From: "Geo." 

"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:khujgvkpm6pcv7mnbqgk5h1k94gkl4nbji{at}4ax.com...

>I could imagine that there are all sorts of potential problems in doing
> what he wants.

There are only a couple of downsides to it. First it would require
significantly more bandwidth since people would be downloading a full build
instead of a 500K patch. There are ways to work around that one. Second is
that it would eliminate the possibility of running SP3 plus 18 out of 20
patches simply because those last 2 patches caused some problem for some
software you run, however it would force the software vendors to deal with
the problem instead of telling you to leave some critical update
uninstalled if you want to use their software.

Other than that, I only see positive results. First it would GREATLY
simplify get secure and stay secure, you would have to do little more than
view help/about to see what build number a machine is and check the MS iso
download page to see if you are current. Second it would eliminate all the
combinations of service pack and hotfix mixes so it would be easier to see
what a user has loaded on their system when trying to isolate a problem.
Third it would make it a heck of a lot easier to reinstall without having
to connect to the net unpatched to download patches.

Lastly, I'm sure there would be a few people at MS screaming "this
will make rampant piracy too easy" but the fact is you can jump on
kazaa or any of a dozen other places and download an iso even before GA
code hits the stores so I really don't think it would make squat difference
that way. It's currently more difficult to find all the patches than it is
to pirate a copy of windows.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4