dotnetfx 2.0

[n00b]

omg lolz

how do i do the unattended install of dotnetfx

can i still do the administrative install point method, cause i want it to be slipstreamable easily in the future in the world

hax

[Zxian]

You can do the administrative install, but you'll end up with a file that's larger than the original.

Also... try running the installer from a command line with the /q switch. Sometimes it'll find you what you're looking for.

[Nakatomi2010]

Figurees... The day I FINALLY get my Multiboot DVD in it's sweet spot Microsoft releases this thing, and now I have to go in and make a small change...

Oh weell, I least I heelped Bashrat solvee the nForcee Mass Storagee problem...

And yes the keyboard I'm using is adding extra e's heree aree theere... Sorry....

*sigh*

[angel0104]

does /q:a /r:n works?

does /q:a /r:n works on 32 & 64 version? thanks.

[Zxian]

does /q:a /r:n works?

does /q:a /r:n works on 32 & 64 version? thanks.

Did you read my post at all?

I'm guessing 90% of the time you can find the silent install switches either by looking at the type of installer (and a bit of searching), or by running the installer with a /? switch.

If you did that, you'd see a window like this:

Either that or you can extract the contents and run the install.exe from there (repeat process to find the switch ).

Or... you can find my switchless installer. Look in the Technology News section.

Edited October 28, 2005 by Zxian

[nmX.Memnoch]

dotnetfx.exe /Q /C:"install.exe /Q"

[Jazkal]

Haven't tried that one before nmX.Memnoch. I'll give that a try later.

This is what I use, and it will install silently without rebooting:

dotnetfx.exe /q:a /c:"install /l /q"

Worked for my 32bit install. Haven't tested x64 yet, will get to that tomorrow.

[nmX.Memnoch]

Yours is basically doing the same thing. You don't really need to use the :A or the /l though.

[evilvoice]

orrrr, you can do /q:a /c:"msiexec /i netfx.msi /qn"

[MHz]

dotnetfx.exe /Q /C:"install.exe /Q"

This works fine. Running the Netfx.msi instead of Install.exe failed for my attempts which made it complain to run Install.exe first.

[Hatefulsorrow]

ok, off topic and maybe a stupid question, but do you need .net framework v1.0 or 1.1 installed for most programs AS WELL as 2.0 or can you just have 2.0??? I searched microsoft but had no luck

[Petya V4sechkin]

* Deleted *

Edited October 29, 2005 by Petya V4sechkin

[Jazkal]

ok, off topic and maybe a stupid question, but do you need .net framework v1.0 or 1.1 installed for most programs AS WELL as 2.0 or can you just have 2.0??? I searched microsoft but had no luck

2.0 is stand alone, but not sure if it is backwards compatible yet.

[Nakatomi2010]

Repacked unattended installations:

.NET Framework 2.0 (x86) (16,1 Mb)

.NET Framework 2.0 (x64) (24,2 Mb)

(second file i didn't tryed, coz i doesn't have 64-bit windows).

Can I put your file in the svcpack directory and have it called through the svcpack.inf, or should I make this one have a new entry in WPI? (I've been putting the .NET 1 in the svcpack directory....)

I'll tell you if you're 64-bit version works in a few moments as I'm now integrating these into my DVD....

Edited October 28, 2005 by Nakatomi2010

[snekul]

The posts from the comments on the main page may give some insight into backwards compatability.

#1 Posted by Aegis (460 posts) at 27 Oct 2005 - 23:47

Does it offer backwards compatibility?

#2 Posted by travisowens (42 posts) at 28 Oct 2005 - 00:28 3 Replies

No, each version of .Net is seperate in order to gaurentee 100% "compatbility", if .Net 2.0 could run 1.0 or 1.1 apps would it would add a ton of testing that neither IT nor MS wans to do, norneed to.

While 30-100megs per .Net version isn't tiny, considering HDs are 120gig-400gig now-a-days, .NET isn't that big either.

#2.1 Posted by snekul (53 posts) at 28 Oct 2005 - 00:33

Let's rephrase the first question. Does installing the .Net 2.0 redistributable package install the 1.1 components recessary to run a program, like nlite? Or, do we need to install both. I would like to think it installs everything .Net wise, but I could be wrong.

#2.2 Posted by snekul (53 posts) at 28 Oct 2005 - 01:39

Well, I answered my own question. I found my test VM I had didn't have any .net framwork installed, so I ran the 2.0 installer and then ran nlite and it worked just fine. So, I assume this is all you need to install to be .net friendly. Your results may vary.

#2.3 Posted by Ideas Man (296 posts) at 28 Oct 2005 - 02:31

Yes, it is backwards compatible, dunno what he was smokin'.

#3 Posted by Ideas Man (296 posts) at 28 Oct 2005 - 02:40

Woooooo! I LOVE .NET FRAMEWORK 2.0!! Yey, been waiting years for this.

#4 Posted by Aegis (460 posts) at 28 Oct 2005 - 03:32

I had similar findings. While .NET 2.0 does work for some applications, apparently it doesn't work for applications that check what version you're using. An example of a non-working program would be Microsoft's very own Student Graphing Calculator.