todays update with Net framework 3.5

Very strange installing this update. Took forever when the install began. Was
actually wondering if it was going to work at all.
Updates usually never take that long.
Haven't installed this on my other systems yet....kinda made me wonder if
there was some sort of issue with this update.
Anyone else notice this, or have this happen??

Playing expert minesweeper during install does not mess it up -
yeah, the quarter gig .NET framework update takes its sweet time,
like the service pack it is. Nobody's complaining yet it doesn't go in.
Key dll's in 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are revised; 3.0 and 3.5 go in. It's
supposed not to be a security update. I decided not to skip it.

You might want to unlatch the grip it puts on FireFox:
http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-uninstall-microsoft-net-framework-assistant-from-firefox/"Clark" <> wrote in messagenews:A7C283C5-2796-4DCD-8D7B-...> Very strange installing this update. Took forever when the install began. Was> actually wondering if it was going to work at all.> Updates usually never take that long.> Haven't installed this on my other systems yet....kinda made me wonder if> there was some sort of issue with this update.> Anyone else notice this, or have this happen??

http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-un...-from-firefox/

"Clark" <> wrote in message
news:A7C283C5-2796-4DCD-8D7B-...
> Very strange installing this update. Took forever when the install began. Was
> actually wondering if it was going to work at all.
> Updates usually never take that long.
> Haven't installed this on my other systems yet....kinda made me wonder if
> there was some sort of issue with this update.
> Anyone else notice this, or have this happen??

Michael Jennings wrote:

> http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-un...-from-firefox/

Can I just point out that, as far as I can see, this process is completely
unnecessary? Just disable the extension; it will have the same effect.

Harry.

"Harry Johnston [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Michael Jennings wrote:
>
>> http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-un...-from-firefox/
>
> Can I just point out that, as far as I can see, this process is completely
> unnecessary? Just disable the extension; it will have the same effect.

The guy at the website wanted it uninstalled, Harry. That wasn't allowed,
so he found a way and posted it. I passed it along as a possible issue.

Thanks for that information. That pretty much explains why the update takes
so long.
(I hadn't gotten to the Firefox issue yet)

"Clark" wrote:

> Very strange installing this update. Took forever when the install began. Was
> actually wondering if it was going to work at all.
> Updates usually never take that long.
> Haven't installed this on my other systems yet....kinda made me wonder if
> there was some sort of issue with this update.
> Anyone else notice this, or have this happen??

Also....didn't get an option for the Net framework update today on my 64 bit
Vista.....only the usual Defender update. Thought that was a bit odd.....or
is it?

"Michael Jennings" wrote:

> Playing expert minesweeper during install does not mess it up -
> yeah, the quarter gig .NET framework update takes its sweet time,
> like the service pack it is. Nobody's complaining yet it doesn't go in.
> Key dll's in 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are revised; 3.0 and 3.5 go in. It's
> supposed not to be a security update. I decided not to skip it.
>
> You might want to unlatch the grip it puts on FireFox:
> http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-uninstall-microsoft-net-framework-assistant-from-firefox/"Clark" <> wrote in messagenews:A7C283C5-2796-4DCD-8D7B-...> Very strange installing this update. Took forever when the install began. Was> actually wondering if it was going to work at all.> Updates usually never take that long.> Haven't installed this on my other systems yet....kinda made me wonder if> there was some sort of issue with this update.> Anyone else notice this, or have this happen??
>
>

It is not ready yet? The catalog listings include XP x64, but not Vista x64.

The grumbling is about the monster size. Service packs get the "important"
classification - MBSA classifies the malice remover that way and it gets
pushed out sure, but this 951847 actually is a service pack. Be patient.

"Clark" <> wrote in message
news:31E3B506-5746-451F-B0B1-...
> Also....didn't get an option for the Net framework update today on my 64 bit
> Vista.....only the usual Defender update. Thought that was a bit odd.....or
> is it?
>
> "Michael Jennings" wrote:
>
>> Playing expert minesweeper during install does not mess it up -
>> yeah, the quarter gig .NET framework update takes its sweet time,
>> like the service pack it is. Nobody's complaining yet it doesn't go in.
>> Key dll's in 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are revised; 3.0 and 3.5 go in. It's
>> supposed not to be a security update. I decided not to skip it.

Aahhh.....that makes sense. No hurry as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks very much MJ..



"Michael Jennings" wrote:

> It is not ready yet? The catalog listings include XP x64, but not Vista x64.
>
> The grumbling is about the monster size. Service packs get the "important"
> classification - MBSA classifies the malice remover that way and it gets
> pushed out sure, but this 951847 actually is a service pack. Be patient.
>
> "Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:31E3B506-5746-451F-B0B1-...
> > Also....didn't get an option for the Net framework update today on my 64 bit
> > Vista.....only the usual Defender update. Thought that was a bit odd.....or
> > is it?
> >
> > "Michael Jennings" wrote:
> >
> >> Playing expert minesweeper during install does not mess it up -
> >> yeah, the quarter gig .NET framework update takes its sweet time,
> >> like the service pack it is. Nobody's complaining yet it doesn't go in.
> >> Key dll's in 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are revised; 3.0 and 3.5 go in. It's
> >> supposed not to be a security update. I decided not to skip it.
>
>
>

Michael Jennings wrote:

>>> http://wyday.com/blog/2008/how-to-un...-from-firefox/

>> Can I just point out that, as far as I can see, this process is completely
>> unnecessary? Just disable the extension; it will have the same effect.

> The guy at the website wanted it uninstalled, Harry. That wasn't allowed,
> so he found a way and posted it. I passed it along as a possible issue.

Certainly the fact that .NET 3.5 includes a Firefox extension is something folk
should know about. However, I don't think the process described at the web site
is a good idea. For one thing, whenever a .NET 3.5 repair takes place the
extension will probably reappear.

There isn't actually anything to uninstall; the extension is part and parcel of
..NET 3.5, so as far as I can see there's no advantage to be gained by
"uninstalling" rather than disabling it.

(The possible exception is if a system administrator wants to force the
extension to be disabled for all users, although I would guess it would be more
reliable to do this by locking the appropriate preference setting(s).)

Harry.