Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I removed .Net framework, all versions, then installed 2.0 and the patch
installed. When I went back to Windows update it said I needed the 1.1
service pack for .Net but it wouldn’t install. I tried using a downloaded
package and it said the program you are trying to update may not be
installed. Do I need .Net 1.1 if 2.0 is installed? If so why does windows
update only show the service pack and not .Net 1.1? The first time I
installed 2.0 it seemed to render 1.1 and the uninstall link useless, I had
to zap the registry to get rid of it.

1st question -
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...terious/115712
The Eggcellent Egg Eggsplained
….. the egg came first……… Eggs existed before chickens were chickens. They
were not the first to lay them.

2nd question - Yes, you'll need both Framework versions.
Preferably it would have been better to install Framework 1.1 and its
updates and then go and get Framework 2 and its updates. Apparently they
co-exist together.

How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643


"_scar_" wrote:

> I removed .Net framework, all versions, then installed 2.0 and the patch
> installed. When I went back to Windows update it said I needed the 1.1
> service pack for .Net but it wouldn’t install. I tried using a downloaded
> package and it said the program you are trying to update may not be
> installed. Do I need .Net 1.1 if 2.0 is installed? If so why does windows
> update only show the service pack and not .Net 1.1? The first time I
> installed 2.0 it seemed to render 1.1 and the uninstall link useless, I had
> to zap the registry to get rid of it.

That’s what I thought but if certain groups were involved, I won’t mention
names, I’d have to say the chicken. I had 1.1 then the 1.1 service pack then
2.0 and the 2.0 pack wouldn’t install. A Microsoft article noted this problem
and said to remove all and reinstall 2.0 first. Maybe it forgot to say 1.1
first.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;923100 Oh well, I
guess I’ll try again some other time and stand on my head while facing away
form the screen. Maybe not, and it doesn’t explain why the service pack shows
up but not 1.1, I guess that’s like the chicken and chicken egg question, we
can only speculate
At least now I know I need 1.1 now, I was hoping I didn’t. I wish they would
consider integrating some updates like that, I can see it now, more problems.

Thanks for the help

"TaurArian" wrote:

> 1st question -
> http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...terious/115712
> The Eggcellent Egg Eggsplained
> ….. the egg came first……… Eggs existed before chickens were chickens. They
> were not the first to lay them.
>
> 2nd question - Yes, you'll need both Framework versions.
> Preferably it would have been better to install Framework 1.1 and its
> updates and then go and get Framework 2 and its updates. Apparently they
> co-exist together.
>
> How to troubleshoot Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installation issues
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824643
>
>
> "_scar_" wrote:
>
> > I removed .Net framework, all versions, then installed 2.0 and the patch
> > installed. When I went back to Windows update it said I needed the 1.1
> > service pack for .Net but it wouldn’t install. I tried using a downloaded
> > package and it said the program you are trying to update may not be
> > installed. Do I need .Net 1.1 if 2.0 is installed? If so why does windows
> > update only show the service pack and not .Net 1.1? The first time I
> > installed 2.0 it seemed to render 1.1 and the uninstall link useless, I had
> > to zap the registry to get rid of it.

"TaurArian" <> wrote in message
news:E4796D8A-834D-41D8-B781-...
> 1st question -
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...terious/115712
> The Eggcellent Egg Eggsplained
> ... the egg came first... Eggs existed before chickens were chickens. They
> were not the first to lay them.


Hi TaurArian
Of course the egg came first - I thought everyone knew that ;-)

Antioch

If anyone is having the same problem I did some more research. To quote from
this article- http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;829019
“You may have several versions of the .NET Framework installed on your
computer. Each version of the .NET Framework can co-exist with the other
versions on the computer.

Note Most of the time you can use the latest version of the .NET Framework
to run applications that were created in earlier versions of the .NET
Framework.�

It appears to state that these versions are independent of each other and
you only need an older version if certain software relies on it. Windows
Update was indicating I needed to patch an earlier version of it because all
reference to it wasn’t removed. Re-installing it after the later version
solved this problem and hopefully the un-install link will work correctly
next time.

"_scar_" wrote:

> I removed .Net framework, all versions, then installed 2.0 and the patch
> installed. When I went back to Windows update it said I needed the 1.1
> service pack for .Net but it wouldn’t install. I tried using a downloaded
> package and it said the program you are trying to update may not be
> installed. Do I need .Net 1.1 if 2.0 is installed? If so why does windows
> update only show the service pack and not .Net 1.1? The first time I
> installed 2.0 it seemed to render 1.1 and the uninstall link useless, I had
> to zap the registry to get rid of it.

<grin>

--

==================================
TaurArian [MS-MVP] 2005-2007 - Australia
==================================
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
Need more help? http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=ph;en-us;6527
(Links to web pages and MSKB Articles are posted for the purposes of keeping the
information current)


"antioch" <> wrote in message
news:...
|
| "TaurArian" <> wrote in message
| news:E4796D8A-834D-41D8-B781-...
| > 1st question -
| http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...terious/115712
| > The Eggcellent Egg Eggsplained
| > ... the egg came first... Eggs existed before chickens were chickens. They
| > were not the first to lay them.
|
|
| Hi TaurArian
| Of course the egg came first - I thought everyone knew that ;-)
|
| Antioch
|
|