none
Windows Update Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 RRS feed

  • Question

  •  We have a number of machines on our network. Windows update is throwing this up as a priority update. This is crazy. Each machine is going to download a 248Mb update for a product that I dont even think we use. Worse still is the 4.4Gb of space that is soecified in the system requirements. We are not quite big enough to justify using WSUS - this would kill our broadband. I do not seem to be able to even find an update with the same name and as large in the downloads area. Similair described downloads are a lot smaller. Note the release date. Am I the only one with this problem or is every windows machine in the world going to be after this crazy update.

     

    Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update (KB951847) x86
    Date last published: 1/27/2009
    Download size: 248.4 MB
    Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 is a full cumulative update that contains many new features building incrementally upon .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and includes cumulative servicing updates to the .NET Framework 2.0 and .NET Framework 3.0 subcomponents. The .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update provides important application compatibility updates.
    System Requirements
    Recommended CPU: Not specified.
    Recommended memory: Not specified.
    Recommended hard disk space: 4380 MB
    Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:43 AM

Answers

  • I have no issue with the idea that .NET 3.0 SP1 requires .NET 2.0 SP2 to be installed as a prerequisite -- that's equivalent to IE7 requiring XP SP2 to be installed. Makes perfect sense.

    I *do* have an issue with the package claiming it's applicable to my .NET v1.1 =ONLY= machines!

    I also have an issue with the package claiming it's applcable to my .NET 2.0 =ONLY= machines (what guarantees am I getting that the dotnetfx35.exe isn't going to install .NET 3.5 on those machines?). And, I have an issue with the package claiming it's applcable to my .NET 3.0 =ONLY= machines -- for the same reasons.

    I have a real issue with the fact that there does not seem to be a .NET 2.0 Service Pack 2 =package= in the system anymore (even though .NET20SP2 is obviously an independently distributed installer), and the .NET 2.0 installer and .NET 2.0 Service Pack 1 packages both show as superceded by these new packages (pray tell, how can one install *only* the v2.0 Framework from this new packaging?), or that there does not seem to be a .NET 3.0 Service Pack 2 =package= in the system (even though .NET30SP2 is obviously an independently distributed installer), and the .NET 3.0 Service Pack 1 package is also superceded by these new packages.

    So, let's look at the changes that come about as a result of this latest package release:

    First thing I notice is there's no supercession status change for the January 27, 2009 packages, which I then realize is because these are three *NEW* packages, not replacements for the January packages. The three new packages are x86 (Vista/Win2008), x64 (Vista/Win2008), and ia64 (Itanium).

    What boggles my mind though, is that they actually published the SUPERCEDED KB959209 packages for these three also. Like, what was the point of that!?

    So, I guess I just have more testing to do (for the Vista/Win2008 machines) that I couldn't do before.

    The prerequisites you note can still be handled sufficiently by the packaging of three separate "Version-specific" packages, and you simply code the .NET 3.0 SP1 package to report as Not Applicable unless the machine has .NET 2.0 Service Pack 2 =AND= .NET 3.0 RTM installed.

     


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
    Friday, February 27, 2009 11:31 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • No, not yet, but the file size might explain why I keep seeing the following in WindowsUpdate.log:

    DnldMgr Regulation: {9482F4B4-E343-43B6-B170-9A65BC822C77} - Update 3B26C788-FDB1-48B8-8632-5E37F60E29B3 is "PerUpdate" regulated and can NOT download. Sequence 4604 vs AcceptRate 0.
    2009-01-27 23:25:55:562 1408 10c 

    DnldMgr   * Update is not allowed to download due to regulation.

    From what I read, my problem is usually a bandwidth issue at Microsoft.

    Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:36 AM
  • There are already quite a few comments on other forums around the globe. The fact that this download does not appear in Microsofts downloads has got me thinking that they have made a major boo boo and they are taking an awful long time to figure it out. I cannot see them releasing a download this big as a priority update. I am also guessing that there are many servers out there that are not going to handle the 4Gb space requirement. I wonder if it actually installs if you allow the update through? The ISP's are going to be rubbing their hands with glee at this one, especially the 3G providers. Ouch.

    I guess if every windows machine in the world is trying to download this update that they probably are scratching their heads as to where their bandwidth has gone. Come to think of it, I thought the site was a bit sluggish today. Should we tell them? If I knew how I would, but would probably be charged for doing so!

     

    Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:54 AM
  • These packages showed up on my WSUS Server last night. I just spent a few minutes reviewing them.

    IMNSHO, the packaging of these service packs is a CF.

    Apparently, the packages called "Microsoft .NET Framework v3.5 Family Update" contain the three individual service packs for the three separate versions of the .NET Framework currently in play:

        .NET Framework v2.0 Service Pack 2

        .NET Framework v3.0 Service Pack 2

        .NET Framework v3.5 Service Pack 1

    Ironically, that update package doesn't detect as needed on any of my systems -- even though I'm pretty certain I don't have NET2SP2 installed anywhere.

    The package known as "Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update" one ups the whole fiasco, by also including the .NET Framework v3.5 redistributable (dotnetfx35.exe) -- which is where the bulk of the filesize of this update package is coming from.

    To add insult to injury, there are apparently two different GUIDs for WinXP/2003 systems, with identical files, one of them detects on 2 of 5 of my servers, the other detects on 3 of 5 of my servers. I haven't dug deep enough to determine exactly the difference yet -- but I'm going to speculate that the difference is between the machines that have Win2003SP2 and those that are still Win2003SP1. What's particularly annoying is that only one of those machines actually has .NET Framework v3.5 installed!

    I've sent a message off to the WSUS team to see if they can exert some influence on what the .NET team has done. Specifically I've suggested that this package ought to be pulled and repackaged as *THREE* separate SP packages, and not to include the dotnetfx35.exe redistributable at all.

    I'll post back if I get any feedback.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
    Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:01 PM
    Moderator
  •  Well I do hope they listen to reason and sort something out. I have spent my morning running around and getting all my users (particularly the mobile users) to disable automatic updates. I dont like doing that, but it is going to save us a fair bit in uneccessary bandwidth. If it really does need to be applied, I would prefer to do it manually. What on earth were they thinking? I did allow the update through on one of my servers last night and confirmed your anlaysis of the beast. They could just as well have released server 2009. I wonder if this is not a pre-cursor to the release of something else? In other words some or other upgradeor utility that is to be released that requires the redistributable to be installed.

    I am glad that we have a champion for the cause a little closer to MS than I (New Zealand), its going to be interesting to see how they deal with this. If this is absolutely how they intended it, then I fear the apparent introversion of the whole organisation has gotten a lot worse, and they really have lost touch with their customers. I have just explained to a friend in a remote area (on dialup) how to disable automatic updates so that he could get on with his work.

    Well done Lawrence, hope you get the response that is obviously called for.  

    Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:58 PM
  •  It no longer comes up as priority update now. Thank goodness. The windows update site forum is already full of it. Seems like it has a number of issues arising at installation. I shall be leaving the update alone until such time as good sense has prevailed.
    Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:04 AM
  • I used the Windows Cleanup Utility and removed all the .NET install, re-ran the Windows update. A very long 248MB download.
    Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:31 AM
  • I think I can finally shed some light on why this package insists on including net 2.0. I was reading up on the different versions of  dot net on wikipedia. It seems since version 2 all future versions use version's 2 common language runtime (clr). So you can't have future versions of net without having version 2.

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

    Search for CLR in the article and you'll see the parts that talk about this. I'm not sure why they don't include .net 2 along with this package instead of just the sp2 for it if .net 2 is required.

    Where did 4gb come from? I thought it was just about 250mb?

    If anyone has a "blank pc" they can try to install 3.0 and see if 2.0 is automatically installed.

    @ KevinNZ - wsus is not a hard product to use. Unless you have 10 computes or less I would recommend using it since it makes updates easier to manage from a central location. Then you won't have to run around telling people what to update or not to update (don't you have email?). I have about 70 pcs and this saves on bandwidth since only 1 pc is downloading the updates from the internet.

    @ Lawerence - what does CF mean?

    Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:34 PM
  • drivenbywhat said:

    I think I can finally shed some light on why this package insists on including net 2.0. I was reading up on the different versions of  dot net on wikipedia. It seems since version 2 all future versions use version's 2 common language runtime (clr). So you can't have future versions of net without having version 2.

    @ Lawerence - what does CF mean?



    Your observations are exactly why these packages have been rolled up into a bundle. The .NET Framework v2.0 is still the core platform for the .NET Framework, and .NET Framework v3.0 and .NET Framework v3.5 are add-on feature packages -- which may not be required on all systems! Whether the .NET30 or .NET35 is installed on any machine should be left to the discretion of local systems administrators.

    But the bundle is problematic for several reasons:

    1. Detecting the absence of any one of the service packs on the various versions of the .NET Framework should never trigger an installation of the base product if the base product is missing. The behavior of the initially released packages suggests this may not be the actual behavior.

    2. What other reason is there for including the 240mb redistributable, if not to attempt to install the base product.

    3. .NET 2.0 Service Pack 2 should only ever be detected on machines with .NET 2.0 Service Pack 1 or .NET 2.0 RTW installed.

    4. .NET 3.0 Service Pack 2 should only ever be detected on machines with .NET 3.0 Service Pack 1 or .NET 3.0 RTW installed.

    5. Unless .NET 2.0 Service Pack 2 is a prerequisite of .NET 3.0 Service Pack 2, the .NET 2.0 Service Pack 2 should never be installed unless explicitly authorized by a systems administrator. I have not tested to determine if .NET30SP2 can be installed on a .NET20SP1 machine.

    6. .NET 3.5 Service Pack 1 should only ever be detected on machines with .NET 3.5 RTW installed.

    7. Unless .NET 3.0 Service Pack 2 is a prerequisite of .NET 3.5 Service Pack 1, the .NET 3.0 Service Pack 2 should never be installed unless explicitly authorized by a systems administrator. I have not tested to determine if .NET35SP1 can be installed on a .NET30SP1 machine.

    8. The packaging, as originally presented, precludes the option of installing the administrator's choice of service packs, but more significantly, apparently forces the installation of the base package(s) -- .NET20, .NET30, and .NET35 on machines that currently are running only .NET v1.1. This is entirely unacceptable.

    Having said all of that, I will also note that these packages were RE-released this past week. I have not yet had an opportunity to evaluate their impact vis-a-vis the original packages. This evaluation is on my agenda for the next 72 hours.

    *CF is an acronym for a vulgar term that describes the worst way possible in which something can be made dysfunctional.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
    Friday, February 27, 2009 2:25 PM
    Moderator
  • Yes it seems they are prerequisites but not necessarily the way we would think. Like net2sp2 is not require for net3sp2. Instead it is required for net3sp1. By going to the downloads section in MS and searching for each one you will see what they are prerequisites for. Oh well.
    Friday, February 27, 2009 4:33 PM
  • I have no issue with the idea that .NET 3.0 SP1 requires .NET 2.0 SP2 to be installed as a prerequisite -- that's equivalent to IE7 requiring XP SP2 to be installed. Makes perfect sense.

    I *do* have an issue with the package claiming it's applicable to my .NET v1.1 =ONLY= machines!

    I also have an issue with the package claiming it's applcable to my .NET 2.0 =ONLY= machines (what guarantees am I getting that the dotnetfx35.exe isn't going to install .NET 3.5 on those machines?). And, I have an issue with the package claiming it's applcable to my .NET 3.0 =ONLY= machines -- for the same reasons.

    I have a real issue with the fact that there does not seem to be a .NET 2.0 Service Pack 2 =package= in the system anymore (even though .NET20SP2 is obviously an independently distributed installer), and the .NET 2.0 installer and .NET 2.0 Service Pack 1 packages both show as superceded by these new packages (pray tell, how can one install *only* the v2.0 Framework from this new packaging?), or that there does not seem to be a .NET 3.0 Service Pack 2 =package= in the system (even though .NET30SP2 is obviously an independently distributed installer), and the .NET 3.0 Service Pack 1 package is also superceded by these new packages.

    So, let's look at the changes that come about as a result of this latest package release:

    First thing I notice is there's no supercession status change for the January 27, 2009 packages, which I then realize is because these are three *NEW* packages, not replacements for the January packages. The three new packages are x86 (Vista/Win2008), x64 (Vista/Win2008), and ia64 (Itanium).

    What boggles my mind though, is that they actually published the SUPERCEDED KB959209 packages for these three also. Like, what was the point of that!?

    So, I guess I just have more testing to do (for the Vista/Win2008 machines) that I couldn't do before.

    The prerequisites you note can still be handled sufficiently by the packaging of three separate "Version-specific" packages, and you simply code the .NET 3.0 SP1 package to report as Not Applicable unless the machine has .NET 2.0 Service Pack 2 =AND= .NET 3.0 RTM installed.

     


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
    Friday, February 27, 2009 11:31 PM
    Moderator
  • i keep getting a Microsoft update for KB951847 but it won't install.  i hid it once then tried again and now i can't hide it.  can u please help me?  Its very annoying.  I don't even know how to stop automatic updates. my email address is beverly_davis08@comcast.net.  I would appreciate any help.  thanks 
    Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:02 PM