From: "Geo." 

my point was that part of the problem with the patch method used by windows
update is that even MS can't track what is the current versions of each and
every file included in the distribution. The recent post describing
sqlserver patches shows this problem well.

if instead of patching, they were trying to keep a distribution up to date
I believe it would greatly simplify things. It would at least eliminate one
patch overwriting later versions of the files it includes.

I suppose if they just had one patch and kept it up to date instead of
releasing separate patches, that might also work but that wouldn't help
eliminate all the old install CD's that contain exploitable code because
there is nothing to replace them with. I was trying to address both these
problems.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e39fd75{at}w3.nls.net...
   No.  It has never been an issue.  What isn't trivial using Windows
Update, Office Update, or similar, the IT folks will take care of if I wish.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e39f157$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Ok I get it, you were talking about internal MS network stuff. But even
  there you have to deal with the array of different hotfixes instead of
just
  a comprehensive once a month update process.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e38c348$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     I don't know.  Maybe.  In any case, that's not copy protection.  My
  installs are almost always from the network and don't require me to keep
  track of keys.

  Rich

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