Skip to main content

Silverlight install error 1603 - 'Windows Installer Clean Up' to the rescue

Came across this error today whilst trying to install Silverlight for an enterprise LOB app, and as you know if you come across this error the support documentation on MSDN is pretty useless. The machine had the default Silverlight v3 install and we were trying to install an instance of v4.

So first thoughts was local admin rights - I didn't have them, after finding someone who did, it was still failing. Next attempt was following the steps defined here but even after uninstall\reinstall still no luck. I started to think this was going to be a long afternoon.

Then I remember a great little tool which is no longer available for download from MSDN -'Windows Installer Clean Up', great little tool for cleaning the registry and file system of installed applications, but in the wrong hands this can totally wreak a machine, the reason why MS pulled it from MSDN, article here. Fortunately for me there's a copy on the corporate network, it's got a rather strange filename - 'msicuu2.exe', if you don't have it to hand I'm sure you can find it somewhere on the internet :)

Make sure when you attempt to run this you're running as 'local admin'. Select the entry or entries for 'Microsoft Silverlight' - there could be more than one, in my case there was only a single entry for v3 and click 'Remove'.

Then hopefully Silverlight will install successfully - if it doesn't and it wreaks the machine it ain't my fault ;)



  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Showing a message box from a ViewModel in MVVM

I was doing a code review with a client last week for a WPF app using MVVM and they asked ' How can I show a message from the ViewModel? '. What follows is how I would (and have) solved the problem in the past. When I hear the words ' show a message... ' I instantly think you mean show a transient modal message box that requires the user input before continuing ' with something else ' - once the user has interacted with the message box it will disappear. The following solution only applies to this scenario. The first solution is the easiest but is very wrong from a separation perspective. It violates the ideas behind the Model-View-Controller pattern because it places View concerns inside the ViewModel - the ViewModel now knows about the type of the View and specifically it knows how to show a message box window: The second approach addresses this concern by introducing the idea of messaging\events between the ViewModel and the View. In the example below

Implementing a busy indicator using a visual overlay in MVVM

This is a technique we use at work to lock the UI whilst some long running process is happening - preventing the user clicking on stuff whilst it's retrieving or rendering data. Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way <div> overlays are done on the web. Imagine we have the following simple WPF app and when 'Click' is pressed a busy waiting overlay is shown for the duration entered into the text box. What I'm interested in here is not the actual UI element of the busy indicator but how I go about getting this to show & hide from when using MVVM. The actual UI elements are the standard Busy Indicator coming from the WPF Toolkit : The XAML behind this window is very simple, the important part is the ViewHost. As you can see the ViewHost uses a ContentPresenter element which is bound to the view model, IMainViewModel, it contains 3 child v

Custom AuthorizationHandler for SignalR Hubs

How to implement IAuthorizationRequirement for SignalR in Asp.Net Core v5.0 Been battling this for a couple of days, and eventually ended up raising an issue on Asp.Net Core gitHub  to find the answer. Wanting to do some custom authorization on a SignalR Hub when the client makes a connection (Hub is created) and when an endpoint (Hub method) is called:  I was assuming I could use the same Policy for both class & method attributes, but it ain't so - not because you can't, because you need the signatures to be different. Method implementation has a resource type of HubInnovationContext: I assumed class implementation would have a resource type of HubConnectionContext - client connects etc... This isn't the case, it's infact of type DefaultHttpContext . For me I don't even need that, it can be removed completely  from the inheritence signature and override implementation. Only other thing to note, and this could be a biggy, is the ordering of the statements in th