On 29 Sep 2000, at 20:43, the Illustrious Franco Bez wrote:
> Am Mit, 27 Sep 2000 schrieb Paul Garceau:
> >Hi folks,
> >On 27 Sep 2000, at 4:40, the Illustrious Franco Bez wrote:
> >> I recently had to reinstall two machines with NT4SP5, because
> >> the SP6a that worked really fine on all other machines in our
> >> company really did f... up those machines.
> >> Not a single CD-ROM based Setup program worked with SP6, but
> >> when reinstalled SP5 all went fine.
> > Hmm...doesn't make any sense.
> No, doesn't make sense at all. But that's why it took me so long
> to find out. A customer of a friend of mine had the same
> problems, too. So he gave me the hint.
> >(Warning, jab at MS coming up:
> >doesn't surprise me -- why fully test all installations when
> >they can get much more money answering support phone calls...?)
> Or sell Upgrades to Win2k ?
I think we understand each other here...;-)
> > Now, back to the topic at hand; are you talking about cd-rom
> >setup for SP6 or cd-rom setups for everything else (ie. not SP
> >cd-rom setups)? (Incidentally, there is an assumed obligation
> >here that MS is responsible for their screw-ups.)
> Nearly all Setups of any Program started from CD-ROM failed with
> stupid messages like "Corrupted cab file" or "insufficient
> memory". Also strange, if I put the CD in another PC and
> networked the drive - the setup program ran without difficulties.
> So you might think the CD-Rom-Drive is bad, but now that SP6a is
> gone it works perfectly again.
This is beginning to sound more and more like an MS screwup...
> > I guess I need to add, I did not pay to have any SP (1-6a) cd-
> >roms shipped. (I won't spend my $$ on anything MS related if I
> >can, within reason, avoid it.)
> > I need to also add that in every SP update case (from sp1-
> >>sp6a) I downloaded the files from the MS webpages. Sure, it
> >took a little while to download the standard workstation
> >updates, but they all ran and installed just fine.
> I also downloaded the SPs, I have no SpP CD-Roms neither.
> Also most of our machines (we have some 100) run perfectly with
> SP6a installed. Must be some stupid bug that found it's way in
> one of the system files that SP6a replaces. A bug that only
> occurs on certain Hardware (maybe non Intel chipsets?).
I think we are getting close here. It wouldn't be the first
time that MS hasn't supported or desired to support a particluar
system configuration...as I recall they discontinued support for
a particular OS some years ago...no warning...just stopped
providing such things which left those people with NT4 for that
particular OS on their own...Of course, they (MS) were very
quick to supply a new SP for Intel based PCs and the one system
configuration they chose to continue to support outside of the
Intel based systems.
Anyway..back to the topic at hand...
It sounds like the SP installation was flawed in the cases you
are talking about. Not your fault, but the fault of MS.
Hardware requirements changed somewhat with the advent of SP6,
as did IIS support.
SP6a was nothing more than a "fix" for SP6, primarily released
because some Fortune 500 companies were pi*sed off that MS had
screwed them by not supporting certain system configurations
with the SP6 release (did someone say "lawsuit"?).
Bottom line, add SPs only if you absolutely have to. Sometimes
"things" will suddenly appear (GPFs crawling across your
desktop, etc.) if you don't have the very latest SP release.
I've seen this happen just prior to new SP updates on a number
It is this reason that I asked if anyone knew "when" Dx3 was
finally fully-integrated on NT4 (I think it was SP5). This
means that if you want to do Dx stuff on NT4 using Mingw, you
will need at least SP5. I am currently running SP6a.
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.