What is the procedure for removing NET Framework 2.0?

1. Click on <Start>
2. Click on <Control Panel>
3. Double click on 'Add Remove or Programs'
4. Click on 'Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0'
5. Click on <Change/Remove>
6. Click on 'Uninstall'
7. Click on <Next>
8. Follow the logical steps from there
9. Follow the suggestions as may be presented


Common sense is not so common.
Voltaire
(1694 - 1778)



Denise wrote:
> I'm not asking you to believe anything. I came to this forum to find out how
> to uninstall NETFramework 2.0.
>
> It don't work on my present computer and it didn't work on my old computer.
> Those are facts. I typed in the message that I received and I copied and
> pasted the details of the message that I received, proof positive that
> NETFramework 2.0 won't work on my computer, the proof that you asked for that
> shows that there's something wrong with NETFramework 2.0.
>
> I get automatic updates and I let Microsoft choose which updates would be
> best for my computer, and the updates are download and installed
> automatically. Windows Automatic Update has never attempted to install
> NETFramework 2.0 on my computer. it has installed only 1.1 and 1.1 Hotfix
> (KB886903). If 2.0 was compatible with my computer, automatic updates would
> have installed 2.0, as you mentioned, but it hasn't.
>
> I didn't come to this forum to argue with anyone and I don't like what has
> happened here. I wanted to uninstall 2.0 and it's done, and I will not check
> the box to notify me of replies.

I have to agree with Denise. .NET 2.0 has been nothing but trouble for me on
dozens of machines. I've had to manually uninstall, reinstall, and fight
continuously with Windows update. It does no good to complain to Microsoft
.... nothing gets fixed. Same problems, over and over; each resolution
slightly different from the previous. As long as Microsoft doesn't "fix"
this wonderful API again, I'm happy to stay with what I've got.

I also agree with Denise that the Microsoft product names should be more
consistent. I have hundreds of apps installed ... playing the "what did
Microsoft call it this time" game gets real tiresome.


"Theo" wrote:

> If .NET 2.0 was as flaky as you want us to believe, there would be millions of people complaining!

Regardless of the problems with .NET Framework, any version,
this forum is specifically for the Operating System. So any
problems with .NET Framework are really not appropriate
being addressed here.

We don't want anyone starting a .NET Framework bashing here!!


vmguy wrote:
> I have to agree with Denise. .NET 2.0 has been nothing but trouble for me on
> dozens of machines. I've had to manually uninstall, reinstall, and fight
> continuously with Windows update. It does no good to complain to Microsoft
> ... nothing gets fixed. Same problems, over and over; each resolution
> slightly different from the previous. As long as Microsoft doesn't "fix"
> this wonderful API again, I'm happy to stay with what I've got.
>
> I also agree with Denise that the Microsoft product names should be more
> consistent. I have hundreds of apps installed ... playing the "what did
> Microsoft call it this time" game gets real tiresome.
>
>
> "Theo" wrote:
>
>> If .NET 2.0 was as flaky as you want us to believe, there would be millions of people complaining!
>

Nobody tried to start anything here except you. I asked a simple question, I
received an answer, I uninstalled NET Framework 2.0, and you came in
accusing, belittling, arguing and ridiing your white horse to defend 2.0.

The version of 2.0 that I installed in my computer that has an X64 os was
the X64 Redistributable Pack. Is that enough X64's to be allowed to stay in
the X64 forum?

You have to be nother Microsoft employee afraid to lose his job if he
doesn't get everyone to keep quiet about the problems with X64. X64 rots and
it's the worst purchase I made this decade! I started with Windows 95 when
it first came out. There were less problems with 95 than there are with X64.
Unfortunately, Bill Gates didn't want to take a loss on the research and
development that went into this pathetic operating system that really should
be called a joke, so he marketed it and let the users pay the price. Isn't
greed one of the 5 deadly sins?

BTW, who is the "We" you're talking about and why do you think that speaking
one's mind about a product is bashing. A person has the right to not like a
product that doesn't work and the right to speak her mind about it. This is
still America the last time I looked . . . it hasn't yet been changes to
Gates.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"Theo" wrote:

> Regardless of the problems with .NET Framework, any version,
> this forum is specifically for the Operating System. So any
> problems with .NET Framework are really not appropriate
> being addressed here.
>
> We don't want anyone starting a .NET Framework bashing here!!
>
>
> vmguy wrote:
> > I have to agree with Denise. .NET 2.0 has been nothing but trouble for me on
> > dozens of machines. I've had to manually uninstall, reinstall, and fight
> > continuously with Windows update. It does no good to complain to Microsoft
> > ... nothing gets fixed. Same problems, over and over; each resolution
> > slightly different from the previous. As long as Microsoft doesn't "fix"
> > this wonderful API again, I'm happy to stay with what I've got.
> >
> > I also agree with Denise that the Microsoft product names should be more
> > consistent. I have hundreds of apps installed ... playing the "what did
> > Microsoft call it this time" game gets real tiresome.
> >
> >
> > "Theo" wrote:
> >
> >> If .NET 2.0 was as flaky as you want us to believe, there would be millions of people complaining!
> >
>

Denise,
just for your information and maybe to clear the air.
according to the news groups rules posted at MICROSOFT for their news groups.
you are NOT REQUIRED to post into any particular news group.
it is recommended that you make a reasonable attempt to find the most appropriate news group for the subject.

feel free to check for your self if you are interested.



mikeyhsd@comcast.net



"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B9BF4144-402C-40B7-8F87-6AD60489D272@microsoft.com...
Nobody tried to start anything here except you. I asked a simple question, I
received an answer, I uninstalled NET Framework 2.0, and you came in
accusing, belittling, arguing and ridiing your white horse to defend 2.0.

The version of 2.0 that I installed in my computer that has an X64 os was
the X64 Redistributable Pack. Is that enough X64's to be allowed to stay in
the X64 forum?

You have to be nother Microsoft employee afraid to lose his job if he
doesn't get everyone to keep quiet about the problems with X64. X64 rots and
it's the worst purchase I made this decade! I started with Windows 95 when
it first came out. There were less problems with 95 than there are with X64.
Unfortunately, Bill Gates didn't want to take a loss on the research and
development that went into this pathetic operating system that really should
be called a joke, so he marketed it and let the users pay the price. Isn't
greed one of the 5 deadly sins?

BTW, who is the "We" you're talking about and why do you think that speaking
one's mind about a product is bashing. A person has the right to not like a
product that doesn't work and the right to speak her mind about it. This is
still America the last time I looked . . . it hasn't yet been changes to
Gates.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"Theo" wrote:

> Regardless of the problems with .NET Framework, any version,
> this forum is specifically for the Operating System. So any
> problems with .NET Framework are really not appropriate
> being addressed here.
>
> We don't want anyone starting a .NET Framework bashing here!!
>
>
> vmguy wrote:
> > I have to agree with Denise. .NET 2.0 has been nothing but trouble for me on
> > dozens of machines. I've had to manually uninstall, reinstall, and fight
> > continuously with Windows update. It does no good to complain to Microsoft
> > ... nothing gets fixed. Same problems, over and over; each resolution
> > slightly different from the previous. As long as Microsoft doesn't "fix"
> > this wonderful API again, I'm happy to stay with what I've got.
> >
> > I also agree with Denise that the Microsoft product names should be more
> > consistent. I have hundreds of apps installed ... playing the "what did
> > Microsoft call it this time" game gets real tiresome.
> >
> >
> > "Theo" wrote:
> >
> >> If .NET 2.0 was as flaky as you want us to believe, there would be millions of people complaining!
> >
>

You really need to calm down. Breathe deeply. XP64 is a wonderful and
STABLE OS if you have the compatible hardware (with the necessary drivers)
and software (many of my programs didn't work. Found others that did, and
used the system as my main system for over a year before switching to
Vista64. Vista 64 still has problems, but all but 1 are due to lack of
proper drivers or incompatible programs. The signed driver requirement is
the biggest hassle as who is going to do that for free programs. Since you
have had such good luck with XP32, that is where you should be, but ranting
about XP64 accomplishes nothing except maybe mislead someone who is capable
of having it run on their system. It just works.

"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B9BF4144-402C-40B7-8F87-6AD60489D272@microsoft.com...
> Nobody tried to start anything here except you. I asked a simple
> question, I
> received an answer, I uninstalled NET Framework 2.0, and you came in
> accusing, belittling, arguing and ridiing your white horse to defend 2.0.
>
> The version of 2.0 that I installed in my computer that has an X64 os was
> the X64 Redistributable Pack. Is that enough X64's to be allowed to stay
> in
> the X64 forum?
>
> You have to be nother Microsoft employee afraid to lose his job if he
> doesn't get everyone to keep quiet about the problems with X64. X64 rots
> and
> it's the worst purchase I made this decade! I started with Windows 95
> when
> it first came out. There were less problems with 95 than there are with
> X64.
> Unfortunately, Bill Gates didn't want to take a loss on the research and
> development that went into this pathetic operating system that really
> should
> be called a joke, so he marketed it and let the users pay the price.
> Isn't
> greed one of the 5 deadly sins?
>
> BTW, who is the "We" you're talking about and why do you think that
> speaking
> one's mind about a product is bashing. A person has the right to not like
> a
> product that doesn't work and the right to speak her mind about it. This
> is
> still America the last time I looked . . . it hasn't yet been changes to
> Gates.
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.
>
>
> "Theo" wrote:
>
>> Regardless of the problems with .NET Framework, any version,
>> this forum is specifically for the Operating System. So any
>> problems with .NET Framework are really not appropriate
>> being addressed here.
>>
>> We don't want anyone starting a .NET Framework bashing here!!
>>
>>
>> vmguy wrote:
>> > I have to agree with Denise. .NET 2.0 has been nothing but trouble for
>> > me on
>> > dozens of machines. I've had to manually uninstall, reinstall, and
>> > fight
>> > continuously with Windows update. It does no good to complain to
>> > Microsoft
>> > ... nothing gets fixed. Same problems, over and over; each resolution
>> > slightly different from the previous. As long as Microsoft doesn't
>> > "fix"
>> > this wonderful API again, I'm happy to stay with what I've got.
>> >
>> > I also agree with Denise that the Microsoft product names should be
>> > more
>> > consistent. I have hundreds of apps installed ... playing the "what
>> > did
>> > Microsoft call it this time" game gets real tiresome.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Theo" wrote:
>> >
>> >> If .NET 2.0 was as flaky as you want us to believe, there would be
>> >> millions of people complaining!
>> >
>>

Such anger.

Personally, I think XP x64 is the most rock-solid Windows version yet. I
don't use Server 2003 x64 nearly enough to compare it though.

..NET Framework is NOT part of the Operating System just
because it's one of the extras Microsoft included on the
Distribution CD. Someday it may be just as Internet
Explorer is now.

The major problem with your post was that you tried to use a
program that was not compatible with Win x64 and then
because it doesn't work you want to blame Microsoft for your
inability to read and comprehend something.

And, NO, I am not a Microsoft employee, but like any other
subject, it's best to try to learn as much as you can about
something if you want to delve into it very deeply.

Would you do mechanical work on your vehicle without trying
to learn how to accomplish your objective task efficiently
and expediently?


Denise wrote:
> Nobody tried to start anything here except you. I asked a simple question, I
> received an answer, I uninstalled NET Framework 2.0, and you came in
> accusing, belittling, arguing and ridiing your white horse to defend 2.0.
>
> The version of 2.0 that I installed in my computer that has an X64 os was
> the X64 Redistributable Pack. Is that enough X64's to be allowed to stay in
> the X64 forum?
>
> You have to be nother Microsoft employee afraid to lose his job if he
> doesn't get everyone to keep quiet about the problems with X64. X64 rots and
> it's the worst purchase I made this decade! I started with Windows 95 when
> it first came out. There were less problems with 95 than there are with X64.
> Unfortunately, Bill Gates didn't want to take a loss on the research and
> development that went into this pathetic operating system that really should
> be called a joke, so he marketed it and let the users pay the price. Isn't
> greed one of the 5 deadly sins?
>
> BTW, who is the "We" you're talking about and why do you think that speaking
> one's mind about a product is bashing. A person has the right to not like a
> product that doesn't work and the right to speak her mind about it. This is
> still America the last time I looked . . . it hasn't yet been changes to
> Gates.