.NET installation problems.. I must'uv been crazy to bother!

[vhelp]

Hi everyone.

Some of you may know, I dispise installing .NET framework. One of the reasons
is because [s:64fb12419d]MS[/s:64fb12419d] likes to install hooks and other "..you don't need to know.."
nonense reasons.

Well, I decided to swallow my pride and bias, and D/L and Install it. Well, to my
surprise..

If this isn't enough to make one made, I don't know what else there is. I've got
IE (earlier version) and Netscape and Opera on my win98 gold OS system. I am
NOT gonna go D/L one of those partial IE installers and then have to connect
to [s:64fb12419d]MS[/s:64fb12419d] site so that it can look at my system all-the-while it is D/L 'ing
the IE version required by this .NET installer. Not to mention, where to even
find this IE 5.01 version. My dial-up is hurting just from searching and then
D/L 'ing this (dotnetfx.exe) 22 MB size .NET app. I'm just not gonna bother.

No more Snags and Tricks .. Ta HELL with .NET, period!

hehe, just venting frustration.



-vhelp 4405

[Midzuki]

That's really weird, to say the least... O_o

To the best of my memory, I did have Internet Exploder 5.5 installed
on my deceased Win95ed 486, only for ensuring that the pages of my
anific web site would work properly outside of Netscape 4.61
The year was 2000. It looks like geniuses@µicro$oft.com
have been sleeping for too long

=================

[TBoneit]

That's like condeming a school for not letting you take a class that you didn't take the prerequisite classes for.

Win98 comes with IE4 ?
Another route to IE5 . 5.5 or 6 is that it is on the install discs for Works.

I can't believe anyone isn't running IE6 on win98 yet. The easiest way to IE6 is download the approx 500k installer and then let it download the rest.

However your choice.

[dwill123]

... on my win98 gold OS system...

Win98, come on guy it's time to come into the 21st century.

[Midzuki]

The easiest way to IE6 is download the approx 500k installer and then let it download the rest.

Or one can buy an old second-hand magazine whose bonus-CD
includes all IE6 installation files.

=========

[Midzuki]

That's like condeming a school for not letting you take a class that you didn't take the prerequisite classes for.

1) The analogy/comparison could not have been more unfortunate.

2) The main lesson that I have learned from using Internet Exploder is,
Microsoft's wanna-be browser is not good. Earlier versions wanted the
user to believe there was no difference between a web site and a ftp site
(yes, the status bar indicated "web site found" after the DNS server
had just returned the IP address of the ftp server);
IE wants the user to see no difference between a ftp site and a local drive;
IE thinks it is a good idea to be an Internet surfingboard and a file manager
at the same time; IE cannot open a default new window containing the user-defined
start page; IE cannot open links in maximized new windows; IE does not accept
CTRL+S as a keyboard shortcut for saving files; IE simply cannot open a frame
in a new window without a workaround (and I still have not begun to complain).

=======================

[KingSeti]

There is a website, www.oldversion.com, that has the old versions of internet explorer! It does not have 5.1, only 5.5. I found that site looking for an older version of IE since I was having that "runtime error" problem. I ended up reformating two weekends ago and it is doing it again. I now use firefox and gave up on IE. Sorry if i partially highjacked the thread with my rant of IE.

[guns1inger]

It actually says, quite clearly on the .net 2 download page, that IE 5.1 or later is required for any version of .net.

[Midzuki]

It actually says, quite clearly on the .net 2 download page, that IE 5.1 or later is required for any version of .net.

But would they find the courage to admit that such requirement is,
in fact, just an intentional design flaw?

============

[freebird73717]

Hi Vhelp. If you want to try .net apps but don't want to install ms .net you might look at the mono-project. http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

It was designed to let linux systems run .net apps. It now has a windows version so you can run .net apps without having to install .net. If you read up about it and decide you want to try it and dont want to download the 50mb file let me know and I'll send you a cd of it.

[Midzuki]

freebird wrote:

Mono was designed to let linux systems run .net apps. It now has a windows version so you can run .net apps without having to install .net.

I wasn't aware of that. Thank you very much for the info!
Now there is some possibility that I will finally take a look at the beast

==================

[rotten apple]

That's like condeming a school for not letting you take a class that you didn't take the prerequisite classes for.

1) The analogy/comparison could not have been more unfortunate.

2) The main lesson that I have learned from using Internet Exploder is,
Microsoft's wanna-be browser is not good. Earlier versions wanted the
user to believe there was no difference between a web site and a ftp site
(yes, the status bar indicated "web site found" after the DNS server
had just returned the IP address of the ftp server);
IE wants the user to see no difference between a ftp site and a local drive;
IE thinks it is a good idea to be an Internet surfingboard and a file manager
at the same time; IE cannot open a default new window containing the user-defined
start page; IE cannot open links in maximized new windows; IE does not accept
CTRL+S as a keyboard shortcut for saving files; IE simply cannot open a frame
in a new window without a workaround (and I still have not begun to complain).

=======================

Worryingly some of your complaints about IE are actually reasons why i like it(yes i am certified,thanks), mind your description of IE doesn't sound much like my experience of IE6 - do your critiscisms include experience of IE6?
Its a good job you are avoiding Vista IE's 7as you could end up traumatized with the incesant nannying "sans tweak" on top of everything else or alternatively it could it could result in your other IE experiences not seeming as bad anymore

[freebird73717]

I wasn't aware of that. Thank you very much for the info!
Now there is some possibility that I will finally take a look at the beast

No problem!

[hech54]

I had to install .NET for something recently on this old computer and everything went without a hitch.

[gadgetguy]

I had to install .NET for something recently on this old computer and everything went without a hitch.

So, clearly you already had the prerequisites installed.
I think it's a valid question to ask "Why should I have to install/upgrade a seemingly unrelated piece of software that I don't use or want in order to try a software package that I may or may not want to use." You may or may not want to install .net, but why should IE have anything to do with installing the .net framework? The only answer I can come up with is so .net can "phone home". I, for one, am not interested in wasting my bandwidth allowing unnecessary traffic over my internet connection.

[JohnnyMalaria]

When MS releases new versions of IE it includes new Windows API functions that aren't directly related to web browsing but rather more general networking. A significant example is WinINet. It is similar to adding new functions to the operating system itself and so is akin to saying "requires SP2" or "requires WinXP or higher".

The .NET Framework requires WinINet (and others) to provides its own networking functionality. That's all.

When you install IE, it isn't just a browser - it extends the operating system as well in beneficial ways.

The previous comments about the weaknesses of the browser part of IE vs others are irrelevant. You don't have to use it. But if you want to use .NET apps, you need the non-browser components. If you don't want them either, don't use the software.....

[Midzuki]

Groundless M$-supporting propaganda,
as already expected. :P

[JohnnyMalaria]

Why do you say it is groundless?

Just read the MSDN documentation and see how many API functions in XP require IE4 or higher....but they don't force you to use the browser.

Same applies to Sun's JRE. I don't hear the cries of bloatware or monopolistic abuse. Or trying to ram OpenOffice down your throat. I have MS Office, so bugger off, Sun....just give me what I need to view web sites with Java objects. And, please, automatically uninstall the older versions of JRE - MS provide the capability to do it painlessly. 0.5GB is rather a lot.

Ho-hum.

[gadgetguy]

When MS releases new versions of IE it includes new Windows API functions that aren't directly related to web browsing but rather more general networking. A significant example is WinINet. It is similar to adding new functions to the operating system itself and so is akin to saying "requires SP2" or "requires WinXP or higher".

The .NET Framework requires WinINet (and others) to provides its own networking functionality. That's all.

When you install IE, it isn't just a browser - it extends the operating system as well in beneficial ways.

The previous comments about the weaknesses of the browser part of IE vs others are irrelevant. You don't have to use it. But if you want to use .NET apps, you need the non-browser components. If you don't want them either, don't use the software.....

But this is exactly my complaint about how M$ does things. If they are non-browser components, why am I required to install a browser to get them? If they're required for .net, why doesn't the .net installation include them? I am not in favor of installing software I won't use, just so I can get components that are needed for another application. I know hard drive space is cheap these days, but is that an excuse for cluttering it up with files that won't be used?

[JohnnyMalaria]

I understand where you are coming from.

In the .NET case, if you are running XP or later then the other components are already there. If MS bundled them in with the .NET download for pre-XP users then there would be complaints about it being too bloated. I don't know how much of an IE4.0 or 5.x download is non-browser related, though.

[Phlexor]

Wow, talk about paranoia. It's only an operating system. And you should really be patched and fully up to date.

If you hate Microsoft and Windows so much, why are you using it? And if you are going to trot out the often used line of "The tools I use are only available on Windows" then I guess this OS/Company you hate so much is actually somewhat useful and has something better than Linux/OS X.

Hanging on to paranoia like you do makes you look like one of those guys that holes up in the forest in a log cabbin with a cache of guns that would send the government into a panic because you are also slightly unhinged.

No offence of course

[MJPollard]

So, a healthy distrust of a company (Microsoft) that has proven itself to be less than trustworthy time and time again equals paranoia? I'm sure that's not possibly what you meant, as only a blind, ignorant, foolish, narrow-minded Microsoft fanboy would even dare to think such a patently ridiculous thing.

No offense, of course.

[Phlexor]

No, I'm, not a MS fanboy, I'm just a realist over this whole thing.

The thing is, you all call MS the big evil company that is less than honest that is always 'trying" to get you to do things and install this and that. But you still use it?

You all sound like domesticly abused housewives, complaining about the abuse, but still make excuses as to why you aren't leaving. Either it really is that bad and you are just taking it, or its nothing and you just need something to complain about. Poop or get off the pot.

If a lot of you fully upated your BIOS, drivers and OS, you'd find it not so bad. Of course there are going to be a small few of you that will find that your hardware is buggy and nothing will make it run right, but thats PC gear for you.

[vhelp]

Hi guys. And thanks for your comments.

I'm not sure how to replay because some of you feel different about my topic.

But, for what its worth, it would seem that some of you are not aware that
I am not (at least, no longer) attached solely to my WIN98 gold OS. I do
have my XP Home system right next to me, via a KVM switch box, which I
alternate between the two, always -- have them both on and am doing
(jugling) mulitiple projects and things.

My XP Home computer is stricktly for Video Capturing and Encoding. I also
have it set up with Borland's Delphi, a programming language. I use it a lot
because I build many tools, daily/weekly or whenever I need to acomplish
something for a given project. Course, there are those I haven't finished.
But that's another matter. Anyway. Where was I ?? Oh yes..

So, my XP Home is for stickly for Video. That's includes HDTV sources, also.

Now, back to win98 and .NET and my problem(s) with it.

And, some of you are forgeting that I am still on dial-up. I can't afford to
get dsl or cable, etc.

There are still things I'd like to do on my win98 system, but many tools
were made with .NET programming language or another. So, I'm stubern.
And, stubern for a number of reasons. Some, have been logged all over
the internet and forums, etc. I don't need to get into it here with you,
because that is not exactly what this topic is about.

I was just sharing my latest experience with .NET when even, yes, even
when I was willing to let my guard down and D/L it (over slow dial-up) and
then install it. It was all too humiliating, like being slapped in the face
when that message came up. I gave up, and came over here to document
the nonsense I just went through.

So there you have it, and that's the way I wrote it

-vhelp 4407

[JohnnyMalaria]

I also have it set up with Borland's Delphi, a programming language. I use it a lot
because I build many tools, daily/weekly or whenever I need to acomplish
something for a given project.

Cool. The first real language I used with a PC was Borland's Turbo Pascal (in 1987 on a PC with just two 5.25" floppy drives, no hard drive and 640K of RAM!). I love Pascal. For a variety of reasons, though, I am confined to C++. When I first saw Microsoft's C# (geared up for .NET), I thought "what a rip of Pascal". Borland took a somewhat poor language and really developed it.

Don't fall into the Visual Studio quagmire if you can help it!

[lenti_75]

get a life and get Firefox...so much better

and by the way....don't think there is somebody not to afford $15/month for dsl....probably you're paying the same for dial-up.

[mats.hogberg]

When I first saw Microsoft's C# (geared up for .NET), I thought "what a rip of Pascal".

I thought: "What a rip of Java!". The whole architecture (not just c#, but .net FrameWork) is basically designed from the same principles.
All in all; you must have MFC to run MS C++ apps. You must have VB Runtime to run Visual Basic apps. You must have JRE to run Java apps. You must have .net framework to run .net apps. Being left out in the cold using W98 should come as no surprise. I'm more amazed MS at all makes .net framework available to this old branch of their products. And no - I'm not a MS fanboy. But they sure make good development tools.

/Mats

[hech54]

I had to install .NET for something recently on this old computer and everything went without a hitch.

So, clearly you already had the prerequisites installed.
I think it's a valid question to ask "Why should I have to install/upgrade a seemingly unrelated piece of software that I don't use or want in order to try a software package that I may or may not want to use."

I don't know nor do I care what version of IE I have because I no longer use it. I installed .net more recently than I have upgraded IE and again.....all went without a hitch.

So.....you were saying?

[gadgetguy]

I was saying that since your install went without a hitch, you must have already had the prerequisites installed. .NET doesn't require the latest IE, just a newer one than vhelp has installed. Obviously he abandoned IE before you did. That's what I was saying. Simply an explanation of why your two experiences were different.

I thought, since your install went without a hitch, that you would recognize that the rest of the comments weren't a response to you, but rather a confirmation of vhelp's frustration.

[vhelp]

Hi guys.

I might give .NET another go. I found ver 1.0 or whatever, on one of my external
USB drives. I think it was from 2005 or 2006, I'm not sure. Anyway. I was going
to test it over the weekend, but my USB hub gave out on me and my WIN98 sys
and won't work anymore. But, luck turned out ok with me. I just found out I have
USB on my ECS K7S5A mobo and it is working ok. I'm not sure if its 1.0 or 2.0,
speak'wise. But, I do hope it is 2.0 speed. I can't find my manual at the moment,
and am too lazy to bother searching via the internet.

But then I found out that one of the .NET tools I want to try is telling me that I
need Windows version 4.1 -- WTF !! Anyway. As you can see I'm having
a ball at being slapped around by [s:6e140fc204]MS[/s:6e140fc204] buricrats. Oh well. If I make any
headway, I'll report back my [s:6e140fc204]failure[/s:6e140fc204], I mean, success.

Cheers,
-vhelp 4409