Software Deployment

I'm not aware of anything. I'd have to believe that MS wouldn't RTM a product with fundamental issues.

If you're that worried, why not deploy it to a restricted group of machines for UAT? Make sure that group includes those who will receive the clunkier/more challenging apps and a sprinkling of newly-built machines, to which you can deploy your core apps and a selection of others.

ORIGINAL: VBScab

I'm not aware of anything. I'd have to believe that MS wouldn't RTM a product with fundamental issues.


Hahahahahahahahahahah - woooowoooowwooooo [:D]

Made my day that did - thanks!

Dunnpy

ORIGINAL: dunnpy
Hahahahahahahahahahah - woooowoooowwooooo [:D]

Made my day that did - thanks!Read what I wrote. It says "fundamental issues." No-one pretends MS software doesn't have issues but one suspects that they'd probably flog their single-most important installation mechanism 'til it dies before releasing it.

VBScab,

Sorry - Just having a bad day/week.

I misconstrued your comments for my own enjoyment - but didn't mean to cause offence.

Dunnpy

ORIGINAL: dunnpy
Sorry - Just having a bad day/week. It's only Tuesday!

Maybe I was a little quick on the draw, too, Paul. Apologies.

Thanks VBScab. Your advice is very sensible. I am of the same opinion that MS wouldn't let loose MSIEXEC 4.5 without testing the crap out of it. However, the 'No news is good news' philosophy wasn't enough for me to feel comfortable.

Cheers

The other problem is, of course, that issues which you *do* read about tend to occur under quite specialised conditions. You know, if you have 4.5 on a w/s with XP SP2 and IE7 with hotfix 'y', along with MS Office 2003 SP2 which has been patched with the MS Access 2003 October sun-spot patch, you might see activity 'z'...you get the idea. It might be that there are a gazillion successful implementations but you'll not get to read about those, as people tend to post about problems/issues.