Loop Installing .NET 1.1 SP1 when .NET 2.0 also installed

On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643

However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
installed?

Is that part of the problem?

"TwisterCentral" <> wrote in message
news:29B34155-4D25-43DA-89BB-...
> On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
> However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> installed?
>
> Is that part of the problem?

I'm not an expert here but I use Vista and had a problem with the latest
Update for NET 1.1.
I uninstalled it, the problem went away. Since I didn't know much, well,
anything, about NET 1.1 I posted a question at
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework and rec'd the following:

Any applications which require the .NET framework should make it easy
to get hold of - but as you're running Vista, you'll still have 3.0
installed even if you've uninstalled 1.1. Having 1.1 installed can be
useful very occasionally if you've got an app which has some
compatibility issues with later versions of the framework - but such
apps are *relatively* few and far between.

Jon

I am having the exact problem and I have not found any reference or solution
that pertains to me.

"TwisterCentral" wrote:

> On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
> However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> installed?
>
> Is that part of the problem?

If this is a problem that's dogged you for a while (not just in the past 24
hours), try the fix here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100 (ignore the
title)
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L.ORG http://66.39.69.143/

TwisterCentral wrote:
> On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
> However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> installed?
>
> Is that part of the problem?

-I am having the same issue and tried the MS reccomended fix which did not
fix the problem I am now going to try this as it seems to from the reply to
work

"Dave Horne" wrote:

>
> "TwisterCentral" <> wrote in message
> news:29B34155-4D25-43DA-89BB-...
> > On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> > are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> > continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> > I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> > How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
> >
> > However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> > installed?
> >
> > Is that part of the problem?
>
> I'm not an expert here but I use Vista and had a problem with the latest
> Update for NET 1.1.
> I uninstalled it, the problem went away. Since I didn't know much, well,
> anything, about NET 1.1 I posted a question at
> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework and rec'd the following:
>
> Any applications which require the .NET framework should make it easy
> to get hold of - but as you're running Vista, you'll still have 3.0
> installed even if you've uninstalled 1.1. Having 1.1 installed can be
> useful very occasionally if you've got an app which has some
> compatibility issues with later versions of the framework - but such
> apps are *relatively* few and far between.
>
> Jon
>
>

Yep, I'm having the same issue with XP SP2. I've e-mailed MSN and haven't
gotten any reply yet. Judging by the number of posts from yesterday and
today it appears there's an obvious issue with the software.

"TwisterCentral" wrote:

> On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
> However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> installed?
>
> Is that part of the problem?

Yup, me too with XP SP2, judging by the# of related posts it looks like
there's an issue with the update, not us.

"TwisterCentral" wrote:

> On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
> However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> installed?
>
> Is that part of the problem?

I got rid of the looping by downloading and installing it manually. I think
it was this one:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885055

"TwisterCentral" wrote:

> On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
> However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> installed?
>
> Is that part of the problem?

I downloaded manually as well, and that worked. I am still curious
about why Microsoft's automated update didn't work.


On Nov 29, 8:13 pm, Lan101 <Lan...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I got rid of the looping by downloading and installing it manually. I think
> it was this one:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885055
>
>
>
> "TwisterCentral" wrote:
> > On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> > are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> > continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> > I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> > How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> >http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
> > However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> > installed?
>
> > Is that part of the problem?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Lan101
I went nuts for two days with the same problem and your solution fixed it
right away !
Tks for making it easy by posting the precise link.
Rgds



"Lan101" wrote:

> I got rid of the looping by downloading and installing it manually. I think
> it was this one:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885055
>
> "TwisterCentral" wrote:
>
> > On XP SP2 I get into a loop where updates
> > are continuously available, and the .NET 1.1 SP1
> > continuously fails. I see that I also have .NET 2.0 installed.
> > I see there is a KB article on .NET 1.1 installation issues:
> > How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
> >
> > However, Is it necessary to have both .NET 1.1 and 2.0
> > installed?
> >
> > Is that part of the problem?