Thanks for your advice, Robert.
As 3.0 was geared toward Vista, it included 2.0. Whether XP or Vista, 3.0
checks to see if 2.0 is installed &, if not, installs it. I don't recall the
specific error messages I had when trying 3.0 w/o first installing 2.0, but I
surmised at the time that 3.0 MSI was looking for 2.0 directories which it
couldn't find. Explaining this seems to be sharpening my hindsight a bit: 3.0
first tries unsuccessfully to find 2.0 directories, logging an Event error as
it fails. Okay, one question answered: no need to load 2.
Now, if 2.0 SP1 includes the three updates & 3.0 SP1 includes the update,
then only 3.0 & 3.5 need installing.
As 3.5 improves upon the foundation of 3.0, it's possible that installing
3.5 first will work; not sure if it will include 2.0 though. Your
dependencies reasoning seems logical. So when I get the chance I shall
uninstall 2.0 & 3.0 & all updates & try installing 3.5 alone. If this posting
is still on the board, I'll post the results.
Cheers.
--
Joe Davis
"Robert Aldwinckle" wrote:
> "Joe" <> wrote in message
> news:50BBF9B8-862C-4231-B72F-...
> > Can anyone tell me the correct installation order for the following .NET
> > Frameworks:
> >
> > 2
> > 2's three updates
> > 2 SP1
> > 3
> > 3's update
> > 3 SP1
> > 3.5
> >
> > Also, do the SPs include the previously released updates? Can any of the
> > installations eliminate the need for the other? E.g., 3 includes 2 but
> > installing 3 w/o first installing 2 loads my Event Viewer w/multiple error
> > entries.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
>
> I would try installing the 3.5 first. It seems to know what its dependencies are
> and installs/repairs them as needed, e.g. 3.0, etc. FWIW I didn't notice
> and wouldn't expect any dependency on 2.0. I suppose if the update itself
> is implemented as a .NET 2.0 program there could be one but that idea
> strikes me as unlikely.
>
> I don't know if 2.0 is as robust an install or what its implementation is either.
> I'm pretty sure that 2.0 must be completely independent of any 3.0.
>
> What sort of error messages were you getting? I didn't think to look in the
> Event log but found that a manual install actually gives sufficient hints about
> unresolved conflicts (in particular in a separate message window a list of
> other beta products which must be uninstalled before the update would continue.)
> If you are just doing an automatic install the same information is available
> but less accessible in the abundant logs that these .NF updates create or modify.
>
>
> HTH
>
> Robert Aldwinckle
> ---
>
>
>
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
