possible to add ie 6 and directx9

[MeDieViL]

is it possible i can do this

[SC00BS]

What are you on about ?

[ssmokee]

I wouldnt count on it...adding directx 9.0c would about quadruple the size of the service pack. IE 6 on the otherhand, Ill just leave that alone to avoid starting a browser flame war.

[MeDieViL]

I wouldnt count on it...adding directx 9.0c would about quadruple the size of the service pack.  IE 6 on the otherhand, Ill just leave that alone to avoid starting a browser flame war.

flamewar right....

i4m a huge firefox fan

just to keep windows up to date

lol

[soldier1st]

if you want these then you add em coz from what i know these will never be added

sides you can't use firefox to update windows

duh...

i could start a browser war but there would be too many ff n00bs wanking bout opera

[Shotgun]

NOW it is possible to slipstream IE6SP1, at least to Windows 2000. Read the thread:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=32125&hl=

thanks to tommyp and Billou_Gateux!

If what MeDieViL means is to integrate IE6SP1 into an unattended CD, just search the forums here at MSFN. There's plenty of info on how to do that and more!

@soldier1st: Updating windows is possible without even using a browser. There is a program called Daisy that can update Windows without using/needing IE. That is just one of many software being released that can update Windows without ever needing IE or the Windows Update site. Some even allow deploying numerous hotfixes/updates automatically to a LAN without having to rely on the AutoUpdate feature. That's music in the ears for any network admin who has ever had to "fix" a PC that had the AutoUpdate feature installed, but since the admin never logged on that PC, the updates were NOT installed. I've seen too many environments where this happens almost all the time. NOT 100% of private LANs are using the latest server software! Yipes!

I've been an IT professional (programmer/administrator/deployer/integrator) for 16+ years and used many alternative browsers. Right now I'm using both Opera and Firefox. So, don't just assume that people are noobs just because they don't go with the mainstream commercially-obliged-mass-pushed options. There are scenarios where having the latest Microsoft software does not help you a bit.

For example (a case I had): an executive director was on a trip to a convention. He realized he needed to add some files for his presentation. A spyware had got on his laptop and he was unable to browse the internet for the files he needed. The spyware got thru an IE vulnerability which could be fixed with an update from WU, but since he could NOT browse with IE, how was he going to fix it on the road?

He could still connect (ping) our company servers, but could not browse anything on the net, neither our company intranet site. He called and could easily type a 2 line batch file that downloaded a small standards-compliant browser from our main FTP server. In under 10 minutes he installed the small browser (~ 3 - 4 MB) and could browse the company intranet site (HTML 4/CSS 2) and got the files (and the hotfix) he needed. He liked the alternative browser so much in fact he still uses it when his main browser (IE) fails for some reason. The alternative browser he used was Opera.

Another example to think about is for those of us who every-once-in-a-while we have to support older systems. How are you going to install hotfixes to a re-install of Windows 95 if it comes with IE2 and Windows Update does not work with it?

Solution: use an alternative browser to download the latest IE for that system and THEN use IE to get to WU. Not the most secure option, but it works. Better yet, download the patches with the alternate browser, THEN use IE afterwards. That is, assuming you do not have any "resource" CD available. Just the 95 CD with you.

[soldier1st]

i knew about daisy before you posted it

found it in my collection of urls

[Shotgun]

Nice.

There are lot's of software like those (to update Windows) popping up everywhere. Not unusual considering that MS has acted somewhat irresponsible regarding security "updates" that break previous security patches or even worse, create new security vulnerabilities and/or break well known apps (even MS own apps). User communites have begun to take a hands-on approach to observe and insure that MS is really testing their patches before releasing them to the general public. Considering the HUGE corporation MS is, and all the technical, business, analytical and financial resources they have available its surprising so many "snafus" they have made.

One of the most common ones I have personally seen is this: Many laptop users get bundled MS software when they buy from OEM and resellers. A big percentage of those get some kind of "office" software included, be it MS Office or the infamous MS Works. This last one (being from MS) is a suite that has its own propietary format that differs from the "Office 95/97/2000" format. This creates a problem in that other MS software have trouble reading/writing to it. You never get 100% conversion/translation from Office<--->Works. Why remake the wheel when it already works the way its intended? Strange. That's why I think many people have begun to learn/use other apps, specially free ones (like OpenOffice) to make sure that whenever they take their important documents, they at least are able to work with them!.

[soldier1st]

open office is a little different from ms office but it's free and ms office costs too much money

if i had my way i'd dl it

[Shotgun]

Better to have alternatives, than NO alternative at all...

[soldier1st]

correct hot shot

[ssmokee]

I had an idea about this, but I initially posted it in the Progress about 2.0 RC thread. I figured it would be a good idea to put the post in here since it directly relates to the thread title. Here was the post:

Hmmm <light bulb appears over my head> what if the Gape's service pack was able to detect the presence of (just as an example) ie6sp1.exe and directx_9c_redist.exe in its currect directory, and if they exist...install them, and if they dont exist...dont do anything?

Looking at this from a batch file stand point it seems pretty simple. If $filename exists, execute it; if it doesnt exist, do nothing. This way if people wanted to include said updates all at the same time, just plunk them in the same directory as the service pack.

Would this method even be possible/feasible? Ideas anyone?

I know I am sort of over simplifying the process, as I really have no idea exactly what goes on once Gape's service pack installer is executed...but from what knowledge I do have it seems like it might be possible.

[soldier1st]

it is possible