.NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Dmitriy Zaslavskiy — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:04:00 GMT

Doesn't XP SP2 includes those?

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Shawn — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 05:43:00 GMT

XPSP2 has these as an optional install on the CD, however for people on Win2k, NT4, Win9x, or Win2k3 (or those on XP who haven't gotten SP2 yet), you can now get them on Windows Update as well.

-Shawn

This week...

Teucer's Quiver — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:46:00 GMT

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

graye — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:10:00 GMT

I'm getting several reports from folks who can't install one or both of the framework updates. The symptoms are the same... the install just stops

Any official word on this?

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Shawn — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:28:00 GMT

No official word that I know of, but if you'd like to report your problem on the Product Feeback Center (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productFeedback/), someone from the setup team will be able to take a look at it.

-Shawn

DOTNETFX.EXE?

Eugene — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:34:00 GMT

Any chance of the runtime redistributable update?

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Shawn — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:37:00 GMT

Sorry Eugene, at this point you need to download the original DotNetFx.exe, and then also download the patch. I'm not on the redist team, so I cannot say for sure if we intend to distribute a fully patched redist at some point.

I can recommend submitting this feedback on the Product Feedback Center, and someone closer to the situation will be able to let you know what the plans in that area are. (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/)

-Shawn

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the GC

.Net Security Blog — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:06:00 GMT

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Nave — Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:25:00 GMT

It seems that there is problem when trying to deserialize a strcut which is stored in an assembly which has a strong name while using remoteing.
The problem only happens in framework 1.0 with SP3.
classes in the same assembly are being remoted successfully, the struct doesn't.
It didn't happen when SP2 was installed.

Any chance there has been some security changes on that issue?

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Shawn — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:13:00 GMT

Hi Nave,

There's no security change that I know of there, however that doesn't mean that there wasn't one that was made by the serialization guys. You might want to check the full changelist (linked to above) to see if something looks like it might have caused it. If you feel this is a bug, you might also want to use the Product Feedback Center (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/) to file a bug report.

-Shawn

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

robert smith — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:48:00 GMT

Why isn't the 1.1 SP1 (ok and the 1.0 sp3) considered a critical update on Windows Update? The new v5 Windows Update is confusing many of my users because they seem to fear the Custom Install as being "over their heads"

If the SPs include security fixes/updates then don't they qualify for being included in the "Critical Updates" section and thus always shown in the Exrpess option?

I think it would go a lot farther as a trusted platform among non-geeks if Windows Update implied that it was a needed part of the OS for all users, and that updates to the framework were Obviously important.

I've read a number of news posts in non-dev (regular folks) groups that tell people that they "don't need the .Net updates if they don't have any .Net programs" ... followed by users asking how they would know if they had any ... followed by instructions to check the registry or look for the framework folder in thier Windows directory. And, as I watch users, they just give up and ignore it.

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Joe — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:12:00 GMT

Whne installing the 1.1 SP1 update, some users are getting an exception error:

"SL436D.tmp - Common Language Runtime Debuggin Sevices

Application has generated an exception that could not be handled"

any ideas?

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

xgman — Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:10:00 GMT

This happened to me on 1.0 SP3. Why do I need .net 1.0 sp3 if I have .net 1.1 installed. Do we need bot 1.0 and 1.1 together? After a sucessfull 1.1 install, Windows Update still shows .net 1.0 sp3 as needed. why?

.NET 1.0 SP 3 Generated Exception

Perry Lund — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:16:00 GMT

I recently responded to client how had exception errors installing under Windows 2000. I have three identical Micron PCs running Windows 2000 and I can not get them to update to .NET Framework 1.0 Service Pack 3.

I get a message that Application has gernerated an exception. I have downloaded the update to desktop and tried installing the update directly. The same exception message occurs.

The basic error message says - "SL3.tmp - application has generated an exception.

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

xgman — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:39:00 GMT

Someone must have a clue about this a MS. ??

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

xgman — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:40:00 GMT

are all the computers having problems with SP3 Athlon 64's by chance?

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Shawn — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:53:00 GMT

Lots of comments over the weekend :-) OK, one at a time:

1. The reason you need 1.0 SP3 as well as 1.1 SP1 is that .NET 1.0 installs side-by-side with .NET 1.1 (ie, they're both on your computer at the same time). 1.1 SP 1 does not include the 1.0 SP 3 bits, since having v1.1 does not guarantee that v1.0 is installed on your machine. If you'd like to see that you have both versions, check out %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework .... the v1.0.3705 directory is v1.0, v1.1.4322 is v1.1

2. I'm not sure about errors installing the framework. You can file a bug report via the Product Feeback Center (http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/), or by calling PSS directly (http://www.microsoft.com/support).

3. Not sure if this is relevant to your case, but the only way that v1.0 and 1.1 of the CLR will work on an Athlon 64 is if it is running in 32 bit mode. .NET will not support 64 bit operation until v2.0.

-Shawn

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

xgman — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:03:00 GMT

yes 32 bit mode, but my A64 box is the only one that it won't install on. Seems like enough people are having the same install error issues for MS to figure out what's hanging it up.

I sent a bug report referencing this thread as well.

Was that really necessary?

Franci Penov — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:31:00 GMT

Was that really necessary?

Franci Penov — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:10:00 GMT

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Andy — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:17:00 GMT

It appears that while this is a "Critical Update," it isn't being pushed by automatic updates. Can you confirm if that is the case?

I'm concerned because our entire network is loaded with .NET dependent software, which is broken by the fixes applied to 1.0 SP3. So far we have had no problems except on machines where the update was manually applied via the windowsupdate site.

Granted, for a business our size (150+ employees, 200+ workstations) we should consider completely turning off the automatic updates and implement our own patch-management solution.

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

Don Streng — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:45:53 GMT

Is XPe advertised as just like XP Pro, but then when updates are done for .NET stuff etc... XPe is never listed as supported even though in theory it should be the same as XP Pro. I tried to install the .NET 1.1 SP1 but it says that the program to be updated is missing.
In the C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework folder I have some sub folders labelled v.1.0.3705 and v1.1.4322 so it looks to me like I've got the stuff installed. What's the update looking for?
A useful error message with info. about exactly what it wants would be helpful. Anyone have a clue?

re: .NET 1.0 SP 3 and .NET 1.1 SP 1 Released

DHARMALINGAM — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:47:21 GMT

Registered JIT debugger not available