My experience with .NUT Today

I downloaded a small tool from Microsoft, it came with .msi installer, I am
on windows 7 32-bit. I opened the installer and it says you need .NUT 1.1,
do you want to download it now?

so I downloaded and started installing 1.1, but the setup failed. so I
goggled the error and found out that .net 1.1 doesnt run on Windows 7.

It sucks,
F You MS

Who gave the idea of .NUT? fire that guy now if you want to save MS.
Each release of .net is getting more and more complicated and bigger.

Show quote Hide quote This was MSFT's answer to DLL hell?  Ironic.

DotNut wrote:
I hate that when it happens!

The marketing and sales department?

Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote Maybe if you identified the tool we could help.

Viken

Maybe if you identified yourself we could help, dick brain.

http://saranspot.blogspot.com/2009/02/installing-dotnet-framework-11-on.html

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/12/27/install-microsoft-net-framework-11-on-windows-vista-fix-regsvcsexe-fails-error/

..NET 2.0 ~ 23 MB
..NET 3.5 ~ 231 MB

Nice Very :)

i have already starting experimenting with VB6 alternatives like PowerBasic,
KBasic and RealBasic. Would move to these when i have to leave VB6.

That's nothing. Those numbers are only the compressed
downloads. V. 2 is about 70 MB on disk. V. 3 is
over 300. If 3.5 is a 231 MB download the whole thing
unpacked must be close to 1 GB. A barebones install
of Win98 is about 700 MB. A barebones install of XP
is about 1 GB. .Net has become an OS running on top
of an OS. Microsoft manages to blur that fact somewhat
by bloating the OS itself beyond recognition. Windows 7,
basic install, is about 7-9 times the size of XP!

  But you still haven't said what the utility is that you're
trying to use. As much as I enjoy pointing out the problems
with .Net...and it does seem like an unnecessary problem
they've created by breaking older .Net versions...it seems
unlikely that Microsoft is offering a tool for use on Win7
that won't work on Win7. Are you sure you didn't get the wrong
version? Or maybe you're trying to use something that's not
necessary on Win7?

Show quoteHide quote

The tool I am trying to use is 'USB Flash Drive Manager' BUT it will be same
for almost all app which uses .MSI installer which checks for .NET.

Including all .msi based setup made using VS 2003. So, not only the problem
comes from the installer but also from the .net itself which doesnt install.

It is just an example of an little freeware from MS, but it will be same for
many 3rd party applications and many older application we may have using
..msi setup. VS 2003 also doesnt install on Windows Vista or 7 but works fine
even on Windows 2000.

Here is list of some apps which I had for years but doent run on Windows 7
because they need .net 1.1

Aspose Obfuscator
Aspose License
iCode Library.NET
NDoc
Microsoft UMPC Display Emulator
Microsoft Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.0
Microsoft XP Media Center SDK
VB6 to VBNET Upgrade Assessment Tool
Microsoft Calculator Plus
Boot Addin
CodeSwap 2
CS to VB.NET AddIn v12
VB.NET to CSharp Conveter
9Rays.Spices.Net
MagicInstall
Transition Effects
VBDocman
and More...

The future of .NET looks same as of java; hype and decline. Delphi recently
removed support for making .NET application from their IDE.

DotNut wrote:
Quick, somebody, get DotNut a drink - he's delusional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sforhbLiwLA

For You


Show quoteHide quote

Yikes and gadzooks!!!  Was that a real commercial or some fan boi video edit
job?  Either way, it's bloody hilarious!

That's not all. He can do "sexy" too ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La_u1jPLOIA&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Mike

Mike Williams wrote:

Thanks for the laugh! :)))

It's actually quite frightening. The man is a lunatic! Check this one out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y89wBYVHkY4&NR=1

Mike

Mike Williams wrote:
Oh boy! Yes, it gets scary now. THAT IS some serious behavior there. So
this guy is running the company now?! That explains *a lot* of things then.

DotNut wrote:
He is CEO today. So a salesman is running a major software products and
development company? (Hmmm.. that would explain lots of things then...)
I would have expected somebody with at least a computer science, systems
or electrical engineering degree with some business management master or
desirable experience.

Show quoteHide quote

DotNut wrote:
Thanks, but I've seen him "live on stage".

He's mellowed a little, since that advertisement. :-)

Do you really think so? Have you seen this one? I'm not entirely sure how
much later this was taken, but it must be a while because he's got a lot
less hair than he had in the earlier one. If this is "mellow" then I don't
know what you think "crazy" would be like  :-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y89wBYVHkY4&NR=1

Mike

Mike Williams wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteMaybe he tones down his act when he's outside America.

Either that, or my memory's failing me.

The download page does say:

"Microsoft USB Flash Drive Manager is
available for Windows XP only."

....But I wasn't aware that pre-v. 2 wouldn't run
on Vista/7. That's bizarre. And many DotNetters
are now sticking with v. 2 because of the size
of later versions and the fact that XP support is
being removed. So it looks like .Net is quickly
becoming synonymous with .Net v.2.

  I don't know whether this will help, but you
can unpack any MSI without running it. You
can also fake .Net runtime installations via
the Registry. See here:

www.jsware.net/jsware/msicode.php5

What's there will allow you to bypass MSI install
limitations, but I have no idea whether you can
successfully run a v. 1 program on the v. 2 framework.

i dont care, there is nothing in that app which specially need XP.


Show quoteHide quote

¤ | The tool I am trying to use is 'USB Flash Drive Manager' BUT it will be
¤ same
¤ | for almost all app which uses .MSI installer which checks for .NET.
¤ |
¤
¤  The download page does say:
¤
¤  "Microsoft USB Flash Drive Manager is
¤ available for Windows XP only."

Yup.

¤ ...But I wasn't aware that pre-v. 2 wouldn't run
¤ on Vista/7. That's bizarre. And many DotNetters
¤ are now sticking with v. 2 because of the size
¤ of later versions and the fact that XP support is
¤ being removed. So it looks like .Net is quickly
¤ becoming synonymous with .Net v.2.

Actually I mentioned this in my post. Version 1.1 is not required for this app, or any other app, to
run. It's an installer issue.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

It will run - 1.1 sp1.  The problem is that there is not 1.1 sp1
install, and pre-sp1 won't install.  So, to get 1.1 on windows 7 you
have to create your own slip stream install package...  There are
tutorials out there if it is really necessary.

Not really...  It's more to do with the fact that 2.0 is so common in
the wild.  It's on a good number of xp boxes, and every vista/windows
7 box ever made.

In other words, 2.0 has the wides distribution.

What I really wonder though, is why is DotNut not being castigated for
starting off topic discussions.  Last I checked, this group was for
vb6 and earlier only...

On 16/08/2010 16:47, Tom Shelton wrote:
They aren't a "known troll" yet so the others haven't pounced. :p
No idea why not...

On 15/08/2010 15:20, DotNut wrote:
..NET 1.1 is rolled into the 2.0 version as it's backwards compatible.

If they don't install then it's a crappy installer. Simples.
That and I firmly believe that MSI is very fragile (if not broken) already!

DotNut wrote:
It would get many times larger

Show quoteHide quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Criticism

Newer versions of the framework (3.5 and up) are not pre-installed in
versions of Windows below Windows 7. For this reason, applications must lead
users without the framework through a procedure to install it. Some
developers have expressed concerns about the large size of the .NET
Framework runtime installers for end-users. The size is around 54 MB for
..NET 3.0, 197 MB for .NET 3.5, and 250 MB for .NET 3.5 SP1 (while using web
installer the typical download for Windows XP is around 50 MB, for Windows
Vista - 20 MB). The size issue is partially solved with .NET 4 installer
(x86 + x64) being 54 MB and not embedding full runtime installation packages
for previous versions. The .NET 3.5 SP1 full installation package includes
the full runtime installation packages for .NET 2.0 SP2 as well as .NET 3.0
SP2 for multiple operating systems (Windows XP/Server 2003 and Windows
Vista/Server 2008) and for multiple CPU architectures (x86, x86-64, and
IA-64).

Yea,

It seems that there are humans working at Microsoft and especially new ones
who don't know the promises from 10 years ago and are starting a new DLL
hell.

Or should we say, those who told that they could end the DLL hell were a
little bit to optimistic.

(Does not change my opinion about VB10 by the way)

Cor

Show quoteHide quote

i was looking for some code on PSC and found this. Most of the Windows API
in a Type Library.

So what makes .net so special, after all its just a wrapper around Windows
APIs

http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=13158

http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=12180

On 15/08/2010 22:47, DotNut wrote:
It's just another environment like MFC, ATL on Windows and the many
frameworks on Linux.
You use what is suitable for you.
If you don't want to use .NET, don't.

¤ My experience with .NUT Today
¤
¤ I downloaded a small tool from Microsoft, it came with .msi installer, I am
¤ on windows 7 32-bit. I opened the installer and it says you need .NUT 1.1,
¤ do you want to download it now?
¤
¤ so I downloaded and started installing 1.1, but the setup failed. so I
¤ goggled the error and found out that .net 1.1 doesnt run on Windows 7.
¤
¤ It sucks,
¤ F You MS
¤
¤ Who gave the idea of .NUT? fire that guy now if you want to save MS.
¤ Each release of .net is getting more and more complicated and bigger.
¤

This utility was written for Windows XP (see the list). It may not be compatible with Windows 7. Why
not use the free version of SyncBack instead (http://www.2brightsparks.com/freeware/index.html)

In any event, the problem is the version checking of the installer. It probably hasn't been updated
since 2005, but a 1.1 app will run under any version of the .NET Framework up to 3.5. If you want to
try it you can extract the MSI files using msiexec (it's already installed in Windows).

msiexec /a <YourPackageFullPath> TARGETDIR=<ExtractedMSIFullPath>


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

http://saranspot.blogspot.com/2009/02/installing-dotnet-framework-11-on.html

Microsoft may back off of .NET languages
ActiveX EXE SingleUse Vs MultiUse
DCOM Error
Array question
Help with Zebra ZM400
ActiveX EXE Not Execute
Formating Hex Values
MsgBox and a pop up form
Running more then one Functions at once, HOW?
HELP CLR20r3 need help to debug crash of exe startup at remote installation