From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0230_01C2C7E4.C9971D70
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   No for purely selfish reasons.  Despite claims from others, and even =
though I have a fast connection at home, ISO downloads take hours and =
often fail.  Now this is downloading from other than Microsoft.  The =
download manager MSDN uses has been more reliable when I've tried it but =
I use it infrequently and even then more from work than home.

   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.

   Back to the selfish reasons, I do not want to do full product =
installs.  Updates are very easy in comparison.  They are easy to apply =
and take very little time.  A full install takes much longer and has =
undesirable side effects.  And while I have a CD-RW to burn ISOs, I = don't
want to spend the time to do this, after the long download to = boot, when
it isn't what I want.  I don't know about you but the only = systems which
I clean install are my test systems.  Also, unlike you, I = don't have
problems building an up to date system from scratch.

   Finally, we've already discussed that you can build your own =
integrated installs for Windows including service packs and hotfixes.  =
You can deploy this installment using a traditional installation, using =
remote install, via SMS, or other means.  See =
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/support/spde=
ploy.asp.  Other applications should have their own deployment guides =
describing options for deployment.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:3e389a39$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  regardless of the copy protection assumption, what do you think of CD
  replacement by full iso download? Given the current situation would =
that be
  workable enough for MS to consider?

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e378899$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     The first problem with George's rant is that it is based on a false
  premise.

  Rich


------=_NextPart_000_0230_01C2C7E4.C9971D70
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   No for
purely selfish =
reasons. =20
Despite claims from others, and even though I have a fast connection at = home,=20
ISO downloads take hours and often fail.  Now this is downloading = from=20
other than Microsoft.  The download manager MSDN uses has been more =

reliable when I've tried it but I use it infrequently and even then more = from=20
work than home.
 
   For other
reasons, I think =
it is=20
impractical.  You expect a full release for any update. 
This = is a=20
good way to discourage any software vendor from making releases.  = The=20
testing effort is enormous.
 
   Back to
the selfish =
reasons, I do not=20
want to do full product installs.  Updates are very easy in=20
comparison.  They are easy to apply and take very little =
time.  A full=20
install takes much longer and has undesirable side effects.  And =
while I=20
have a CD-RW to burn ISOs, I don't want to spend the time to do this, = after the=20
long download to boot, when it isn't what I want.  I don't know =
about you=20
but the only systems which I clean install are my test systems.  = Also,=20
unlike you, I don't have problems building an up to date system from=20
scratch.
 
   Finally,
we've already =
discussed that=20
you can build your own integrated installs for Windows including service = packs=20
and hotfixes.  You can deploy this installment using a
traditional=20 installation, using remote install, via SMS, or other
means.  See =
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/supp=
ort/spdeploy.asp">http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows200=
0serv/support/spdeploy.asp. =20
Other applications should have their own deployment guides describing = options=20
for deployment.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3e389a39$1{at}w3.nls.net...regardless=20
  of the copy protection assumption, what do you think of =
CDreplacement by=20
  full iso download? Given the current situation would that =
beworkable=20
  enough for MS to
consider?Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote =
in=20
  message news:3e378899$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  The first problem with George's rant is that it is based on a=20
 
falsepremise.Rich

------=_NextPart_000_0230_01C2C7E4.C9971D70--

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