.NET isn't all cake
-
Cay had some problems installing .NET: The grass isn't greener on the other side[^] I've also had some problems installing the various .NET versions - it can get pretty awful. I must say that I've never had any issues installing Java. I still wouldn't give up developing in -NET though (especially if the alternative was JSP and Servlets....yikes).
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
I mean developing desktop apps on Java is a joke. And now with WPF on the horizon they are left behind big time (although let's see what happens with JavaFX).
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandWell, if you look at it that way, even Java applets seem to be widely deprecated by comparison to Flash. The one thing about Java that still survives is J2ME and other mobile-related stuff. But that's also slowly being rendered useless by the newer Symbian and Windows CE technologies. Otherwise, if you look at it, Java is slowly taking the path of the assembly language.
-
Cay had some problems installing .NET: The grass isn't greener on the other side[^] I've also had some problems installing the various .NET versions - it can get pretty awful. I must say that I've never had any issues installing Java. I still wouldn't give up developing in -NET though (especially if the alternative was JSP and Servlets....yikes).
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandI never faced any problem while installing .Net. Please learn how to install and prerequisites and all:)
Regards, Sylvester G sylvester_g_m@yahoo.com
-
Cay had some problems installing .NET: The grass isn't greener on the other side[^] I've also had some problems installing the various .NET versions - it can get pretty awful. I must say that I've never had any issues installing Java. I still wouldn't give up developing in -NET though (especially if the alternative was JSP and Servlets....yikes).
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandHad some problems getting asp.net to work after installing .net before iis... This is my first post, so hello everyone:)
-
From the looks of it, the system on which Cay tried to install .NET has two problems: 1) It probably has some incorrect registry settings, making setup think .NET framework is already installed 2) It doesn't have enough disk space for the installation. This is not setup's fault
- The problem seems more like: Installer sends user to Windows Update to install 1.1 Windows Update says "Oh great, here's the newest and latest version - 2.0!" 2) I've seen such erros wiht wnough disk space often enough. I guess that's just some fun with MSI.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
- The problem seems more like: Installer sends user to Windows Update to install 1.1 Windows Update says "Oh great, here's the newest and latest version - 2.0!" 2) I've seen such erros wiht wnough disk space often enough. I guess that's just some fun with MSI.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistWell, I'm sure every project, even MSI is flawless in concept... But I have yet to see a product perform perfectly in runtime. The fact that MS didn't stick to their policy in making products backwards compatible, regarding the .NET Framework comes as a complete surprise to me. Maybe they finally realized that there's no glory in keeping compatibility with their own screw-ups. I do remember that installing 2.0 over 1.1 didn't remove 1.1 but I had no idea they were incompatible.:wtf: I remember good ol' Windows 3.11's Setup had an INI file which specified the size of each component being installed. It allowed for adding custom components for creating custom Windows setups, but the sizes specified in that INI file were used to compute the total size of the installation. From that to MSI there's a long way, but it just makes you wonder if maybe MSI uses the same concept internally...:confused::~
-
Cay had some problems installing .NET: The grass isn't greener on the other side[^] I've also had some problems installing the various .NET versions - it can get pretty awful. I must say that I've never had any issues installing Java. I still wouldn't give up developing in -NET though (especially if the alternative was JSP and Servlets....yikes).
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandHi! I've been fiddling with .NET since 2002, have installed .NET (1.0, 1.1. AND 2.0) on many customer PCs and had exactly one occasion where the framework setup didn't run through flawlessly. It was a customer's PC with Norton InSecure running at that time and the effect was that the setup froze in the middle of installing. Disabling Norton fixed the problem. But you can hardly blame MS for Norton interfering, can you?
Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...
-
From the looks of it, the system on which Cay tried to install .NET has two problems: 1) It probably has some incorrect registry settings, making setup think .NET framework is already installed 2) It doesn't have enough disk space for the installation. This is not setup's fault
.NET Framework 2.0 is already installed on Windows Vista. .NET 1.1 is not, and is not available through Windows Update for Windows Vista. The messages telling you to get it from there are bound into the
setup.exeso obviously are unaware of this change. Any developer working with .NET should be aware that to get the runtime you deploy the package described as '.NET Framework n.n Redistributable'. There's a slight wrinkle on Windows Server 2003 that because .NET 1.1 is part of the operating system, and under System File Protection, that an OS hotfix is required to update it; therefore there's a separate package for .NET 1.1 SP1 on Windows Server 2003. Windows Installer error message 2869 is "The dialog [2] has the error style bit set, but is not an error dialog." What this actually means is that a different error occurred, but the package didn't contain a correct error dialog, so Windows Installer can't show the real error. This is because Visual Studio writes very poor MSIs. One of the most common problems on Windows Vista is that any custom actions that your package might contain aren't marked to not impersonate the user (sorry for the double-negative - you set the attribute 'No Impersonate'). When impersonated, the custom action runs as the user running the package, but is not elevated, even if you ran the package elevated. You are strongly advised not to use custom actions where possibly avoidable, and not to write them in managed code if you do. Visual Studio doesn't help by requiring you to use their Installer classes to install a service, where in fact this is natively supported by Windows Installer.Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Well, I'm sure every project, even MSI is flawless in concept... But I have yet to see a product perform perfectly in runtime. The fact that MS didn't stick to their policy in making products backwards compatible, regarding the .NET Framework comes as a complete surprise to me. Maybe they finally realized that there's no glory in keeping compatibility with their own screw-ups. I do remember that installing 2.0 over 1.1 didn't remove 1.1 but I had no idea they were incompatible.:wtf: I remember good ol' Windows 3.11's Setup had an INI file which specified the size of each component being installed. It allowed for adding custom components for creating custom Windows setups, but the sizes specified in that INI file were used to compute the total size of the installation. From that to MSI there's a long way, but it just makes you wonder if maybe MSI uses the same concept internally...:confused::~
.NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 are supposed to be installed side-by-side. This has always been documented. The intent is to avoid 'DLL Hell', where an application installing a newer version of a shared component breaks old applications, because the component is not truly compatible. If you really want to, you can force 1.1 applications to run on 2.0 by means of a setting in the .exe.config file. A lot of applications will be fine with this, but it does need testing.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
You mean Java as in the runtime (JRE) or SDK (JDK) or some kind of IDE? I've never heard of a desktop in JRE and JDK.:confused:
-
-
.NET Framework 2.0 is already installed on Windows Vista. .NET 1.1 is not, and is not available through Windows Update for Windows Vista. The messages telling you to get it from there are bound into the
setup.exeso obviously are unaware of this change. Any developer working with .NET should be aware that to get the runtime you deploy the package described as '.NET Framework n.n Redistributable'. There's a slight wrinkle on Windows Server 2003 that because .NET 1.1 is part of the operating system, and under System File Protection, that an OS hotfix is required to update it; therefore there's a separate package for .NET 1.1 SP1 on Windows Server 2003. Windows Installer error message 2869 is "The dialog [2] has the error style bit set, but is not an error dialog." What this actually means is that a different error occurred, but the package didn't contain a correct error dialog, so Windows Installer can't show the real error. This is because Visual Studio writes very poor MSIs. One of the most common problems on Windows Vista is that any custom actions that your package might contain aren't marked to not impersonate the user (sorry for the double-negative - you set the attribute 'No Impersonate'). When impersonated, the custom action runs as the user running the package, but is not elevated, even if you ran the package elevated. You are strongly advised not to use custom actions where possibly avoidable, and not to write them in managed code if you do. Visual Studio doesn't help by requiring you to use their Installer classes to install a service, where in fact this is natively supported by Windows Installer.Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Cay had some problems installing .NET: The grass isn't greener on the other side[^] I've also had some problems installing the various .NET versions - it can get pretty awful. I must say that I've never had any issues installing Java. I still wouldn't give up developing in -NET though (especially if the alternative was JSP and Servlets....yikes).
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandElixirs were never sweet to taste with but their results are eternally sweet.:)
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
-
Cay had some problems installing .NET: The grass isn't greener on the other side[^] I've also had some problems installing the various .NET versions - it can get pretty awful. I must say that I've never had any issues installing Java. I still wouldn't give up developing in -NET though (especially if the alternative was JSP and Servlets....yikes).
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandSounds to me like the application itself is messed up, not .NET. And he installed the .NET 1.1 SDK? Doesn't sound like the brightest bulb in the drawer. (Again, why dimwits create blogs so they can let the world know how dumb they are is beyond me.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke