From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0251_01C2C957.45F8DBB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Windows isn't the only product that does this.  It's just the most =
common.  It makes sense if you consider that integrated installs are =
already a supported end user feature and that the OEM market for Windows =
has had this longer.  There is some resistence to this from end users =
though.  If you look at the corporate sales area of Dell and other =
computer vendors you will see that the OS options they offer include =
versions with specific service pack levels.  These folks would sometimes =
prefer an out of date version that matches their standard.  Happily, you =
wanted Windows 2000 with SP3.  If you had wanted an earlier service = level
you would have been unhappy.

Rich

  "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message =
news:3e3b2e02$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Just an aside here.

  Bought a retail copy of Win2K Pro on Wednesday for a friend to upgrade =
their
  Win98 system to Win2k.  Came as an install of Win2k at the SP3 level.  =
The
  disk said "includes SP3".  I assumed that was the SP files.  It =
appears,
  that the full install does a full install with all the SP3 files =
installed,
  no Install base, and add SP3.

  --
  Glenn M.


  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e3a5abe{at}w3.nls.net...
  > How do you test a service pack? You install it into a full install =
and
  then
  > test right? Why is that any different than putting it into a full =
install
  CD
  > and doing a patch from the CD then testing?
  >
  > Geo.
  >
  > "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e39faaa{at}w3.nls.net...
  >    I answered this earlier.  If you create a new complete install =
you must
  > test a new complete install.  This is non-trivial.  Now I see you =
want to
  > add a whole new mode of install.  That would be even more testing =
and
  worse,
  > I don't think that that adds any value as at best it would be =
functionally
  > equivalent to the service pack install, which requires its own =
testing.
  >
  >    I do verify that some fixes are installed.  I don't verify them =
all
  > because I've never had a problem with the ones I have verified.
  >
  > Rich
  >
  >   "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:3e39ecfc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  >   "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e38c26d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  >
  >   >   For other reasons, I think it is impractical.  You expect a =
full
  > release
  >   for any update.  This is a good way to discourage any software =
vendor
  from
  >   making releases.  The testing effort is enormous.<
  >
  >   What's to test, it's a patched version, it's not expected to be =
any more
  >   stable than the full version after you apply patches.
  >
  >   But perhaps MS could learn something here from the free software
  > community.
  >   The testing should be continuous and the improvement should be =
there in
  >   every new build. Granted a security patch may introduce a new bug =
but
  the
  >   release should also contain the mods for the 22 other bugs that =
were
  fixed
  >   since the last iso.
  >
  >   What you do is a monthly build, all month long they run it =
internally
  then
  >   release it just like they do with beta builds to beta testers, =
except
  >   instead of trying to tightly control distribution you promote =
everyone
  to
  >   share their copies with everyone else running the same version =
(just
  like
  >   security patches can be shared, it will save bandwidth by not =
requireing
  >   everyone to download).
  >
  >   Now before you go off on the copying issues involved consider =
something,
  >   consider a thousand people who run an illegal copy of NT and =
consider
  the
  >   same thousand people running linux instead. Which is worse for MS?
  >
  >   >>   Back to the selfish reasons, I do not want to do full product
  > installs.
  >   Updates are very easy in comparison.  <<
  >
  >   I believe I specified in the previous post that there should be a
  "patch"
  >   mode install, where all it does is check version numbers on all
  installed
  >   files and just replaces the ones that need replaced. Might take a =
little
  >   longer than a single hotfix but probably be faster than applying =
half a
  >   dozen hotfixes.. certainly less labor intensive than applying 6
  hotfixes.
  >
  >   >>Also, unlike you, I don't have problems building an up to date =
system
  > from
  >   scratch.
  >
  >   I  bet you do but you just don't know it. Have you ever taken the =
time
  to
  >   verify that all the hotfixes are actually installed and that you =
are in
  > fact
  >   running the latest versions of all the files they replace? =
Trusting
  > windows
  >   update doesn't mean you are really up to date. It just means the =
right
  >   entries are in your registry.
  >
  >   >>   Finally, we've already discussed that you can build your own
  > integrated
  >   installs for Windows including service packs and hotfixes.<<
  >
  >   My building my own installs isn't going to protect the internet =
from old
  >   exploitable software being installed daily because the people =
installing
  > it
  >   can't get the current build on CD.
  >
  >   Geo.
  >
  >
  >


------=_NextPart_000_0251_01C2C957.45F8DBB0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Windows
isn't the only =
product that=20
does this.  It's just the most common.  It makes sense if
you = consider=20
that integrated installs are already a supported end user feature and = that the=20
OEM market for Windows has had this longer.  There is some =
resistence to=20
this from end users though.  If you look at the corporate sales = area of=20
Dell and other computer vendors you will see that the OS options they = offer=20
include versions with specific service pack levels.  These folks = would=20
sometimes prefer an out of date version that matches their = standard. =20
Happily, you wanted Windows 2000 with SP3.  If you had wanted an =
earlier=20
service level you would have been unhappy.
 
Rich
 

  "Glenn Meadows" <gmeadow{at}comcast.net>">mailto:gmeadow{at}comcast.net">gmeadow{at}comcast.net>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:3e3b2e02$1{at}w3.nls.net...Just=20
  an aside here.Bought a retail copy of Win2K Pro on Wednesday =
for a=20
  friend to upgrade theirWin98 system to Win2k.  Came as an =
install of=20
  Win2k at the SP3 level.  Thedisk said "includes
SP3".  I =
assumed=20
  that was the SP files.  It appears,that the full install does =
a full=20
  install with all the SP3 files installed,no Install base, and add=20
  SP3.--Glenn
M."Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:3e3a5abe{at}w3.nls.net...>=
 How do=20
  you test a service pack? You install it into a full install=20
  andthen> test right? Why is that any different
than putting =
it into=20
  a full installCD> and doing a patch from the CD then=20
  testing?>>
Geo.>> "Rich" <{at}>
wrote =
in=20
  message news:3e39faaa{at}w3.nls.net...>=
   =20
  I answered this earlier.  If you create a new complete install =
you=20
  must> test a new complete install.  This is =
non-trivial.  Now=20
  I see you want to> add a whole new mode of
install.  That =
would be=20
  even more testing andworse,> I don't think
that that adds =
any value=20
  as at best it would be functionally> equivalent to the service =
pack=20
  install, which requires its own =
testing.>>    I=20
  do verify that some fixes are installed.  I don't verify them =
all>=20
  because I've never had a problem with the ones I have=20
  verified.>>
Rich>>  
"Geo." =
<georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:3e39ecfc$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>  =20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e38c26d$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>>  =20
  >   For other reasons, I think it is
impractical.  =
You=20
  expect a full>
release>   for any =
update.  This=20
  is a good way to discourage any software =
vendorfrom>  =20
  making releases.  The testing effort is=20
  enormous.<>>  
What's to test, it's a =
patched=20
  version, it's not expected to be any
more>   stable =
than the=20
  full version after you apply
patches.>>   But =
perhaps=20
  MS could learn something here from the free software>=20
  community.>   The testing should be
continuous and =
the=20
  improvement should be there in>  
every new build. =
Granted a=20
  security patch may introduce a new bug
butthe>   =
release=20
  should also contain the mods for the 22 other bugs that=20
  werefixed>   since the last=20
  iso.>>   What you do
is a monthly build, all =
month=20
  long they run it
internallythen>   release it =
just like=20
  they do with beta builds to beta testers,
except>   =
instead=20
  of trying to tightly control distribution you promote=20
  everyoneto>   share their
copies with everyone =
else=20
  running the same version
(justlike>   security =
patches=20
  can be shared, it will save bandwidth by not =
requireing>  =20
  everyone to
download).>>   Now
before you go =
off on=20
  the copying issues involved consider
something,>   =
consider a=20
  thousand people who run an illegal copy of NT and=20
  considerthe>   same thousand
people running linux =

  instead. Which is worse for
MS?>>  =20
  >>   Back to the selfish reasons, I do
not want to do =
full=20
  product> installs.>  
Updates are very easy in =

  comparison. 
<<>>   I
believe I =
specified=20
  in the previous post that there should be =
a"patch">  =20
  mode install, where all it does is check version numbers on=20
  allinstalled>   files and
just replaces the ones =
that=20
  need replaced. Might take a little>  
longer than a =
single=20
  hotfix but probably be faster than applying half
a>   =
dozen=20
  hotfixes.. certainly less labor intensive than applying=20
 
6hotfixes.>>  
>>Also, unlike you, I =
don't=20
  have problems building an up to date system> =
from>  =20
  scratch.>>  
I  bet you do but you just =
don't=20
  know it. Have you ever taken the
timeto>   verify =
that=20
  all the hotfixes are actually installed and that you are in>=20
  fact>   running the latest versions of
all the files =
they=20
  replace? Trusting>
windows>   update doesn't =
mean you=20
  are really up to date. It just means the
right>   =
entries are=20
  in your registry.>>  
>>   =
Finally,=20
  we've already discussed that you can build your own>=20
  integrated>   installs for Windows
including service =
packs=20
  and
hotfixes.<<>>  
My building my own =
installs=20
  isn't going to protect the internet from
old>   =
exploitable=20
  software being installed daily because the people installing>=20
  it>   can't get the current build on=20
  CD.>>  =20
Geo.>>>

------=_NextPart_000_0251_01C2C957.45F8DBB0--

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