Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86
(KB829019)? Thank you.

Bill, only if you have software that depends upon it.
"Bill W" <xxx@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:OYydndjqK8w41ezeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86
> (KB829019)? Thank you.
>

Have you installed Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable
Package (x86)?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

regards,
S.Sengupta[MS-MVP]


Bill W wrote:

> Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86
> (KB829019)? Thank you.
>
>

That is precisely what he is asking. His question is:

> > Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)? Thank you.
> >

why can't people read the question properly? Who is incharge of dishing
out MVPs to useless scumbags?

John


"S.Sengupta" wrote:
>
> Have you installed Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable
> Package (x86)?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>
> regards,
> S.Sengupta[MS-MVP]
>
> Bill W wrote:
>
> > Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86
> > (KB829019)? Thank you.
> >
> >

No, you don't.

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP/DTS&XP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com



"John" <John@mvpAttacker.com> wrote in message
news:43717D64.31728807@mvpAttacker.com...
>
> That is precisely what he is asking. His question is:
>
>> > Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0:
>> > x86 (KB829019)? Thank you.
>> >
>
> why can't people read the question properly? Who is incharge of dishing
> out MVPs to useless scumbags?
>
> John
>
>
> "S.Sengupta" wrote:
>>
>> Have you installed Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable
>> Package (x86)?
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>>
>> regards,
>> S.Sengupta[MS-MVP]
>>
>> Bill W wrote:
>>
>> > Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0:
>> > x86
>> > (KB829019)? Thank you.
>> >
>> >
>

You know, 4 people replied to this question and I still don't know if "bill
W' needs this update. I am wondering the same thing. I showed up this morning
in my optional updates and I downloaded it. It was like 80 mbs of stuff. Do I
need this running a home based PC ?

"Bill W" wrote:

> Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86
> (KB829019)? Thank you.
>
>
>

In article <24C494E1-FF8A-4AD0-BA19-E6198E75D533@microsoft.com>, "=?Utf-
8?B?UmFuZHkgSy4=?=" <Randy K.@discussions.microsoft.com> says...
> You know, 4 people replied to this question and I still don't know if "bill
> W' needs this update. I am wondering the same thing. I showed up this morning
> in my optional updates and I downloaded it. It was like 80 mbs of stuff. Do I
> need this running a home based PC ?

Since there is no way for us to tell if "you" specifically need it, why
not install it and if you have problems then roll it back. I just
installed the updates on 4 test machines and have not found any problems
with our normal apps or our development tools.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

The original poster didn't provide much information whether he has .NET
installed or not;that's why I asked him.
But he didn't pass more information.
He referred to KB article 829019.
kb 829019 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/829019/)covers- Microsoft
deploying .NET applications lifecycle guide.Where do you get updates on
that specific KB Article?It contains information about the Microsoft
Deploying .NET Applications Lifecycle Guide. This guide contains
information about how to plan and to implement the effective deployment
of your Microsoft .NET Framework-based applications (Framework
applications).
It depends on him whether he needs that or not.
Before comment think twice.

regards,
S.Sengupta[MS-MVP]



John wrote:
> That is precisely what he is asking. His question is:
>
>
>>>Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)? Thank you.
>>>
>
>
> why can't people read the question properly? Who is incharge of dishing
> out MVPs to useless scumbags?
>
> John
>
>
> "S.Sengupta" wrote:
>
>>Have you installed Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable
>>Package (x86)?
>>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>>
>>regards,
>>S.Sengupta[MS-MVP]
>>
>>Bill W wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do I need to install the option update Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86
>>>(KB829019)? Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>
>

short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.

long answer:

2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version 1.1 (if
you want).

at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1, and
fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware and the
like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to have
..NET - it is becomming more common.

Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into installing
..NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control Panel
Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works just
as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).

BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item being
offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0, it
_IS_ 2.0

Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

<frodo@theshire.org> wrote in message news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>
> long answer:
>
> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version 1.1 (if
> you want).
>
> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1, and
> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware and the
> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to have
> .NET - it is becomming more common.
>
> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into installing
> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control Panel
> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works just
> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>
> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item being
> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0, it
> _IS_ 2.0

Please forgive me for adding to the confusion. I am a home user
running XP Professional and use the usual office programmes and camera
software. This evening I installed several Windows updates, including
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019).

On Running Norton Windoctor, a message flagged up warning me that ten
files connected to Framework v 2.0.50727 cannot access the same missing
file, e.g.

"WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\AppLau nch.exe" cannot
access a necessary file, "msvcr80.dll."

I am not at all sure what .NET\Framework is all about, please could
somebody tell me if I can ignore this message?
Many thanks


Peter Foldes Wrote:
> Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> frodo@theshire.org wrote in message
> news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>
> long answer:
>
> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version 1.1
> (if
> you want).
>
> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1,
> and
> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware and
> the
> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to
> have
> .NET - it is becomming more common.
>
> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into
> installing
> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control
> Panel
> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works
> just
> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>
> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item
> being
> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0, it
>
> _IS_ 2.0


--
JEG

I doubt very much that you need the NET 2.0. Ignore the error and go to Add\Remove and uninstall the NET 2.0.

Norton Windoctor is another story. I would not use any Norton products myself. I consider Norton to be a Virus by itself

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JEG" <JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net> wrote in message news:JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net...
>
> Please forgive me for adding to the confusion. I am a home user
> running XP Professional and use the usual office programmes and camera
> software. This evening I installed several Windows updates, including
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019).
>
> On Running Norton Windoctor, a message flagged up warning me that ten
> files connected to Framework v 2.0.50727 cannot access the same missing
> file, e.g.
>
> "WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\AppLau nch.exe" cannot
> access a necessary file, "msvcr80.dll."
>
> I am not at all sure what .NET\Framework is all about, please could
> somebody tell me if I can ignore this message?
> Many thanks
>
>
> Peter Foldes Wrote:
>> Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>
>> frodo@theshire.org wrote in message
>> news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
>> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>>
>> long answer:
>>
>> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version 1.1
>> (if
>> you want).
>>
>> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1,
>> and
>> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
>> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware and
>> the
>> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to
>> have
>> .NET - it is becomming more common.
>>
>> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into
>> installing
>> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control
>> Panel
>> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works
>> just
>> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>>
>> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item
>> being
>> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0, it
>>
>> _IS_ 2.0
>
>
> --
> JEG

Thank you for your swift reply. Following your advice I went to add
and remove to uninstall NET 2.0; but, my confidence disappeared when a
warning box jumped up threatening that uninstalling the programme might
stop other programmes running correctly ... What on earth does that
signify? If you have the patience, could you give me a simple account
of what exactly this NET. programme does?

Your note on Norton has really given me the colly-wobbles!

Janet

Peter Foldes Wrote:
> I doubt very much that you need the NET 2.0. Ignore the error and go to
> Add\Remove and uninstall the NET 2.0.
>
> Norton Windoctor is another story. I would not use any Norton products
> myself. I consider Norton to be a Virus by itself
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "JEG" JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net wrote in message
> news:JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net...
>
> Please forgive me for adding to the confusion. I am a home user
> running XP Professional and use the usual office programmes and
> camera
> software. This evening I installed several Windows updates,
> including
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019).
>
> On Running Norton Windoctor, a message flagged up warning me that ten
> files connected to Framework v 2.0.50727 cannot access the same
> missing
> file, e.g.
>
> "WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\AppLau nch.exe" cannot
> access a necessary file, "msvcr80.dll."
>
> I am not at all sure what .NET\Framework is all about, please could
> somebody tell me if I can ignore this message?
> Many thanks
>
>
> Peter Foldes Wrote:
> Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
> acknowledged.
>
> frodo@theshire.org wrote in message
> news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>
> long answer:
>
> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version
> 1.1
> (if
> you want).
>
> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1,
> and
> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware
> and
> the
> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to
> have
> .NET - it is becomming more common.
>
> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into
> installing
> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control
> Panel
> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works
> just
> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>
> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item
> being
> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0,
> it
>
> _IS_ 2.0
>
>
> --
> JEG


--
JEG

It signifies that if you have a program that depends on NET 2.0 it might not work. I doubt very strongly that you do not have one. Just delete it and if needed you can always re-install. But it will not be necessary. Do you have any Visual Basic or Visual Studio components installed? I strongly doubt it.



--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JEG" <JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net> wrote in message news:JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net...
>
> Thank you for your swift reply. Following your advice I went to add
> and remove to uninstall NET 2.0; but, my confidence disappeared when a
> warning box jumped up threatening that uninstalling the programme might
> stop other programmes running correctly ... What on earth does that
> signify? If you have the patience, could you give me a simple account
> of what exactly this NET. programme does?
>
> Your note on Norton has really given me the colly-wobbles!
>
> Janet
>
> Peter Foldes Wrote:
>> I doubt very much that you need the NET 2.0. Ignore the error and go to
>> Add\Remove and uninstall the NET 2.0.
>>
>> Norton Windoctor is another story. I would not use any Norton products
>> myself. I consider Norton to be a Virus by itself
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>
>> "JEG" JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net wrote in message
>> news:JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net...
>>
>> Please forgive me for adding to the confusion. I am a home user
>> running XP Professional and use the usual office programmes and
>> camera
>> software. This evening I installed several Windows updates,
>> including
>> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019).
>>
>> On Running Norton Windoctor, a message flagged up warning me that ten
>> files connected to Framework v 2.0.50727 cannot access the same
>> missing
>> file, e.g.
>>
>> "WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\AppLau nch.exe" cannot
>> access a necessary file, "msvcr80.dll."
>>
>> I am not at all sure what .NET\Framework is all about, please could
>> somebody tell me if I can ignore this message?
>> Many thanks
>>
>>
>> Peter Foldes Wrote:
>> Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
>> acknowledged.
>>
>> frodo@theshire.org wrote in message
>> news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
>> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>>
>> long answer:
>>
>> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version
>> 1.1
>> (if
>> you want).
>>
>> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1,
>> and
>> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
>> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware
>> and
>> the
>> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to
>> have
>> .NET - it is becomming more common.
>>
>> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into
>> installing
>> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control
>> Panel
>> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works
>> just
>> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>>
>> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item
>> being
>> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0,
>> it
>>
>> _IS_ 2.0
>>
>>
>> --
>> JEG
>
>
> --
> JEG

Thank you for your reassurance. You are, of course, quite right,
Visual Basic and Visual Studio are not installed on my PC. Following
your advice I have therefore uninstalled NET 2.0.

Thank you so much for your assistance, it is very much appreciated.
Janet

Peter Foldes Wrote:
> It signifies that if you have a program that depends on NET 2.0 it might
> not work. I doubt very strongly that you do not have one. Just delete it
> and if needed you can always re-install. But it will not be necessary.
> Do you have any Visual Basic or Visual Studio components installed? I
> strongly doubt it.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "JEG" JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net wrote in message
> news:JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net...
>
> Thank you for your swift reply. Following your advice I went to add
> and remove to uninstall NET 2.0; but, my confidence disappeared when
> a
> warning box jumped up threatening that uninstalling the programme
> might
> stop other programmes running correctly ... What on earth does that
> signify? If you have the patience, could you give me a simple
> account
> of what exactly this NET. programme does?
>
> Your note on Norton has really given me the colly-wobbles!
>
> Janet
>
> Peter Foldes Wrote:
> I doubt very much that you need the NET 2.0. Ignore the error and go
> to
> Add\Remove and uninstall the NET 2.0.
>
> Norton Windoctor is another story. I would not use any Norton
> products
> myself. I consider Norton to be a Virus by itself
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
> acknowledged.
>
> "JEG" JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net wrote in message
> news:JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net...
>
> Please forgive me for adding to the confusion. I am a home user
> running XP Professional and use the usual office programmes and
> camera
> software. This evening I installed several Windows updates,
> including
> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019).
>
> On Running Norton Windoctor, a message flagged up warning me that ten
> files connected to Framework v 2.0.50727 cannot access the same
> missing
> file, e.g.
>
> "WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\AppLau nch.exe" cannot
> access a necessary file, "msvcr80.dll."
>
> I am not at all sure what .NET\Framework is all about, please could
> somebody tell me if I can ignore this message?
> Many thanks
>
>
> Peter Foldes Wrote:
> Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
> acknowledged.
>
> frodo@theshire.org wrote in message
> news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>
> long answer:
>
> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version
> 1.1
> (if
> you want).
>
> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1,
> and
> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware
> and
> the
> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to
> have
> .NET - it is becomming more common.
>
> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into
> installing
> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control
> Panel
> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works
> just
> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>
> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item
> being
> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0,
> it
>
> _IS_ 2.0
>
>
> --
> JEG
>
>
> --
> JEG


--
JEG

You are welcome and thanks for posting back

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JEG" <JEG.1ybyf9@pcbanter.net> wrote in message news:JEG.1ybyf9@pcbanter.net...
>
> Thank you for your reassurance. You are, of course, quite right,
> Visual Basic and Visual Studio are not installed on my PC. Following
> your advice I have therefore uninstalled NET 2.0.
>
> Thank you so much for your assistance, it is very much appreciated.
> Janet
>
> Peter Foldes Wrote:
>> It signifies that if you have a program that depends on NET 2.0 it might
>> not work. I doubt very strongly that you do not have one. Just delete it
>> and if needed you can always re-install. But it will not be necessary.
>> Do you have any Visual Basic or Visual Studio components installed? I
>> strongly doubt it.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>
>> "JEG" JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net wrote in message
>> news:JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net...
>>
>> Thank you for your swift reply. Following your advice I went to add
>> and remove to uninstall NET 2.0; but, my confidence disappeared when
>> a
>> warning box jumped up threatening that uninstalling the programme
>> might
>> stop other programmes running correctly ... What on earth does that
>> signify? If you have the patience, could you give me a simple
>> account
>> of what exactly this NET. programme does?
>>
>> Your note on Norton has really given me the colly-wobbles!
>>
>> Janet
>>
>> Peter Foldes Wrote:
>> I doubt very much that you need the NET 2.0. Ignore the error and go
>> to
>> Add\Remove and uninstall the NET 2.0.
>>
>> Norton Windoctor is another story. I would not use any Norton
>> products
>> myself. I consider Norton to be a Virus by itself
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
>> acknowledged.
>>
>> "JEG" JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net wrote in message
>> news:JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net...
>>
>> Please forgive me for adding to the confusion. I am a home user
>> running XP Professional and use the usual office programmes and
>> camera
>> software. This evening I installed several Windows updates,
>> including
>> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019).
>>
>> On Running Norton Windoctor, a message flagged up warning me that ten
>> files connected to Framework v 2.0.50727 cannot access the same
>> missing
>> file, e.g.
>>
>> "WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\AppLau nch.exe" cannot
>> access a necessary file, "msvcr80.dll."
>>
>> I am not at all sure what .NET\Framework is all about, please could
>> somebody tell me if I can ignore this message?
>> Many thanks
>>
>>
>> Peter Foldes Wrote:
>> Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
>> acknowledged.
>>
>> frodo@theshire.org wrote in message
>> news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
>> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>>
>> long answer:
>>
>> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version
>> 1.1
>> (if
>> you want).
>>
>> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1,
>> and
>> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
>> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware
>> and
>> the
>> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to
>> have
>> .NET - it is becomming more common.
>>
>> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into
>> installing
>> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control
>> Panel
>> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works
>> just
>> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>>
>> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item
>> being
>> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0,
>> it
>>
>> _IS_ 2.0
>>
>>
>> --
>> JEG
>>
>>
>> --
>> JEG
>
>
> --
> JEG

Went trough the same situation as Jane but on a test machine. Will not
install v2 for now. Thanks for the helpful info.

I've been a long time user of Norton, your comments worry me... What would
you recommend as a replacement ? I mostly use WinDoctor & Ghost (and of
course Anti-Virus)

Thx in advance.

"Peter Foldes" wrote:

> You are welcome and thanks for posting back
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "JEG" <JEG.1ybyf9@pcbanter.net> wrote in message news:JEG.1ybyf9@pcbanter.net...
> >
> > Thank you for your reassurance. You are, of course, quite right,
> > Visual Basic and Visual Studio are not installed on my PC. Following
> > your advice I have therefore uninstalled NET 2.0.
> >
> > Thank you so much for your assistance, it is very much appreciated.
> > Janet
> >
> > Peter Foldes Wrote:
> >> It signifies that if you have a program that depends on NET 2.0 it might
> >> not work. I doubt very strongly that you do not have one. Just delete it
> >> and if needed you can always re-install. But it will not be necessary.
> >> Do you have any Visual Basic or Visual Studio components installed? I
> >> strongly doubt it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> >> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
> >>
> >> "JEG" JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net wrote in message
> >> news:JEG.1yb6n9@pcbanter.net...
> >>
> >> Thank you for your swift reply. Following your advice I went to add
> >> and remove to uninstall NET 2.0; but, my confidence disappeared when
> >> a
> >> warning box jumped up threatening that uninstalling the programme
> >> might
> >> stop other programmes running correctly ... What on earth does that
> >> signify? If you have the patience, could you give me a simple
> >> account
> >> of what exactly this NET. programme does?
> >>
> >> Your note on Norton has really given me the colly-wobbles!
> >>
> >> Janet
> >>
> >> Peter Foldes Wrote:
> >> I doubt very much that you need the NET 2.0. Ignore the error and go
> >> to
> >> Add\Remove and uninstall the NET 2.0.
> >>
> >> Norton Windoctor is another story. I would not use any Norton
> >> products
> >> myself. I consider Norton to be a Virus by itself
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> >> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
> >> acknowledged.
> >>
> >> "JEG" JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net wrote in message
> >> news:JEG.1yb138@pcbanter.net...
> >>
> >> Please forgive me for adding to the confusion. I am a home user
> >> running XP Professional and use the usual office programmes and
> >> camera
> >> software. This evening I installed several Windows updates,
> >> including
> >> Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019).
> >>
> >> On Running Norton Windoctor, a message flagged up warning me that ten
> >> files connected to Framework v 2.0.50727 cannot access the same
> >> missing
> >> file, e.g.
> >>
> >> "WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\AppLau nch.exe" cannot
> >> access a necessary file, "msvcr80.dll."
> >>
> >> I am not at all sure what .NET\Framework is all about, please could
> >> somebody tell me if I can ignore this message?
> >> Many thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Foldes Wrote:
> >> Not a Beta anymore. This is the RTM of NET 2.0
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> >> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
> >> acknowledged.
> >>
> >> frodo@theshire.org wrote in message
> >> news:11n431gphr160fd@corp.supernews.com...
> >> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
> >>
> >> long answer:
> >>
> >> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version
> >> 1.1
> >> (if
> >> you want).
> >>
> >> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1,
> >> and
> >> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
> >> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware
> >> and
> >> the
> >> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to
> >> have
> >> .NET - it is becomming more common.
> >>
> >> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into
> >> installing
> >> .NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control
> >> Panel
> >> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works
> >> just
> >> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
> >>
> >> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item
> >> being
> >> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0,
> >> it
> >>
> >> _IS_ 2.0
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> JEG
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> JEG
> >
> >
> > --
> > JEG
>

Is there anything that I should look for when installing framework 2.0? I am
loading VS 2005 & SQL 2005 and want to continue to have VS 2003 & SQL 2k?
TIA
Mark
--
S. Mark Brown
COO
Thunderware


"frodo@theshire.org" wrote:

> short answer: No, you do not need .NET, any version.
>
> long answer:
>
> 2.0 is the newest version, and can coexist side-by-side w/ version 1.1 (if
> you want).
>
> at the moment there are very few applications that require .NET 1.1, and
> fewer that require 2.0. But at some point in the future you will
> encounter them. Until then I'd wait. When browsing for shareware and the
> like, pay attention to the descriptions to see if they require you to have
> ..NET - it is becomming more common.
>
> Users of Radeon video cards often get "suckered" (sorry) into installing
> ..NET, to run Catalyst Control Center. If you install the "Control Panel
> Version" instead you can avoid .NET; the control panel version works just
> as well, it's just not as fancy (nor as freakin large!).
>
> BTW, the 2.0 Redistributable Package is the same thing as the item being
> offered by WU as of the 8th of Nov; the WU is not an update to 2.0, it
> _IS_ 2.0
>