From: "Geo." 

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.

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