Re: 12 hour update!
- From: "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <onsitechsolutions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:25:17 -0600
"Sky King" <skyking@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ek8SJXz5FHA.3592@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
>> Tom.. if James received "2 critical updates" from AU... then I doubt
>> either was .NET Framework v2.0, which should be an /optional/ update
>> only available from WU/MU.
>
> I think the two updates offered this week were these two:
> 1. Security Update for Windows XP (KB896424)
> 2. Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)
The .NET Framework would /NOT/ be offered as an update via Automatic Updates,
any more than it is available via SUS or WSUS. The .NET Framework (any
version), is an /optional/ update and requires a visit to Windows Update or
Microsoft Update using Custom mode to access optional updates.
As confirmation, I just dropped into Microsoft Update from this system, and
was offered one update: KB896424. (I've already run the MSRT installation. The
MSRT would be the second "critical" update offered via Express updates with
AU/WU/MU services, as it has been every month in the past half dozen.)
> The one getting the most fail posts here is the second one (the .NET 2.0
> update).
There have been issues with installing the .NET Framework v2.0 (most notably
on users who had the /beta/ package installed and weren't aware of the
requirements to uninstall). However, I've not seen anything which indicates
that update came from "Automatic Updates".
>> I suspect the second update that failed is the MSRT, which a lot of
>> people have been having issues installing, both via AU as well as
>> WU/MU.
>
> Entirely possible. Yet given that the MSRT has been a monthly event for
> many months now, it is more likely that the .NET update was the second
> update that James saw.
The two are not related. The .NET Framework will not be offered via Automatic
Updates. The MSRT definitely will.
> Of course I gladly agree that my guess was just that...a guess. :)
:-)
>> I don't know (yet) why that issue comes about. I did not encounter
>> any issues installing the MSRT (November) on my own system.
>
> Same for most folks. Yet many had a problem installing the .NET 2.0 update,
> mostly because they had installed a Beta version some time in the past. MS
> nearly made it a requirement to have the Beta of .NET 2.0 installed in order
> to fix various other issues over the past 2-4 months.
I'm sorry. I don't recall any issues where installing the /beta/ version of
software has ever been a Microsoft-authorized "fix" for anything. However, it
is true that Visual Studio 2005 (Whidbey) and SQL Server 2005 (Yukon) betas
and CTPs were widely spread throughout the world, and both of those packages
installed the .NET Framework v2.0 beta code.
I'd be interested in more information about specific issues that were
suggested to be resolved by installing the beta version of the .NET Framework.
> Again, that was just my guess. But a lot of posts here confirm that the
> .NET 2.0 push was the one that caused a lot of problems for folks who had
> the Beta installed.
>
> Since the OP did not specify what two updates were offered, I made the
> guess. If James indeed had some other item as the second update, following
> my suggestion to install the .NET 2.0 package manually will not hurt
> anything. :)
Unless he also has problems installing /that/ package. :-)
> --
>
> ...Sky
>
> Tom "Sky" King
> =============
>
>
.
- References:
- Re: 12 hour update!
- From: Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
- Re: 12 hour update!
- From: Sky King
- Re: 12 hour update!
- Prev by Date: Re: Net Framework 2.0
- Next by Date: Re: KB896688 update
- Previous by thread: Re: 12 hour update!
- Next by thread: Re: 12 hour update!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
