backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by FoxFour.. on Aug 26 at 11:50 PM


Windows Internet Explorer 9 and Microsoft Office (all editions) are both crippled on a variety of hardware configurations due to an unsolved corruption issue in the Windows 7 .NET Framework, which is affecting a small, but significant group of users. Microsoft has been aware of this issue for over a year, but has been unable to fix it fully.

The crippling error, ensuing tech support run around, (literally) days of wasted time, and final solution of being forced to reinstall Windows left me feeling like the star of one of those obnoxious "Get a Mac" commercials.  (Source: Apple)
Only current fix is a complete reinstall of Windows 7

Over the last two weeks I've been struggling with a very odd problem.  I had purchased a copy of Microsoft Office 2010 Professional from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and had attempted to install it on my installation of Windows 7 Professional, only to discover that it refused to install.  Over a long and frustrating process I came to learn that my Windows 7 install was broken, in what is currently a irrepairable corruption.  And according to Microsoft support engineers, I'm not the only one.

I. The Dreaded Error 1935

The first sign I recognized that something serious had gone wrong with Windows 7 was when I tried to install Internet Explorer 9.  I wanted to include this browser's test results in my roundup of recent browsers.  But I would discover something quite different -- a bug in Windows itself.

I persistently received an error that it was missing necessary updates and could not install.  I tried running Windows update several times manually, to no avail.  I read several Knowledge Base and forum posts, but ultimately wasn't able to diagnose or fix the issue.  

At the time I was very busy and I had the Windows Update process set to automatic, so I decided to stop wasting time on the issue and wait for Microsoft to push down a fix.  In retrospect I probably should have posted to Microsoft Answers or called support, but again these things take time and having a working Internet Explorer 9 was a relatively secondary concern to me.

The problem would reappear this month when I purchased a copy of MSO 2010 Pro. and attempted an install.  The process consistently failed with the error:
Error 1935. An error occurred during the installation of assembly component {03A12C9D-C56A-3F97-8530-0643D6391970}. HRESULT: 0x80073712 Setup failed. Rolling back changes...
...and then rolled back the installation process.

I first did a Google search on the assembly component code and found one TechNet post dated July 2010 and one Microsoft Answers post dated March 2011 with same issue.  In both cases, the communication went dead without Microsoft or the poster expressing that a definitive solution had been reached.  

That worried me, but I dug up some pages on other 1935 errors (with different assembly components) such as the following:
From these posts I ascertained the following:
  1. An install of security software may interfere with installation (I've read some links to discussion of 1935 errors that suggest firewalls can also cause failures). 
  2. A broken .NET Framework can cause this error. 
  3. A missing TrustedInstaller.exe can cause this error.
  4. Running services can cause this error. 
  5. Previous installs of MSO can cause errors. 
Diligently, I addressed these issues one by one.  I uninstalled .NET Framework 4, Silverlight, and Visual C++ using the control panel and "FixIt" script tools Microsoft provides to remove vestiges of these services from the registry.  I verified that TrustedInstaller.exe was in its expected home (it was).  I turned off all non-essential, non-Microsoft services (a "clean" boot).  I disabled active monitoring in my security software.  I tried first a clean boot, then a boot to safe mode.

I probably spent 14-16 hours on this "project", including a wasted weekend day, between digging around online and implementing the suggestions.

At the end of the day I still returned to the same old thing -- the dreaded "Error 1935".

To be clear I've never seen any signs of a malware infection and I keep my computer well protected and monitored, so this appeared to be solely a Microsoft Windows/Office issue. 

Now I'm a DIY person and I spent a year working as an IT support engineer at an automotive plant (a co-op), so I tend to want to solve problems myself.  But at this point I admitted defeat.  I would have to contact Microsoft.

II. Into the Merry World of MSFT Tech Support

I first posted a post to Microsoft Answers.  I explained in explicit detail my problem, what I had done, and the fact that I was a journalist and was going to report on my experience (ethically, journalists should always inform people when they're "on the record").

My post can be found here:
I waited a few days and received a couple of suggestions, but as you'll see in my comments, they didn't work out.

So I picked up the phone and called Microsoft's phone support.  Now Microsoft Office 2010 Professional retails for $420 USD or more, so I would expect outstanding support.  Sadly, I would soon discover Microsoft had no answers for me.

I spoke with Microsoft Office support engineers first.  Overall, these engineers did about as good a job as I could expect in this situation -- they basically listened carefully to what I'd done, asked me some additional questions to make sure that I really exercised due diligence in all fields, and were friendly and sympathetic.

At the end of about 3 hours, one MSO support engineer told me, "Well I can understand your frustration, you've pretty much done everything already that we would have suggested."

I appreciated the sentiment.

They brought in their local Windows support engineer, and again the experience was relatively good -- but still no solutions.  In this case, at least we got a bit closer to the root issue.  They identified that the non-mandatory Windows Service Pack 1 update had never installed (to be honest, I never bothered to look or think of that) and also identified that my Windows Updates window perplexing showed up blank, despite the fact that I installed updates.

Ah, now I was on to something.  I end my phone call at about 4-5 hours, explaining that I would attempt to install the service pack.

After getting off the phone I tried to manually carry out a series of updates to get me to the service pack.  But I kept getting a failure in "check for system update readiness" tool (as shown by my CheckSUR logs).  I spent more time digging around based on the error messages I found my %temp% logs, but again found no real answers.

III. The Final Solution

Later in the day I received a follow up call from a Windows Team support engineer (not affiliated with the Office team).  This was a very different experience.  There seemed to be a huge communications problem -- perhaps a language barrier.  They wasted probably 45 minutes trying to tell me how to reinstall the .NET Framework, despite my repeated assurance "I've already done that!"

Finally after wasting a large amount of my time and seeming to understand nothing of what I was saying, the engineer suggested that I do a repair installation.  Now that sounded reasonable enough, but I had a small problem -- I had purchased an upgrade copy of Windows 7 and couldn't locate the DVD I burned my ISO to -- and the download link no longer worked.

So I went to a certain torrent site and downloaded a fresh Windows 7 Pro ISO (I had my product key from my email I dug up at least, so I was all set in that regard).  I could probably have contacted my vendor (Digital River), but at this point I was pretty frustrated with phone support, so I opted simply the torrent route.

I finally got my DVD all ready and tried the repair, but saw no success.  I still receive the exact same error I had receive since day 1.

At this point, feeling like I was stuck in some sort of bad Apple commercial parody, I made an executive decision.  

I'd wasted literally over 24 hours searching online trying fixes, and another 6-7 hours on the phone with Microsoft.  I decided to cut my losses and simply back up my data and do a fresh install.

I reinstalled Windows, manually ran all the updates, installed MSO 2010 Pro. with not so much as a protesting peep from the installer.  Everything ran beautifully.  The only issue is I now have at least several more hours of work ahead of me reinstalling yet more applications and copying over save data (from games) and my documents.

Today, I received a friendly follow-up call from a MSO team support engineer, a day after my clean install was complete.  The discussion was quite enlightening -- again in my brief experience the MSO team was MUCH better communicators that the Windows team, with the exception of the MSO team's local Windows support engineer.

The MSO engineer told me that what I had experienced was a .NET corruption issue -- one they had actually personally experienced themselves.  They said that they had "personally collected several of these logs" and that I was not alone -- a small subset of users were experiencing the same issue.

They said the Windows team was working on a fix and that it was a known problem.  They finally concluded by promising to keep me updated on the progress with the fix and politely apologizing for my inconvenience.

And so concluded my interesting experience with the world of Microsoft's support system.

IV. Conclusions

To wrap this up let me summarize what I've learned:
  • A small number of users are unable to install Microsoft Office due to a persistent .NET Framework 4 corruption issue in Windows 7.  It is unclear exactly how many users are affected -- it's clearly not the majority, but it's also clear that it's more than just 1 or 2 (remember also there's millions of MSO users).
  • Microsoft has known about this problem for over a year and has thus far been unable to fix it.
  • The only solution at this point is a clean install of Windows.  In some cases repair installations and other tricks will not solve the underlying problem.
  • The problem makes users unable to install Internet Explorer 9 and Microsoft Office.
  • The problem affects users with a variety of hardware configurations (HP, Dell, Apple, etc.) and a variety of operating system versions (from Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit to my own Windows 7 Professional 64-bit).
To me this experience has been a very frustrating one, and a disheartening one when it comes to Microsoft, whom I've generally felt is improving its performance in the consumer software market.  I scanned through the Microsoft Answers database and saw a whopping total of 39 unresolved posts on "Error 1935".  And one must assume that for ever user who takes the time to use that particular forum, there's more who post on TechNet, dozens more who call tech support, and even more who simply give up and just reinstall Windows.

Given this information, I would estimate that as many as 1,000 users (times however many systems they're running) could be affected by this problem, though some may be suffering in silence.  I wanted to speak up because, if you're having this issue I know what you went through, and I know the frustration of not getting a real solution from Microsoft and hearing that you've tried everything they could think of.

I've used Linux for years and have seldom encountered a problem I couldn't fix with some research and surgical operations to my underlying system applications.  I understand Microsoft benefits off of a more "closed boxed" model, à la Apple's "it just works".  

But the problem is that when the components inside the closed box break, Microsoft must fix them in a timely fashion.  Microsoft often seems perplexed and sluggish in generating a solution.  The final MSO team engineer explained to me that MSO was entirely dependent on the .NET Framework and Visual C++ in order to make it "lightweight".  I can appreciate that, but it seems to me that if this is such a critical component, that to allow a severe known issue to go unfixed for over a year is simply unacceptable.  

Microsoft wasted my time, so I'm here to save yours.  If you experience a similar error to what I did, try the steps outlined above in Section 1 (e.g. do a clean boot, check your TrustedInstaller.exe, etc.).  If those don't work -- you can either call Microsoft's team and invest several more hours, or you can simply do a clean install of Windows 7, which will likely be your final course of action either way.

Alternatively, if you don't absolutely need MSO's fancier features (like collaborative edits, plug-ins, and scripting -- features I unfortunately did need), you can simply save yourself both time AND money, and forgo the pricey Microsoft Office and download the free Open Office 3.3 -- currently supported by the Apache project.

I will update this piece when Microsoft publishes a fix for these .NET Framework 4 corruption issues.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Doesn't seem too common
By Alexvrb on 8/20/2011 2:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
This is the first time I've heard of this exact issue. If it's rare and they have problems regularly duplicating it, getting a fix is kind of hard, no matter the problem. The only other time I've encountered something remotely like this was when a system experienced a power failure during an update (or possibly someone impatiently slams the lid shut on a lappy). But even so it wasn't quite this problem, and I wouldn't waste that much time before wiping a drive in any OS.




RE: Doesn't seem too common
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2011 2:57:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is the first time I've heard of this exact issue. If it's rare and they have problems regularly duplicating it, getting a fix is kind of hard, no matter the problem. The only other time I've encountered something remotely like this was when a system experienced a power failure during an update (or possibly someone impatiently slams the lid shut on a lappy). But even so it wasn't quite this problem, and I wouldn't waste that much time before wiping a drive in any OS.

Ha, I wish I hadn't wasted that much time either, but I was trying to exercise due diligence and look for alternatives to a complete re-install. Plus I had a degree of interest from a journalistic perspective, as I saw a number of other users were affected with similar issues, but had received a frustrating lack of support and information.

I also agree with you, somewhat, on your commentary on the number of users affected. It is small, based on what the support engineers told me and what I've observed in the forums.

That said, there were 39 unresolved posts on Microsoft Answers alone, which indicates that a significant minority is having this issue.

With at least 39 cases and many detailed descriptions with log files, they should be able to track it down.

After all, the support engineer said it happened to HIM so they should have an ideal Windows install to dissect and diagnose.

I think the severity of the error (precluding MSO and IE9 installations) means that only it only affects ~1000 users, that's a major issue for Microsoft.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By toyotabedzrock on 8/20/2011 4:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have had this problem on several Windows Vista machines.

By chance have you used AVG for your antivirus?

Thats the only thing I could figure that caused it.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2011 5:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By chance have you used AVG for your antivirus?
Thats the only thing I could figure that caused it.

Yes, but I would be hesitant to blame it. It is possible it removed some sort of vital component, but I saw no evidence of this, and -- like I said -- I turned it off during the whole MSO 2010 installation process/attempt.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By Alexvrb on 8/20/2011 8:13:27 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, but if it caused a failed SP1 install, it could have caused the damage eons ago and it just never cropped up until now. I'm not saying that is the cause, I repeat I am not blaming AVG in this particular case. However I would like to note that AVG has been problematic for a long, long time. I used to be a big advocate of AVG, but after numerous issues, I have moved on. I switched every non-business machine I use, maintain, or repair to either Avast! or MSE (assuming they didn't have a strong preference or paid software that is on my approved list).

Frankly I didn't think MSE would be as solid as it is, but it is actually good enough that I now prefer it above any other free AV software. Of course paid AV software widens the field quite a bit. But paid or free, I still shy away from McAfee, Norton, and now AVG.

I would also like to metion that you should have noticed there was a problem with a failed SP1 install a long time ago. Then again, even though we're nerds, we're all human. Even the LARPers.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By Mitch101 on 8/21/2011 12:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
I happened to have worked with our team that deployed Office 2010 in our office and attended the troubleshooting class for the product.

Whats worth mentioning is the Office 2010 engineer recommended when installing Office 2010 you choose to install everything and then uncheck the items you dont require. He mentioned there is an item that doesnt get installed if you dont do it this way but didnt say what.

I cant say our organization has seen the authors issue but we dont use AVG. I suspect your onto something with AVG as the author confirmed using it.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By toyotabedzrock on 8/22/2011 12:18:25 PM , Rating: 3
Any reason why you don't like Norton?


By inperfectdarkness on 8/22/2011 9:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
i'm sticking with office 07. low and behold, no problems...yet.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By toyotabedzrock on 8/22/2011 11:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
Remember AVG has had issues with deleting Windows components in the past.

It's really the only common link I can find.

I think AVG deletes a small part of the .NET framework in the registry or on the disk. I have found missing GAC files on one system.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By DanNeely on 8/21/2011 9:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
No AVG on my affected box. MSE and Avast prior to that.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By Alexvrb on 8/20/2011 8:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'd also like to note that this is why physical media with a nice well-labeled full-size DVD case is still important to me, at least for an OS. Not some poorly labeled DVD-R shoved who knows where or an image file saved who knows where.

I'm not necessarily saying this was the problem in your case, but it is just another annoyance I have with big-name OEM boxes. Ones I build for myself, I get a nice pretty DVD case that I sure as heck won't lose (especially after all the chickens I traded to get it).

Don't get me wrong, if you download software from a "big" cloud like Steam, Amazon, or from MS directly, it probably wouldn't have been a big deal to re-download. Some services are less hassle to redownload stuff. At least you probably wouldn't have had to torrent a possibly-virus-laden image. But it's still a lot more work and hassle even if it is readily available for download, when all you want to do is try a repair.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By FaaR on 8/21/2011 4:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this is why I don't buy ANYthing from digital river; their practise of expiring download links just so they can squeeze you for an extra $10 to provide you a "service" that isn't costing them anything anyway is just utterly scummy, frustrating and annoying.

At least with steam, you know your stuff will always be available for re-download (unless valve turns evil or goes bankrupt anyway...) :P


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By bodar on 8/21/2011 6:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
I think it's a little-known fact, but DR's Win7 links are static so you can download legit Win7 ISOs from them after the 30 day period. As long as you've got a product key and the URL, you're good. You just can't use their download manager.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/official-windows-7-s...


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By lost953 on 8/20/2011 10:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Lets do a little math for instance you estimate the number of users with this issue is ~1000 the number of installs that are attempting now lets consider that there are probably over 200 million win 7 installs in the world
if say half of them have tried to use ie9 that means that we have a sample of 100 million people about 1000 have had problems or .001% of users... this is not a big problem and indeed is not a significant minority


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By Flunk on 8/21/2011 9:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
I work in computer software and ~1000 users of a product that has sold millions of copies is less than 1%. Seeing as there is a published work-around I wouldn't class this as a big problem, certainly not worth writing about.

Sure it's annoying, but unexpected interactions between software components happen all the time. I'm sure they have a team working on this problem but this sort of thing often takes a long time to figure out.

Microsoft is actually quite good at this sort of thing, if this was one of my company's products we would just point our customers to the work around and claim that the problem was solved.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By leexgx on 8/21/2011 10:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
i am not surprised More .net framework errors happen more often, as there is an point where .net seems to rebuild it self after the updates have been installed

lately thought i have now been seeing that when an .net update is installing it no longer allows windows update to finish until its finished rebuilding the .net frame work first or sometimes it do it on an reboot (where interrupting it could damage .net framework)

in the past it say windows update has finished installing updates but if you open task manager you see that 2-3 processes (mscore.exe? or something like that) are using 1 full core at that point there is an big risk of damaging the .net framework if you interrupt it

why does .net framework have to do what it does seems bad way to do it, as on low end CPUs it can take an very long time to complete higher risk of it been broke


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By smitty3268 on 8/21/2011 8:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's an optimization process. It's compiling the .net MSIL assembly into x86 code specifically for your processor. It has to do that whenever a .net assembly gets updated.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By tamalero on 8/21/2011 2:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
Most people just google and dont search much regarding these type of errors.. theres always blaming something else.. they blamed me for overclocking when I wasnt.. for installing a firewall.. when the same happened with no firewall..etc..etc...

Anyway;
I had similar corruption of the NET framework 3.5 which pretty sure is the core of windows 7...
and it CANNOT BE FIXED unless you reinstall everything.
Its not as rare as you might think... since it happened TWICE to me so far.
Caused probably by a game like TeamFortress2 crashing..

And it doesnt affect only Office or similars.
framework Dependable tools like IMPULSE system to install (object dock)
Overclocking tools (RadeonPro) and other based in framework, will obviusly fail to run... present errors, or do weird phenomena.

the most dumb part? if you run the SFC /scannow it will find errors, but wont fix them because the files are locked and in use.. and god bless Microsoft for blocking the SFC tool in safe mode.. making it pretty much useless for critical files.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By erple2 on 8/22/2011 5:20:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its not as rare as you might think... since it happened TWICE to me so far.

That statement is so full of why the internet is a terrible place to find information about failure rates of products (hardware and software), that my eyes are bleeding in statistical agony as I type this.

If it happened to you twice, and happened to 1000 people twice, and given the sheer number of Windows 7 users that this could possibly affect (given the "right" combination of .net installations), it still sounds to me like it's ultra-rare. Until you can provide information on more than your insignificant sample set, you can't make any claim about the rarity of the problem. You can only say that it's not rare for you. You still can't say anything about the problem's rarity in general.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By tamalero on 8/23/2011 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
just do a goodamn google search, its not just a random "johndoe" saying LOL I GOT AN ERROR.
if its documented.. its affecting quite a bit of people.
still, a rare error.. affects twice.. 2 installations, different machines.. pleaase.

Its almost like the famous saying "once is an accident, twice is a coincidence.. thrice is war"


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By jms102285 on 8/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't seem too common
By bupkus on 8/20/2011 7:36:16 PM , Rating: 3
My goodness-- the venom.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By michael67 on 8/20/2011 8:36:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My goodness-- the venom.

Agree, the wording is totally crap, and it could have bin fraised a hell of a lot better.

But that still dose not mean there is not a bid of truth in what he is saying.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By jms102285 on 8/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't seem too common
By Fritzr on 8/20/2011 10:19:55 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with using an alternate is that the bug is in .NET ... abandoning .NET means abandoning a lot of MSFT software.

Of course sending MSFT a letter with each purchase of a package (replacing a MSFT product) that does not need .NET and is not a MSFT offering, will get their attention if enough people do it :D


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By Gondor on 8/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't seem too common
By Flunk on 8/21/2011 9:15:12 AM , Rating: 3
So you gave up Office after version 6.0 then? Microsoft's Office suite has long been the definition of bloatware. I still use it because there isn't anything even remotely comparable out there.


RE: Doesn't seem too common
By FaaR on 8/21/2011 4:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
Seems the one throwing a tantrum is you, mate.

Just because you haven't heard of an issue ("as an administrator" - whatever that means - or not) doesn't mean it's not affecting people, so no need to go off the deep end just to try to attack a web journalist (inferiority complex much?)


should i wait for ver 8 SP-1 ?
By poi2 on 8/20/2011 4:05:55 PM , Rating: 1
Ah... was going jump to 7, but i think i'll wait little bit longer :/
I hate re-install...

Nice article.




RE: should i wait for ver 8 SP-1 ?
By inighthawki on 8/20/2011 5:04:48 PM , Rating: 5
Not sure why they make it sound like this is a huge issue. Ive installed win7 a hundred times and on mine and all my friends PCs I've never even heard of this issue, let alone seen it happen.

In fact, I'm quite baffled as to why this was even written, making it sound like this is some kind of huge flaw in the system that a lot of people are experiencing. It's not news, and it's not a headline, etc, it's someone running into a problem and making a huge deal out of it, and blowing it out of proportion. Seriously, .NET corruption? It's not like it happens on it's own... Obviously something else caused it. Win7 doesn't just corrupt its own files.


RE: should i wait for ver 8 SP-1 ?
By bupkus on 8/20/2011 7:41:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ive installed win7 a hundred times and on mine and all my friends PCs
Really?
This alone may suggest a couple issues with W7.


By inighthawki on 8/20/2011 9:26:53 PM , Rating: 5
Well first off, I was greatly over-exaggerating. Maybe more like 15 times. But this accounts for multiple of my own computers, all my friends, and reinstalls due to other reasons such as installing a solid state drive, getting a new computer, simply to clean out all of the garbage I've installed over time. My choice to reinstall is never because of an actual issue with windows that requires a new installation. Also I've tried out quite a few beta versions of Windows in the past. That might put it up to somewhere closer to around 20.


RE: should i wait for ver 8 SP-1 ?
By Black1969ta on 8/21/2011 12:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
I can see why it was written, but it should have taken a more informative tone instead of a whining tone, From a journalistic perspective for a website like Dailytech this would actually be a fitting article for the website, instead of some of the non-computer or even non-tech articles written on slow news days,
But, the writer comes off like he is the second coming and a Tech-Diva, and Microsoft should drop everything else and solve "his" problem in his busy weekend. He received a better answer than I have from other companies. They could have said, " Sorry, you are SOL, hopefully we will have the Issue fixed in Windows 8, like many other software companies."


By jms102285 on 8/22/2011 9:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could give you a 6.


By wpodonnell on 8/20/2011 7:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, overreact much? Even the Win7 betas, many moons ago, were solid.


Maybe you could try ...
By drycrust3 on 8/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: Maybe you could try ...
By B3an on 8/20/2011 5:05:26 PM , Rating: 3
He plays games for a start.

LibreOffice is s***.

And web browsers (like FireFox) on Linux dont even have proper hardware acceleration because of the appalling Linux graphics drivers and general mess of the OS.

Literally everything is worse on Linux.


RE: Maybe you could try ...
By sabbede on 8/20/2011 7:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! There are things that are almost exponentially better on Linux - networking, platform support, some programming and management....

If it weren't for games I might not use Windows at all. Linux can be a lot of fun. I could even forgive the browser issues.

Dunno about Libre, I've never used it.


RE: Maybe you could try ...
By shiftypy on 8/22/2011 4:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it weren't for games I might not use Windows at all

This sums it up for me. No other reason to stay in Windows.
It used to be easier to transfer files over network, but after XP I gave up. Setting up samba is simpler than trying to make Windows automagically find other networked PCs.


RE: Maybe you could try ...
By spread on 8/20/2011 7:49:50 PM , Rating: 1
That's why you stick with the most popular and updated Linux distribution. Ubuntu. It's better. Not great.


RE: Maybe you could try ...
By ApfDaMan on 8/20/2011 10:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Literally everything is worse on Linux.


I would not go quite that far but considering what Jason has explained to us...

- He just spent $410 on MS office 2010 Pro
- He plays games
- he wants IE9 for testing purposes

A linux distro probably isnt the best thing for him.


RE: Maybe you could try ...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2011 6:29:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why not install a Linux distribution like Ubuntu?


You're funny.


I ran into a similar problem
By DanNeely on 8/20/2011 3:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
I hesitate to say it was the same because I never noted the error message, but I was unable to install IE9 or SP1 (the latter would attempt and fail each update cycle), I never tried Office 2010. However in my case a repair install did work, with the only settings that appear to have been lost being my desktop images.




By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2011 3:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hesitate to say it was the same because I never noted the error message, but I was unable to install IE9 or SP1 (the latter would attempt and fail each update cycle), I never tried Office 2010. However in my case a repair install did work, with the only settings that appear to have been lost being my desktop images.

Glad to hear that. I wouldn't want anyone to go through the annoyance I did.

Fortunately it looked like steps like the repair install, clean boot, turning off security software, replacing trustinstaller, etc. fixed about 80 percent of the cases, based on the ten pages of Microsoft Answers "Error 1935" posts I examined. That was the approximately percentage that was listed as "closed".

Unfortunately, some of us tried all these things to no avail.


By BugblatterIII on 8/20/2011 9:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
I had the same issue and gave up.

From my research I'd gathered that the issue was that some update had failed to install and that this was preventing both SP1 and IE9 from installing. I painstakingly went through the list of updates but couldn't find one that had had failed that hadn't subsequently succeeded.

Neither SP1 nor IE9 were a big deal for me so I left it. When I had to reinstall Windows for other reasons (SSD failed) SP1 and IE9 went on without issue.

My research showed that many people had been unable to install IE9 for similar reasons, and I wonder if that's partly to blame for the slow take-up of IE9.


How many is "some users"?
By StraightCashHomey on 8/20/2011 6:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
We have over 2,200 Windows 7 computers in our environment, and I talk to quite a few other network admins on a regular basis. I've never seen or heard of this problem.




RE: How many is "some users"?
By jms102285 on 8/21/2011 10:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, people don't know what admins are here apparently.


Cause for .Net Corruption?
By ltcommanderdata on 8/20/2011 3:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
Is there any indication on what causes the .Net corruption? During .NET install, during subsequent security updates, during install of a program that uses .NET, during standard usage of a program that uses the framework? I'd hate to think I'm rolling the dice everytime I install the latest .NET security update or install a program that bundles a .NET client install.

And they mentioned installing SP1. Does SP1 not have this problem? As in if you have SP1 successfully installed, this .NET corruption issue won't occur?




By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/2011 3:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And they mentioned installing SP1. Does SP1 not have this problem? As in if you have SP1 successfully installed, this .NET corruption issue won't occur?

I believe that's a reasonable conclusion to draw, because this corruption made me unable to install SP1.

I can't rule out, though that a similar issue could occur post-SP1.


reinstall?
By mackx on 8/20/2011 3:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
this is why i use acronis to make an initial image and incremental backups.

no clean installs necesasary




RE: reinstall?
By CZroe on 8/20/2011 4:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I did the same thing and found much later that I can't install two important Windows Updates, one of which is related to .NET. I rolled back to the very beginning (fresh boot of Win7SP1 even without drivers) and it was unable to fix the problem. It, too, is a long-running and unresolved issue.


Corrupted Windows...it happens
By cactusdog on 8/21/2011 4:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
This just seems like a rare case of a corrupted windows install that happened when SP1 failed to install. Windows updates can corrupt your system when it goes wrong. The original corruption may have been caused by AVG, or the user turning off the computer during the update of SP1.

This is why i never have updates set to "automatic". Anybody with download AND install updates automatically is asking for trouble. Its only a matter of time that the user will turn off the computer during an update and screw your installation.

This sounds like a general user maintenance problem, rather than any microsoft bug.




By cactusdog on 8/21/2011 4:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
Windows SP1 has been out for ages, i dont know how someone would miss that it didnt install for all this time.


RE: Corrupted Windows...it happens
By name99 on 8/21/11, Rating: 0
SFC
By barich on 8/20/2011 10:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
Did you run system file checker?

I seem to remember a similar problem in the early days of Vista, and that resolved it.

How about a restore to an earlier restore point?

Also, don't run registry cleaners. They don't fix anything that needs to be fixed, and often make problems worse.




RE: SFC
By barich on 8/20/2011 10:49:14 PM , Rating: 1
Also, these days, Windows doesn't just break. Either you have faulty hardware, a malware infection caused some damage, you shut it down improperly in the middle of an update install, or something.


Article?
By zephyrwind69 on 8/21/2011 10:13:27 PM , Rating: 1
Ok is this an article or just a case of bad journalism? To me with the references to OSX/Apple 'it just works' and Linux/Ubuntu being superior this article was far from unbiased and sounded like a MS bashing attempt.

I've run Linux since RH3 to migrate to Ubuntu, Windows NT since 3.1, and OSX since its intro. I've run into similar unsolvable situations with every OS and had to revert to workarounds. Mac OSX tends to work well with itself and run into numerous bugs interoperating with anything, no anything! Linux has had bad hardware support for sound cards, specific RAID controllers, and NICs until the last 3-4 years. Windows has had its fair share of bugs; however, Win7 is one of the most stable OSs MS has ever released in my experience with 100's of systems.

To claim that one OS is superior to another for a minute, and incredibly obscure bug is not objective journalism at all! Whether it's 1,000 or 10,000 potential users with this problem is a minute portion of the population of Windows users as another poster noted.

And if you think this problem is bad I've spent a full 14 hours on one phone call with Cisco TAC which literally followed the globe from India, to the US, to Australia. To take an isolated situation and blow it up into a case of bad support is very biased. I've had good and bad techs and general web support issues with every OS and MS for the most part does a good job. Oh and I've easily wasted 6-7 hours with a bad Cisco TAC case when a site was down only to get it solved in 30 minutes by the next tech. Bad techs come in every environment....

DT, really clean up your journalist act. The long list of typos, spell checking, the whole Bitcoin coverage (does anybody think it's really safer than gold?!), and this article are simply bad journalism.

And Jason, I hope that you take note about some degree of objectiveness in your future writing and keep some degree of an open mind about Windows (after all it doesn't have 200+ million users just through monopolistic practices).

For your reference, and you noted some of these, I'd cite:

support.microsoft.com
social.technet.microsoft.com
Or good ol' Google




RE: Article?
By jms102285 on 8/22/2011 9:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thumbs up.


Standalone installer
By TeXWiller on 8/20/2011 4:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
Did you try the standalone installer after uninstalling .NET 4? I fixed an install problem related to the Windows Update version of the installer with the off-line installer. The error code sounds vaguely familiar.




SP 1
By YashBudini on 8/20/2011 6:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They identified that the non-mandatory Windows Service Pack 1 update had never installed

Even so didn't the service pack show up on the optional install list eventually? It should have at some point.

"Service Pack" and "non-mandatory" would seem to be mutually exclusive.




the best thing to do....
By plbaton on 8/20/2011 7:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hi!
What I would do in your case I would remove all Office instalation using Microsoft Fix you mentioned, then put in Windows CD, and run setup. This has to be done from your currently installed Windows installation. Then select upgrade option. This simply reinstalls Windows keeping all your software (kind of like Windows XP repair option). This will take couple of hours, and you will need to install plenty of Windows updates afterwards, but when you try all the other methods with no luck, this is the one that should work. Being PC support engineer I use this one quite often, and so far only once it failed to resolve an issue.




By GatoRat on 8/20/2011 9:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
A few years ago, I started seeing a very unusual error on my computer. I found a very obscure solution, but it kept recurring. After struggling with this for a year, I discovered it was an infamous, but obscure, issue with the NVidia chip set.




.NET Framework cleanup tool
By vailr on 8/21/2011 12:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2008/08/2...
Use this tool to uninstall ALL versions of .NET, then re-install using Windows Update.
Keep checking WU until no further updates are shown.




Overwright
By Tiborticus on 8/21/2011 6:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't a reinstall over the current Windows OS have worked? I would have tried that first since it would have only taken 30 mins. And if it didn't work you only wasted 30 mins; however if it did work you wouldn't have had to reinstall apps, etc.




You're Obviously Not...
By mmatis on 8/21/2011 10:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
holding it right.

Wasn't that the approved explanation for some other technology problems recently? And I see that company has climbed to the top of the corporate heap, so it MUST be an acceptable explanation.

It's all Ballmer's fault, anyway. If it wasn't for him, this would never have happened!




We face this all the time
By deltaend on 8/21/2011 3:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
.NET (all versions) seems to get corrupted or generally messed up and refuses to perform updates on a number of platforms (2000, XP, Vista, 7) and we have had to fix a number of these manually. Although a time consuming process, it isn't impossible. The thing to remember is, problems with .NET 4 may not be entirely related to .NET 4 and could a problem with .NET 3.5.1 or previous versions. To fix most of these, (and the solution is different with each version) uninstall and then manually delete all remaining files on the computer. Then sfc /scannow, reboot, and for .NET 2.0 (as an example) run through this article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/908077. Lots of information is similar for all other versions of .NET as they all contain a force reinstall command set in them which forcibly overwrites all registry entries and files left on the computer. Remember, the key is to get rid of ALL .NET versions (starting with the latest and working your way backwards) until they are all gone and then force reinstall them all starting with the oldest and moving on to the newest. Don't use Windows Update, grab the files manually off of the Windows Downloads website.
Also… in your case I would have run the Windows 7 SP1 update manually from the download off of the Windows Downloads site.




The fix...
By Iketh on 8/21/2011 3:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
So there is a critical part of .net that needs more fail-safes to protect it from corruptions that all computers generate, especially if they're overclocked.

I don't know if I would immediately blame Microsoft for that.




Thank you.
By SongEmu on 8/21/2011 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, thank you for talking about this problem so bluntly. I've had the same issue before, installing and uninstalling a wide variety of Microsoft products, ranging from Visual Studio 2008, 2010 Express, and Flight Sim X. All boiled down to a 1935 error. Hours of scouring Google and forums revealed nothing. I'm glad a journalist like you has taken the search for an answer this far.




Error 1935
By KiwiTT on 8/22/2011 1:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
Could this have been caused by having the Anti-Virus on. I remember from decades ago, when installing software, you should disable AV, in case it interferes with the installation process.




Notice
By Etern205 on 8/22/2011 11:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
how members from MS forum will mostly post support links from MS site.
I has a few problems through out the years and most of the time, the solutions on their support page don't work.
You will have to as you have already done, figure it out yourself or head over to proper forums where people actually tinker with their computers to actually get somewhere and hopefully a fix to that problem.
And who's the one that selected "go to MS support page" as the best answer?!

A good forum as most already know :)
http://forums.anandtech.com/




Right there with you too.
By wyrmslair on 8/22/2011 1:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
I've had this happen as well. Just haven't bothered to fix the error as I really only use my Win7 partition for gaming and occasional web browsing. I do use AVG, so there is a possible link there but, realistically, I'm thinking this is probably much larger than your original 1000 user estimate. BTW, I don't run MSO on that specific box, I noticed because of SP1.




Pic
By Etern205 on 8/22/2011 2:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Is that you in the thumb nail pic? :P




This Worked For Me
By HaraldS on 8/22/2011 2:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
I too was getting error 1935 (actually the hex version 78F) when attempting to install Office 2010 SP1. Thanks to this article I did some digging and discovered this solution from Microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2553092

Please note that you need to pick the 32 or 64 bit version based on your copy of Office, not your OS.

After installing the fix Office 2010 SP1 installed without any problems.




lol @ mick
By NellyFromMA on 8/22/2011 4:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Your experience is 'Karma' for considering having a working IE9 a 'secondary concern'. FAIL




Ive had a similar issue
By DominatorGTX on 8/22/2011 10:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ive had a similar issue when installing video drivers. Tried what the author did with the exception of calling tech support. Ended up doing what he did and yes it was a .net error not the error mentioned but a similar one and the result fix was a reinstall of the OS. I feel your pain to be sure.

Luckily for me i was doing a customary 6 month wipe of my system anyways, but yes i spent a bit of time troubleshooting it and like you I was a tech support person.




I had this too
By simsony on 8/22/2011 11:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
I had this problem as well, but it was a long time ago. Maybe even a different error code. I remember checking the office install log. Google was a dead end, and I really did not want to reinstall. I remember restoring the missing component manually into the SxS component store. I had to mount wim files and also extracting from msus to get the right file. Installs then function normally.

There are no visible symptoms except for certain installs failing. It is caused when certain update installs are cancelled or do not complete. Basically the roll back is ever so slightly buggy. In my case it was the SP1 wave0 install.




I Can Relate
By Inkjammer on 8/23/2011 2:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
I can entirely relate to this issue as I got struck with it some time back. The kicker is this "bug" only affects Microsoft products. I couldn't install Office, Fallout 3, Bulletstorm or download any updates. Anything that required Microsoft .net would refuse to work, rendering everything useless.

It didn't affect third party programs, just first party apps or any game that used Games for Windows Live. I gave up after searching for days, and ultimately chose to re-install. And like you, I saw lots of leads and lots of people reporting problems... but Microsoft never following up on their forums. That, or the FixIt tool listed the /exact/ same problem I had, and promised a fix, but didn't.

The only thing I did note is that in every single instance it had something to do with the 2005 release of .net.




By Petermarcu on 8/25/2011 6:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not all 1935 errors are related to .NET contrary to popular belief. The ones sited in this article and many of the links are not related to .NET. Unfortunatly it looks like many of the interactions with Microsoft were misleading in their categorization of this issue and that led to a misleading title for this article :(

If you look at the logs for the install, it tells whether its a .NET assembly or a Win32 assembly in the 1935 error message.

In this example and many of the other ones I've looked at from Office install failures, they have all been Win32 assemblies. Here is a sample log entry. Notice the type=Win32 in the assembly information:

MSI (s) (88:F0) [08:42:02:589]: Assembly Error (sxs): Please look into Component Based Servicing Log located at -99359624ndir\logs\cbs\cbs.log to get more diagnostic information.
Info 1935. An error occurred during the installation of assembly 'Microsoft.VC90.MFC,version="9.0.30729.4148",publi cKeyToken="1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b",processorArchitecture ="amd64",type="win32"'. Please refer to Help and Support for more information. HRESULT: 0x80070BC9. assembly interface: IAssemblyCache, function: UninstallAssembly, component: {03A12C9D-C56A-3F97-8530-0643D6391970}

For issues like this, going after .NET as the cause is not likely to be productive. No matter what you do to .NET, it wont fix this problem. For Win32 assembly issues, its often corruption of your OS. The OS install itself uses the same back end data store as these Win32 assemblies and if that gets corrupt, everything gets confused. One option is to use this KB article:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947821

It has steps to check your system and potentially repair it to a state where it is not corrupt anymore. Other than that, I am still trying to figure out better workaround. Hope this helps.




I have this problem as well.
By FoxFour on 8/26/2011 11:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
Similar circumstances - I didn't bother with the SP1 update (in my case because of an excessively sparing boot volume on my SSD that didn't leave me the requisite 9 GB of free disk space to do the installation), and then when I tried to install IE9, it failed just as you describe.

I have not tried MSO '10, but I'd pretty much resigned myself to a format and clean install anyway to deal with the disk space problem (anyone else have a 10 GB Winsxs folder after 1.5 years of W7x64?).

Last I heard, all of the "experts" were in agreement that format & reinstall as a repair solution was obsolete in the age of Windows 7. That would appear to be a bit... premature.




Ready for the downmod...
By snakeInTheGrass on 8/21/2011 3:03:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The crippling error, ensuing tech support run around, (literally) days of wasted time, and final solution of being forced to reinstall Windows left me feeling like the star of one of those obnoxious "Get a Mac" commercials.


It's comforting knowing that if I point out that it's was exactly this kind of 'starring role' that drove me to the Mac - and I haven't had to do an OS reinstall or had other strange issues like back on Windows in 7 years - and was totally worth the few extra $ to me. A single incident like this represents a lot of wasted time (which could worst case be work time, but would piss me off even if it was just free time), and I'd be happy add my tales of 'uninstall the InstallShield builder, suddenly the debugger mode in Visual Studio can no longer connect to processes' (unfortunately, there was a time lag of a few weeks between the 2 events, making tracking it down quite a bit more fun) and other random tales of horror.

OK, -1, -2, -5, -1000... But you did mention the Mac ads. ;)




lmao crap products
By Argon18 on 8/21/11, Rating: -1
LAWL!
By CZroe on 8/20/11, Rating: -1
Whats the big deal?
By Beenthere on 8/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: Whats the big deal?
By inighthawki on 8/20/2011 10:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
I failed to take you seriously as soon as you said Microsucks. I bet you're one of those people who swears by Linux and somehow believes that it is a godsend piece of software that is just far superior to anything else, right? It's hard to take someone seriously who has no intention of ever actually giving a different piece of software a try.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki