.NET Framework 1.1

Hans Manhave · February 24, 2015, 06:02:06 PM

Is this a must with Windows 7 Pro 64bit? The install complains that it has "known issues". Does Applied Systems really want us to install that? I cannot get a call from them so I'm asking here. Is there special Win7 64bit version of this?

Jeff Zylstra · February 25, 2015, 09:43:45 AM

As I remember the answer WAS yes, even though I was on .NET 3.0 or something at the time, the install still required .NET 1.1. I think I installed it off from a subfolder in the Wintam folder on the server. If I remember correctly invoices and/or forms use 1.1 and you will get problems generating, viewing and printing them without it. That was a couple of years ago now, so it may have changed. I hope it did, but knowing Applied, maybe not.

Jeff Golas · February 25, 2015, 10:10:23 AM

Dont get me started on this...

Hans Manhave · February 25, 2015, 10:30:19 AM

Yep, confirmed. It does need .NET 1.1. I guess the install file never got updated to not look for it. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." (I don't recall who said that or where it is from, but it sounds good at this time while the snow is falling like I'm New York instead of East Texas.

Jan Regnier · February 25, 2015, 11:08:55 AM

Hans...snow in Texas is JUST NOT RIGHT... No it is not!

Jeff Zylstra · February 25, 2015, 12:19:12 PM

Quote from: Jeff Golas on February 25, 2015, 10:10:23 AM
Dont get me started on this...

Although I don't know much about .NET, it would seem to me that having old, outdated software of this kind would open a vulnerability of sorts. Why not take care of this and uninstall it at the next program revision?

Jeff Golas · February 25, 2015, 03:03:39 PM

Not to mention it ADDS HOURS of unnecessary updates and patches to every workstation for no good reason. While I'm not a programmer, I believe all the newer .net's support the older ones, however the software has to be written to recognize the newer versions.

So yeah a fresh out of the box windows install needs at least 2-3 hours of updates and patches to be loaded, at least a solid third of those are thanks to .net 1.1.

Jeff

Quote from: Jeff Zylstra on February 25, 2015, 12:19:12 PM
Quote from: Jeff Golas on February 25, 2015, 10:10:23 AM
Dont get me started on this...

Although I don't know much about .NET, it would seem to me that having old, outdated software of this kind would open a vulnerability of sorts. Why not take care of this and uninstall it at the next program revision?

Hans Manhave · February 26, 2015, 11:15:12 AM

Downgrading Win7 also creates complaints from other programs. I noticed this morning that one reported it needed to be re-installed. It appears to be fine without re-installing, but it is not helpful. Maybe version 14.x will not care about this anymore. I have to get there first though.

Jeff Zylstra · February 26, 2015, 11:37:01 AM

Quote from: Jeff Golas on February 25, 2015, 03:03:39 PM
Not to mention it ADDS HOURS of unnecessary updates and patches to every workstation for no good reason. While I'm not a programmer, I believe all the newer .net's support the older ones, however the software has to be written to recognize the newer versions.

So yeah a fresh out of the box windows install needs at least 2-3 hours of updates and patches to be loaded, at least a solid third of those are thanks to .net 1.1.

Jeff

So that's what is bloating my WSUS install! All I have is Windows 7 Pro, Server 2008 R2, and Office 2010 and 2013 updates, and my WSUS update files are something like 120 Gigs AFTER I've run the cleanup procedure in WSUS. I think that is a bit much. I wish Microsoft would issue a SP2 or whatever for Windows 7, Server, or Office versions to reduce the amount of disk space. I thought that the "roll ups" were supposed to incorporate most of these updates, but apparently not.

I think I'm going to do a PMR or whatever you call it now days, to remove any and all traces of .NET 1.1. If we many of us do it, maybe we can get it changed. If it is NOT necessary, maybe Conan or someone can let us know? Where has Conan been lately? I haven't seen him post for months now!

Quote from: Jeff Zylstra on February 25, 2015, 12:19:12 PM
Quote from: Jeff Golas on February 25, 2015, 10:10:23 AM
Dont get me started on this...

Although I don't know much about .NET, it would seem to me that having old, outdated software of this kind would open a vulnerability of sorts. Why not take care of this and uninstall it at the next program revision?

Jeff Golas · February 26, 2015, 02:04:09 PM

The problem with WSUS is you can't differentiate between families, so I'm constantly having to decline all the "Itanium" stuff. I wish I could just blank shut them off as we'll never have Itanium anything here.

Jim Jensen · February 26, 2015, 02:40:24 PM

Quote from: Jeff Golas on February 26, 2015, 02:04:09 PM
The problem with WSUS is you can't differentiate between families, so I'm constantly having to decline all the "Itanium" stuff. I wish I could just blank shut them off as we'll never have Itanium anything here.

Since I don't have many stations to support, this is why I ended up turning off WSUS. I was declining more than I was accepting. I didn't have any 64-bit stations either, so I was declining Itanium entirely plus all 64-bit updates. WSUS required more time to approve and parse updates than I have ever spent back out any updates. I suppose if I had a lot more stations it would be a different scenario.

Jeff Zylstra · February 26, 2015, 02:56:46 PM

I found that users were somehow either getting out of the "automated" updates, shutdown their machines, or the machines were sleeping when it was time to apply updates, so it seemed I never had 2 machines that had the same updates applied, which caused all kinds of issues trying to diagnose things. Windows Updates over the web is OK for 5 machines, but I also always got employees screaming that their machines were slow or non-responsive because Windows updates would apply during their lunch hours, or right before they shut down their machines which are usually the times that they were busiest. WSUS relieved that problem.

Jeff Golas · February 26, 2015, 03:12:25 PM

Another way around for smaller groups would be to use a proxy server only for the ms update domains, and set the proxy server to have a large 5-10gb cache. I'm even considering doing this here even though I use WSUS, mainly to speed up manual patching for new machines.

Hans Manhave · February 26, 2015, 03:37:29 PM

Something I had not noticed before: the registry of an XP machine has the HKLM/Applied Systems/ASUPDATE/TAM 10.8 key but also for 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 among other AS keys. Wonder why it doesn't take the old ones out when it installs an update.