.NET Framework Installation Order

Can anyone tell me the correct installation order for the following .NET
Frameworks:

2
2's three updates
2 SP1
3
3's update
3 SP1
3.5

Also, do the SPs include the previously released updates? Can any of the
installations eliminate the need for the other? E.g., 3 includes 2 but
installing 3 w/o first installing 2 loads my Event Viewer w/multiple error
entries.

Thanks in advance.

Joe Davis
--
Joe Davis

"Joe" <Joe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:50BBF9B8-862C-4231-B72F-EDD12C878649@microsoft.com...
> Can anyone tell me the correct installation order for the following .NET
> Frameworks:
>
> 2
> 2's three updates
> 2 SP1
> 3
> 3's update
> 3 SP1
> 3.5
>
> Also, do the SPs include the previously released updates? Can any of the
> installations eliminate the need for the other? E.g., 3 includes 2 but
> installing 3 w/o first installing 2 loads my Event Viewer w/multiple error
> entries.
>
> Thanks in advance.


I would try installing the 3.5 first. It seems to know what its dependencies are
and installs/repairs them as needed, e.g. 3.0, etc. FWIW I didn't notice
and wouldn't expect any dependency on 2.0. I suppose if the update itself
is implemented as a .NET 2.0 program there could be one but that idea
strikes me as unlikely.

I don't know if 2.0 is as robust an install or what its implementation is either.
I'm pretty sure that 2.0 must be completely independent of any 3.0.

What sort of error messages were you getting? I didn't think to look in the
Event log but found that a manual install actually gives sufficient hints about
unresolved conflicts (in particular in a separate message window a list of
other beta products which must be uninstalled before the update would continue.)
If you are just doing an automatic install the same information is available
but less accessible in the abundant logs that these .NF updates create or modify.


HTH

Robert Aldwinckle
---

Thanks for your advice, Robert.

As 3.0 was geared toward Vista, it included 2.0. Whether XP or Vista, 3.0
checks to see if 2.0 is installed &, if not, installs it. I don't recall the
specific error messages I had when trying 3.0 w/o first installing 2.0, but I
surmised at the time that 3.0 MSI was looking for 2.0 directories which it
couldn't find. Explaining this seems to be sharpening my hindsight a bit: 3.0
first tries unsuccessfully to find 2.0 directories, logging an Event error as
it fails. Okay, one question answered: no need to load 2.

Now, if 2.0 SP1 includes the three updates & 3.0 SP1 includes the update,
then only 3.0 & 3.5 need installing.

As 3.5 improves upon the foundation of 3.0, it's possible that installing
3.5 first will work; not sure if it will include 2.0 though. Your
dependencies reasoning seems logical. So when I get the chance I shall
uninstall 2.0 & 3.0 & all updates & try installing 3.5 alone. If this posting
is still on the board, I'll post the results.

Cheers.
--
Joe Davis


"Robert Aldwinckle" wrote:

> "Joe" <Joe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:50BBF9B8-862C-4231-B72F-EDD12C878649@microsoft.com...
> > Can anyone tell me the correct installation order for the following .NET
> > Frameworks:
> >
> > 2
> > 2's three updates
> > 2 SP1
> > 3
> > 3's update
> > 3 SP1
> > 3.5
> >
> > Also, do the SPs include the previously released updates? Can any of the
> > installations eliminate the need for the other? E.g., 3 includes 2 but
> > installing 3 w/o first installing 2 loads my Event Viewer w/multiple error
> > entries.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
>
> I would try installing the 3.5 first. It seems to know what its dependencies are
> and installs/repairs them as needed, e.g. 3.0, etc. FWIW I didn't notice
> and wouldn't expect any dependency on 2.0. I suppose if the update itself
> is implemented as a .NET 2.0 program there could be one but that idea
> strikes me as unlikely.
>
> I don't know if 2.0 is as robust an install or what its implementation is either.
> I'm pretty sure that 2.0 must be completely independent of any 3.0.
>
> What sort of error messages were you getting? I didn't think to look in the
> Event log but found that a manual install actually gives sufficient hints about
> unresolved conflicts (in particular in a separate message window a list of
> other beta products which must be uninstalled before the update would continue.)
> If you are just doing an automatic install the same information is available
> but less accessible in the abundant logs that these .NF updates create or modify.
>
>
> HTH
>
> Robert Aldwinckle
> ---
>
>
>

Good news for those so interested. Installing .NET Framework 3.5 also
installs 2.0 (actually contained within 3.0) with SP1 & 3.0 with SP1, & the
two SPs contain all previous updates. The only new optional update after
installing 3.5 (as recommended via Windows Update) is KB932471, a minor one
dealing with user rights.

--
Joe Davis


"Joe" wrote:

> Can anyone tell me the correct installation order for the following .NET
> Frameworks:
>
> 2
> 2's three updates
> 2 SP1
> 3
> 3's update
> 3 SP1
> 3.5
>
> Also, do the SPs include the previously released updates? Can any of the
> installations eliminate the need for the other? E.g., 3 includes 2 but
> installing 3 w/o first installing 2 loads my Event Viewer w/multiple error
> entries.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Joe Davis
> --
> Joe Davis