Computer Hope

Hello! I have an older computer laying around in my house and today I have decided to install Windows 2000 on it and try some older games, but maybe even bring some life back into both of the old buddies (the PC and the OS). So, I went ahead, got an IE 6 installer, accessed Windows Update, updated the OS as far as it could go, but at a certain point, WU stopped installing updates, saying it needs to restart the computer for the updates to finish installing. So, I restarted the computer and found out that .NET Framework 1 and 2 were not installed. So, I went ahead and ticked them. Let Windows Update do its things for half an hour and when I come back to see how it's doing, Windows Update got stuck at .NET Framework 2, after .NET Framework 1 was installed. So, I restarted the computer again and went back into Windows Update to let it try one more time. Didn't work. Went and looked back and forth for .NET Framework 2 installer. Found 2 installers, one was SP1, the other was SP2. Both of them spit the same error: Could not open file "vs_setup.msi". As the installer gave me the full location for the file, I went and tried to open it by myself. The thing opens up, but it says I need to open Setup.exe to install.NET Framework. Opened Setup.exe, but got the same error. After closing it, all the files were deleted. So, I extracted the files in the installer I downloaded and tried installing it that way. Didn't work.

Do I need to log in using the built-in Administrator account or what is happening?

Turn off/disable your anti-virus apps...

I have no antivirus apps. I need that .NET Framework update for my usual antivirus to get installed using a kernel extension for Windows 2000.

I was able to install this to Windows 2000.

That's the same file I tried to install. Could this happen because Windows Update updated Windows Installer?

Do you have Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 installed?

Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 25, 2017, 08:53:05 AM
Do you have Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 installed?

Yes, that's out of discussion not to be.

You might try the administrator account as you mentioned in the OP. Looks like that is what I was using.

What is that supposed to mean ? ?

You running bootleg Windows perchance ? ?

No success, didn't work on the Administrator account.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 25, 2017, 08:53:05 AM
Do you have Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 installed?

He asked this ...

Quote from: patio on April 25, 2017, 04:09:39 PM
He asked this ...

Quote from: antoniu200 on April 25, 2017, 12:30:11 PM
Yes, that's out of discussion not to be.

And I said that.

"Not to be" i didn't understand...

Of course it is. Even if it wasn't, it would have gotten installed by Windows Update when I updated it.

Does the System Properties dialog (Windows key+Break, Right-click My computer->Properties) explicitly say "Service Pack 4"? If it doesn't then you don't have it. Don't just assume you have it because you ran Windows Update, as I don't think Windows Update installed Service Packs (none of the KB articles suggest using Windows Update as a way to install SP4)

It didn't...good call BC.

Holy ****, man! First, my installer clearly says "Service Pack 4". Secondly, it does say "Service Pack 4" in Computer Properties. Thirdly, even cmd and winver report Service Pack 4. Fourthly, I never said that if I run Windows Update, it will surely install Service Pack 4, if I have no service packs, it will just install the next one, and the next one, and the next one, until the latest one is reached (at least that's how it worked under XP, Vista and 7 for me), but what I wanted to be understood from that was the fact that I would have known that the OS wasn't SP4 and would have downloaded myself SP4 from Microsoft's website and install it manually right away, if the OS wasn't SP3. Fifthly, I said that the OS is SP4 in 3 posts already. OK, you didn't understand the meaning of "not to be", but to insist is annoying. I *was* dumb. I'm not, I've experienced enough computer problems in the last year I haven't posted here, so there really is no reason to insist on something. Sorry for my blowup, but it is annoying and we are getting nowhere by insisting on something. Need an attachment to go further in diagnosing this? That's going to waste another day of you waiting for me to give the attachment and for me to get to the computer and make a screenshot and not having that kernel extension installed.



Anyway, I found out that .NET Framework 2 was actually installed by Windows Update, SP1 was the one with the problem. If you're wondering, yes, I would actually like .NET Framework 2 SP1 installed, to reduce the virus and malware entrance points a bit, as I don't have any antivirus app installed yet.

You have gotten very touchy because we asked questions to assist...

Sorry for inquiring and Best of Luck.

BTW .net frameworks are not all cumulative...just so you know...

I  interpreted "if it wasn't, it would have gotten installed by Windows Update when I updated it." as "I didn't install it myself, but it would have been installed by Windows Update, so there is no need for me to verify that it is installed". If I understand correctly now it was slipstreamed on the install disk. So that's not an issue.

I did find This, which could be the cause of the issue in your case. SP1 would fail if Windows Update doesn't keep the msi files around in the cache.

Quote from: patio on April 25, 2017, 06:59:28 PM
You have gotten very touchy because we asked questions to assist...

Sorry for inquiring and Best of Luck.

BTW .net frameworks are not all cumulative...just so you know...

As I said, if we kept asking for simething that has already been given a clear answer, we would just waste time. You yourself would have gotten very "touchy" if you would have been asked 4-5 times something you answered when you were asked the first time. And sorry to tell you the truth, but all you done in this thread was to praise BC_Programmer and push my nerves to see when I blow up, by talking coded ("Windows perchange") or by giving dumb advice. Trust me, if I would have had my usual antivirus, it would not had blocked the installation of the .NET Framework and even if it would have wanted to do it, it would have asked me if I want the same thing or I want the downloaded installer to run (ESET Smart Security is the antivirus). And don't come now and say "not necesarily", because it *is* necesary. That's how ESET works and was meant to work, reason why I don't use anything else, except ESET products. Also, if by some wierd reason, ESET doesn't ask you, there are settings for that and you can enable the asking.

Just some advice: be less arrogant and stick to the point of the discussion, see how nice we'll work out and how fast problems and threads will be answered, if you really think you should participate in them, as most forum Admins don't, except when they are really needed. No offense. But you should seriously try taking this advice.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 25, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
I  interpreted "if it wasn't, it would have gotten installed by Windows Update when I updated it." as "I didn't install it myself, but it would have been installed by Windows Update, so there is no need for me to verify that it is installed". If I understand correctly now it was slipstreamed on the install disk. So that's not an issue.

I did find This, which could be the cause of the issue in your case. SP1 would fail if Windows Update doesn't keep the msi files around in the cache.

Glad that we got over that "Service Pack" thing. That might help, I'll try that in a couple of hours, if I can. If not, I'll try it at 21:00 (GMT+2:00 time) today and post back an update on the status.

Didn't work. But I have news about the kernel extension thing. I installed it and latest Firefox for XP worked. But I have a question: as ESET Smart Security 8 has an .msi file for the installer, how do I get past an error on that? I mean, the installer opens, goes past the system verification, of course, after tricking msiexec.exe that I am running XP, but after I click Next, it throws an error. I don't have error the code now, but I'll have it at 21:00 (GMT+2:00 time). Also, I tried to get Windows Installer 4.5 for Windows XP (.exe file), but it refuses to install it. Since the .exe contains all the Windows Installer files, I tried to replace them myself, but one file simply refuses to get copied in system32, that being msi.dll, reason why the Windows Installer service won't start and the .msi files wil spit the "Safe mode" error.

The question is: how do I get that .msi file installed?

Antonio, don't diss teh Patioz.

Really sorry for what I had to post here:

Quote from: Salmon Trout on April 26, 2017, 09:50:21 AM
Antonio, don't diss teh Patioz.

Erstens: Mein name is Antoniu und nicht Antonio. (First: My name is Antoniu, not Antonio.)
Zweitens: Bist du Patio? (Secondly: Are you Patio?)
Drittens: Ich habe nur die Wahrheit gesagt. Er kann sauer sein, wenn er will. (Thirdly: I was just telling the truth. He can be pissed, if he wants to.)


I understood: Patio commands everything here and if you don't do as he wishes, you'll get dumped and be called an *won't say what* behind your back. Why I'm saying this? Because BC_Programmer used to respond to my thread almost instantly, but after I said what I said, BC won't say anything, even if 2 hours have passed. Maybe he simply is busy, I'll wait before I pull the plug. On what, you may ask? You'll see, is your answer. I really didn't intend to get arrogant, at all actually. My intention was to get help from some guys who have more knowledge than I do, but if the guys who have more knowledge than I do are either recieving commands from people who can't accept the truth, or just can't accept the truth, I might try to solve them somewhere else.

Quote from: antoniu200 on April 26, 2017, 10:41:47 AMBC won't say anything, even if 2 hours have passed. Maybe he simply is busy

Maybe you pissed on the picnic with your attitude.

I'm done...! Bye!

There is no secret meeting place where members receive instructions and are told not to post on certain other members threads. I was actually asleep until about 10 minutes before the post I'm quoting. Either way, I'm not particularly motivated to reply. Some spots of text are gibberish, presumably via translation, and I suspect this might be the case both ways, as some seemingly clear english text seems to get interpreted poorly. The reason I was pressing so hard on the SP4 point is because I got very similar errors when I attempted to install .NET 2.0 SP1 onto a W2K install with no Service Packs in a VM, and the shorter replies leaned towards (to me) the domain of "tell them what they want to get more suggestions!" Which I am all to familiar with:

"HI we have issues with your software on Windows 95"
"We don't support Windows 95"
"Did I say Windows 95, I meant Windows 98! It says 'This software is not supported on Windows 95'"

Another reason is the unique software install. Large Aftermarket patches like KernelEx for Windows 2000 for example. They are interesting but they certainly make any sort of diagnostics or even troubleshooting by trying to reproduce the issue difficult, and now we're getting into questions about specific dll files, replacing system-level DLL files arbitrarily, etc.

Since I had no issues installing .NET 2.0 SP1 on a relatively clean Windows 2000 install, aside from Microsoft's own KB article I don't see what else I'd have to add.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 26, 2017, 11:54:48 AM
There is no secret meeting place where members receive instructions and are told not to post on certain other members threads. I was actually asleep until about 10 minutes before the post I'm quoting. Either way, I'm not particularly motivated to reply. Some spots of text are gibberish, presumably via translation, and I suspect this might be the case both ways, as some seemingly clear english text seems to get interpreted poorly. The reason I was pressing so hard on the SP4 point is because I got very similar errors when I attempted to install .NET 2.0 SP1 onto a W2K install with no Service Packs in a VM, and the shorter replies leaned towards (to me) the domain of "tell them what they want to get more suggestions!" Which I am all to familiar with:

"HI we have issues with your software on Windows 95"
"We don't support Windows 95"
"Did I say Windows 95, I meant Windows 98! It says 'This software is not supported on Windows 95'"

Another reason is the unique software install. Large Aftermarket patches like KernelEx for Windows 2000 for example. They are interesting but they certainly make any sort of diagnostics or even troubleshooting by trying to reproduce the issue difficult, and now we're getting into questions about specific dll files, replacing system-level DLL files arbitrarily, etc.

Since I had no issues installing .NET 2.0 SP1 on a relatively clean Windows 2000 install, aside from Microsoft's own KB article I don't see what else I'd have to add.

I did include a "maybe he's busy option" in my previous reply. Anyway, the Windows 2000 installation fall into some wierd error where any Windows program (especially explorer.exe and taskmgr.exe) would "report errors and crash", reason why I had to do a whole reinstall of the thing. So, I reinstalled it and .NET Framework 2 SP1 finally got installed. But now, guess what? Outlook Express security update won't install! Lucky I don't use that thing anyway... Also, Windows Installer still has "problems", even if the service now responds to my commands. Why? Don't ask, because this time I really didn't do anything to it. But I'm ignoring installing ESET on Windows 2000 anyway at this point, I somehow managed to get IOBit Malware Fighter latest version on that PC, ran a scan and put it to shut down the PC after removal. And guess what happened? "It's now safe to turn off your computer" message! Never saw that in my life, to be honest! Anyway, do you think that this "IOBit Malware Fighter" thing will be enough for a PC that is used once a month? I'm planning to install Windows 2000 on my old Toshiba Sattelite A200, as that thing can't handle XP how I would like it to.

IOBit is a rather shady Chinese company. Their malware fighter in particular stole things from MalwareBytes Anti-Malware, and is otherwise not particularly good IMO.

On "old" systems I don't install security updates (Beyond what might be rolled into Service Packs of course) and don't install AV software either (which I don't use anyway). Personally I find AV software to often be as invasive and problematic as being infected to begin with, the only difference is intent.

You think it would be fine to let it without any antivirus/antispyware? Or what do you mean?