CCleaner tries to take out my .Net

Super_Fast · October 19, 2011, 5:55pm

When I run CCleaner on my XP SP3 machine, it wrongly targets the keys below:

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\System.Windows.Forms.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\System.Windows.Forms.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\mscorlib.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\mscoree.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\System.Drawing.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\System.EnterpriseServices.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\Microsoft.JScript.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\Microsoft.Vsa.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\System.Drawing.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\mscoree.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\System.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\System.EnterpriseServices.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\Microsoft.JScript.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\Microsoft.Vsa.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\Microsoft.Vsa.Vb.CodeDOMProcessor.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\mscorlib.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\System.tlb

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\Microsoft.Vsa.Vb.CodeDOMProcessor.tlb

These entries are listed in the registry key > HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\SharedDlls

Please fix this for future CCleaner versions, as mine is the latest 3.11 & it still has this problem. Thank you!

Winapp2.ini · October 19, 2011, 6:11pm

I think these entries become unimportant once you install a newer version of .NET (2,3,4,etc) but I do not know.

Super_Fast · October 19, 2011, 6:30pm

My concern is, that since applications routinely utilize the registry to check if x version of x application is installed, they will fail to see that yes, this is indeed installed, because of the entries pertaining to it being removed.

.Net is very, very, very important to applications that use it. I have noted that some applications stubbornly persist in requesting a prior version of .Net in order to run, even after updating to a newer version. This may be due to newer versions changing the way they call up things, which would in turn, cause the application to fail to respond in the correct manner.

For that reason, I seem to have to use .Net 1, 2, 2 SP2, 3, 3.5, 3.5 SP2, 4, 4.5, etc of .Net.

I know, painful, yes, and this is why I hate .Net because it's a real devil. LOL!

Winapp2.ini · October 19, 2011, 6:55pm

I think they're backwards compatible, so having v4.5 should grant all the needs posed by a program written with v1 in minds.

Nergal · October 19, 2011, 8:30pm

Thos are old no longer needed registry entries; I for a while, was also nervous about removing them. When I finally did (following my own advice in m y siganture) no ill happened to my .net. I kept the reg backup but never needed to use it. They are reg entires that were replace in updates to each individual .net.

Alan_B · October 19, 2011, 8:44pm

I think they're backwards compatible, so having v4.5 should grant all the needs posed by a program written with v1 in minds.

If they are backward compatible then that is a first for Windows :rolleyes:

TheWebAtom · October 23, 2011, 6:45am

I think they're backwards compatible

Backwards compatibility in .NET does exist, but how well it works depends entirely on the skills of the developer writing the software. In the words of a Microsoft employee: Newer versions are fully backwards compatible. However, if you have both installed, code compiled to the older version will still use the older version - the frameworks can be installed "side by side".

There were a number of changes to the OO paradigm between version 1.1 and 2.0 of .NET that broke a lot of programs, however Microsoft credited this to "security improvements."

If they are backward compatible then that is a first for Windows

That's a bit unfair. I can still run a 13 year old version of MYOB Accounting on my x64 Win7 machine. I don't know of any 13 year old software that will run on a modern Mac or Linux operating system, without needing virtualization or emulation.

Alan_B · October 23, 2011, 8:20am

That's a bit unfair. I can still run a 13 year old version of MYOB Accounting on my x64 Win7 machine. I don't know of any 13 year old software that will run on a modern Mac or Linux operating system, without needing virtualization or emulation.

Was it fair of Microsoft to Issue a new release of Excel, and two or three years later a newer release that totally miscalculated results on a financial report for Charity Tax Refunds ?

Many years with computers has caused deep distrust so I ran a few simple cross checks and detected a false refund claim before I submitted and got a Go To Jail ticket

I forget the details, but the newer Excel had a different interpretation of how to process macros and it got them wrong.

I think this was related to the newer version only allowing creation of macros with Visual Basic which had not been previously available,

and it made a *~?!#* poor job of understanding 2 year old "legacy" macros.

To compound their absolute folly, when I identified macros that needed rewriting,

their stupid paper clip gizmo with the intelligence of a bit of bent wire was zero help.

I used the new system with their "automatic help" and it formulated a macro that crashed.

When I read the documentation I saw that the variables and requirements I defined should have been placed in a certain order within various brackets with sundry mathematical operators,

but the on screen help wizard that took my requirements converted that into ALMOST the correct thing, but a vital something was omitted.

Twice this year Microsoft updates have trashed my Windows 7 and I had to restore a Macrium partition backup image.

One of those incidents was the unannounced and non-permitted UPDATE to WGA to detect hacked/cracked Windows/keys/whatever.

My system was valid and had gained WGA, and what they did gave me PERMANENTLY on reboot after reboot, less than 2 minutes of GUI response,

after which there was no way to do anything other than hold down the power switch for several seconds to shutdown and try again.

My WIndows was and remains valid

It never in any way said it was not a legal version - it said nothing to indicate why it was discontinuing service.

Their devastation was thousands of times more destructive than what they publish as the intended result.

hazelnut · October 23, 2011, 8:27am

Lets keep on topic here.

This is about .net reg entries and if older .net entries are needed for later ones to work.

Andavari · October 23, 2011, 4:28pm

I think they're backwards compatible, so having v4.5 should grant all the needs posed by a program written with v1 in minds.

I thought that also a few years back after v3.x was released and I removed all previous versions, but I have a program that requires v2.0 and it will refuse to run without out.

Super_Fast · October 23, 2011, 5:21pm

I thought that also a few years back after v3.x was released and I removed all previous versions, but I have a program that requires v2.0 and it will refuse to run without out.

That was also what I thought, but then, I had a program that specifically ignored that version 3 or later was installed, & requested that I have 2 installed in order to run. I had the same thing happen to me, also...

Nergal · October 24, 2011, 6:25am

3.5 changed that

Alan_B · October 24, 2011, 6:51am

3.5 changed that

Hi

A few years ago a .NET 2.? security patch failed installation repeatedly.

Apparently Windows had lost a .NET manifest and did not know how to fit the update.

Official M.S. advise was that I had to totally UN-install the entire .NET conglomerate from 3.? down to 1.? in that order,

and then re-install starting at 1.? and working upwards.

I was told that 1.? was a foundation on which the entire .NET family depended.

Is 3.5 now the new foundation which avoids the need for the previous versions ?

Are all subsequent versions now dependent on 3.5, or are they now fully self sufficient ?

hazelnut · October 24, 2011, 8:18am

I found this which may answer a few questions, I have highlighted in red a line which I think may be an important clue..........

Method 2: Repair the .NET Framework

To repair the .NET Framework, you must uninstall multiple versions of the .NET Framework by using the .NET Framework Cleanup Tool, and then reinstall the components.

To do this, follow these steps:

Click the following link to download the .NET Framework Cleanup Tool:

http://blogs.msdn.co...28/8904493.aspx

Use the .NET Framework Cleanup Tool to uninstall the .NET Framework versions 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5

Note The cleanup tool does not let you remove the .NET Framework 2.0 in Windows Vista or later versions because the .NET Framework is installed as an operating system component.

Restart the computer.

Download and install the following components:

.Net Framework 1.1

http://www.microsoft...57-034d1e7cf3a3

.Net Framework 1.1 SP1

http://www.microsoft...&displaylang=en

.NET Framework 3.5 SP1

Note This will also install .Net Framework 2.0 SP2 and .Net Framework 3.0 SP2

http://www.microsoft...&displaylang=en

Restart the computer.

Visit the Windows Update Web site and install the updates:

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com