Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v2.0.50727\mscorwks.dll error?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:34:27 -0500, Allen Drake <>
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:20:00 -0600, Char Jackson <>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:25:44 -0500, Allen Drake <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:42:32 +0000, Ed Cryer <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>But maybe a Windows repair install would clear all your problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, that did cross my mind. Most times I would have just replaced
>>>this drive with a clone and be done with it. A clean install would
>>>have taken less time. I had no idea that things were so screwed up and
>>>after reading all those that have been having .NET problems for so
>>>long and finding no solution. This was one reason I finally moved up
>>>from XP but I see some things will never change with MS quality
>>>control.
>>
>>Why do you think it's a quality control issue? If that were the case,
>>wouldn't more people be affected?
>
> I guess in with the case and track record of MS OSes it would be a
>beta thing. The beta testers are the quality control people. I doubt
>everyone would ever be affected by most problems that pop up. I think
>the problem is with Windows Update. If one fails during an install who
>knows what could happen. I do know the .NET problems have been around
>since the beginning and I have seen many posts that don't end well.
>These updates never seem to be called fixes. I wonder why that is?

I guess I look at it a little differently. I've always been amazed
that there are so few problems, when you consider the big picture.
When something does crop up, like these .Net issues you guys are
talking about, I just assume it's usually user error of some kind.
It's not always obvious and it can be hard to trace back, but that's
how it looks to me. I have a PC repair business, though, so I see more
bad than good, just as you'd expect. People don't bring perfectly
working systems in for repairs.

--

Char Jackson

Allen Drake wrote:

> I just had time to look at CBS.log and it is long and hard to
> understand what it all means. I will have to go over it again later
> tonight to see if I can make anything out of it.
>
> The event viewer problem references a registry key.
>
> CLSID: FX:{b00566ad-fe9c-4363-be05-7a4cbb7cb510}
>
> Whatever that means.

You can do a search in regedit for that. That's a GUID,
a random number used to reference something. They use so
many digits to prevent "collisions" if the numbers are
generated purely randomly. The number is so big, the idea
is, no central registry is needed to handle them. Everyone
just makes a number when they need one.

Search on the b00566ad-fe9c-4363-be05-7a4cbb7cb510 and see
what shows up in regedit.

By sheer good look, CLSID is defined in the GUID article here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_unique_identifier

"CLSID – class identifier; (Stored in the
registry at HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID)"

If the event viewer shows an error number, and you also have
a CLSID, that would be all Sherlock Holmes would need to
catch Moriarty.

Paul

Ed Cryer <> wrote in
news:jev6o8$h0r$:

> But maybe a Windows repair install would clear all your
> problems.

Over the weekend I had to do a repair install to my sons XP PC.
The desktop would't start up, and trying to run other things, it
was saying the user didn't have permission, or that the program
may be on a network drive that wasn't available......this was
first seen trying to run explorer form the run box, both just
typing it in, and also using the run box "Browse" button and
dbl-clicking on explorer.exe as seen in Windows/System32.

After spending about 10 minutes looking around for obvious
problems, with no success, I started a repair install.

35 minutes later, the entire system was back up and running, and
better than it had been prior to this problem.

On 1/16/2012, Char Jackson posted:
> I guess I look at it a little differently. I've always been amazed
> that there are so few problems, when you consider the big picture.
> When something does crop up, like these .Net issues you guys are
> talking about, I just assume it's usually user error of some kind.

Somewhat OT (OK, very OT):

As a young programmer (IBM 7090 FAP, Fortran), I kept finding compiler
and system errors in my attempts to get something to work. Eventually,
each one of those turned out to be *my* error, and eventually I learned
that there were no compiler or system errors.

But much later I was working in DOS on early PCs, and on a couple of
occasions when something didn't work, I searched and searched in my
code and could find no errors. When I finally unlearned the earlier
lesson, I *did* find compiler or OS errors...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:31:31 -0600, Char Jackson <>
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:34:27 -0500, Allen Drake <>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:20:00 -0600, Char Jackson <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:25:44 -0500, Allen Drake <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:42:32 +0000, Ed Cryer <>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But maybe a Windows repair install would clear all your problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, that did cross my mind. Most times I would have just replaced
>>>>this drive with a clone and be done with it. A clean install would
>>>>have taken less time. I had no idea that things were so screwed up and
>>>>after reading all those that have been having .NET problems for so
>>>>long and finding no solution. This was one reason I finally moved up
>>>>from XP but I see some things will never change with MS quality
>>>>control.
>>>
>>>Why do you think it's a quality control issue? If that were the case,
>>>wouldn't more people be affected?
>>
>> I guess in with the case and track record of MS OSes it would be a
>>beta thing. The beta testers are the quality control people. I doubt
>>everyone would ever be affected by most problems that pop up. I think
>>the problem is with Windows Update. If one fails during an install who
>>knows what could happen. I do know the .NET problems have been around
>>since the beginning and I have seen many posts that don't end well.
>>These updates never seem to be called fixes. I wonder why that is?
>
>I guess I look at it a little differently. I've always been amazed
>that there are so few problems, when you consider the big picture.
>When something does crop up, like these .Net issues you guys are
>talking about, I just assume it's usually user error of some kind.
>It's not always obvious and it can be hard to trace back, but that's
>how it looks to me. I have a PC repair business, though, so I see more
>bad than good, just as you'd expect. People don't bring perfectly
>working systems in for repairs.

I have thought long and hard and the best I can come up with is that
I think the system hung for several hours during an update and I had
to power down. I have done this only a few times in the distant past
and never suffered from bad consequences. I know I haven't installed
or added anything to this system as I am very careful and try to limit
myself from bloating. This is my main reason for have multiply boxes.
All have their own set purpose. My CAD system never even gets online
and only this and my laptop have email client. I am pretty much sure
it the windows update plague that bit this one. I rarely fire up my
laptop and it is in the original state but I have noticed it has
slowed over time. I know it is from bloated updates that are unneeded.