and values
and Windows Installer product registration information for the .NET
Framework. The tool is intended primarily to return your system to a
known (relatively clean) state in case you are encountering .NET
Framework installation, uninstallation, repair or patching errors so
that you can try to install again.-
After running the cleanup tool I did a clean install of .NET Framework
(all versions) and I haven't had any problems since. Hopefully this will
help with your problem also. Anyway it wouldn't hurt to give it a try.

Let me know if this took care of your problem
yukonron

An update: I uninstalled all versions of .NET Framework from my netbook
using the cleanup tool you mentioned here, yukonoron. When I restarted the
computer, I decided to check out as many of my programs as possible--and
discovered that the Filehippo update checker will not run without .NET
Framework. I uninstalled the checker and tried reinstalling it--and at that
point it asked if I wanted to download .NET Framework from the Microsoft
website. When I said no, it pretended to be finished and even put the
shortcut on my desktop--but definitely won't open. So I guess I'll have to
have .NET Framework if I want to use this updater. I'm guessing I can let
Filehippo take me to the Microsoft website for that download--right?

Thank you!

Jo-Anne

 

[Paul]

An update: I uninstalled all versions of .NET Framework from my netbook
using the cleanup tool you mentioned here, yukonoron. When I restarted the
computer, I decided to check out as many of my programs as possible--and
discovered that the Filehippo update checker will not run without .NET
Framework. I uninstalled the checker and tried reinstalling it--and at that
point it asked if I wanted to download .NET Framework from the Microsoft
website. When I said no, it pretended to be finished and even put the
shortcut on my desktop--but definitely won't open. So I guess I'll have to
have .NET Framework if I want to use this updater. I'm guessing I can let
Filehippo take me to the Microsoft website for that download--right?

Thank you!

Jo-Anne

You should get in the practice, of downloading software from the
"mothership", when you can. If you need .NET, get it from Microsoft.

http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/

"What are the requirements?

It requires that the Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 is installed"

These are the versions of .NET I've heard of. I'd be looking for
2.0 SP2.

..NET Framework 1.0
..NET Framework 1.1
..NET Framework 1.1 SP1

..NET Framework 2.0
..NET Framework 2.0 SP1
..NET Framework 2.0 SP2 <---

..NET Framework 3.0
..NET Framework 3.0 SP1
..NET Framework 3.0 SP2

..NET Framework 3.5
..NET Framework 3.5 SP1

..NET Framework 4 Client
..NET Framework 4 Full

Notice how they offer the highest Service Pack of each one,
for download on this page.

http://www.microsoft.com/net/download/earlier-versions

" .NET Framework 2.0 (SP2 latest) "

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/aa731542

On that page, it shows three versions:

NetFx20SP2_ia64.exe 52.0 MB
NetFx20SP2_x64.exe 46.0 MB <--- PC, with 64 bit OS
NetFx20SP2_x86.exe 23.0 MB <--- PC, with 32 bit OS

Odds are, your OS is the 32 bit version. The 64 bit version
of WinXP kinda stinks, and the customer reviews on Newegg
were never too kind to WinXP x64.

Once you've installed the proper version for your OS, then
run Windows Update and check for any other updates. If
Windows Update offers you a copy of 3.5 SP1, ignore it
(or hide the update). I didn't bother to hide mine, and
WinXP is still offering me 3.5 I only do updates
manually, so I get to see that item, on "Patch Tuesday"
(second Tuesday of the month).

HTH,
Paul

 

[Jo-Anne]

You should get in the practice, of downloading software from the
"mothership", when you can. If you need .NET, get it from Microsoft.

http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/

"What are the requirements?

It requires that the Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 is installed"

These are the versions of .NET I've heard of. I'd be looking for
2.0 SP2.

.NET Framework 1.0
.NET Framework 1.1
.NET Framework 1.1 SP1

.NET Framework 2.0
.NET Framework 2.0 SP1
.NET Framework 2.0 SP2 <---

.NET Framework 3.0
.NET Framework 3.0 SP1
.NET Framework 3.0 SP2

.NET Framework 3.5
.NET Framework 3.5 SP1

.NET Framework 4 Client
.NET Framework 4 Full

Notice how they offer the highest Service Pack of each one,
for download on this page.

http://www.microsoft.com/net/download/earlier-versions

" .NET Framework 2.0 (SP2 latest) "

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/aa731542

On that page, it shows three versions:

NetFx20SP2_ia64.exe 52.0 MB
NetFx20SP2_x64.exe 46.0 MB <--- PC, with 64 bit OS
NetFx20SP2_x86.exe 23.0 MB <--- PC, with 32 bit OS

Odds are, your OS is the 32 bit version. The 64 bit version
of WinXP kinda stinks, and the customer reviews on Newegg
were never too kind to WinXP x64.

Once you've installed the proper version for your OS, then
run Windows Update and check for any other updates. If
Windows Update offers you a copy of 3.5 SP1, ignore it
(or hide the update). I didn't bother to hide mine, and
WinXP is still offering me 3.5 I only do updates
manually, so I get to see that item, on "Patch Tuesday"
(second Tuesday of the month).

HTH,
Paul

Thank you, Paul! Yes, my OS is 32 bit. I'll do what you said and download
just .NET Framework 2.0 (SP2) from the Microsoft site. I think Filehippo
would have referred me to that site; but, as you say, it's probably best
that I go there myself. I hope I won't need any of the other .NET Framework
versions for other programs--and I'll definitely hide later versions if they
show up.

Once I make sure the netbook is operating properly with version 2.0, I'll go
ahead and remove all versions from my laptop and then install just 2.0.

Jo-Anne

Jo-Anne

 

[Mayayana]

I don't know anything about update checkers, but
a quick check turns up Sumo, which seems to be
well-reviewed, and doesn't need .Net.

 

[Jo-Anne]

I don't know anything about update checkers, but
a quick check turns up Sumo, which seems to be
well-reviewed, and doesn't need .Net.

Thank you, Mayayana! I do like Filehippo, though. It's been reliable and
quick, so if I can .NET Framework to work OK, I'll continue with it.

Of course, if anyone has had experience with other update checkers, I'd like
to hear about them. I also use Secunia PSI (which doesn't require .NET
Framework)--mainly for security checks. (It lets me know when out-of-date
software might cause security problems.)

Jo-Anne

 

[Jo-Anne]

You should get in the practice, of downloading software from the
"mothership", when you can. If you need .NET, get it from Microsoft.

http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/

"What are the requirements?

It requires that the Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 is installed"

These are the versions of .NET I've heard of. I'd be looking for
2.0 SP2.

.NET Framework 1.0
.NET Framework 1.1
.NET Framework 1.1 SP1

.NET Framework 2.0
.NET Framework 2.0 SP1
.NET Framework 2.0 SP2 <---

.NET Framework 3.0
.NET Framework 3.0 SP1
.NET Framework 3.0 SP2

.NET Framework 3.5
.NET Framework 3.5 SP1

.NET Framework 4 Client
.NET Framework 4 Full

Notice how they offer the highest Service Pack of each one,
for download on this page.

http://www.microsoft.com/net/download/earlier-versions

" .NET Framework 2.0 (SP2 latest) "

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/aa731542

On that page, it shows three versions:

NetFx20SP2_ia64.exe 52.0 MB
NetFx20SP2_x64.exe 46.0 MB <--- PC, with 64 bit OS
NetFx20SP2_x86.exe 23.0 MB <--- PC, with 32 bit OS

Odds are, your OS is the 32 bit version. The 64 bit version
of WinXP kinda stinks, and the customer reviews on Newegg
were never too kind to WinXP x64.

Once you've installed the proper version for your OS, then
run Windows Update and check for any other updates. If
Windows Update offers you a copy of 3.5 SP1, ignore it
(or hide the update). I didn't bother to hide mine, and
WinXP is still offering me 3.5 I only do updates
manually, so I get to see that item, on "Patch Tuesday"
(second Tuesday of the month).

HTH,
Paul

Addendum: I went to the download site above and found the correct download
(the x86--right?). But before downloading the program, I read what Microsoft
had to say, which was that after the download one would need to install the
update KB959209, which fixes .NET Framework 2.0 SP2 issues described in
KB958481. However, the update Microsoft says to install to fix these issues
is for .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, which I don't really want. I read KB958481,
and it looks like the issues have to do with developers, so I'm assuming for
now that I don't need to download KB959209. Do you agree, Paul?

Thank you!

Jo-Anne