ponghy Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Recently, I've discovered that no integrating the hotfixes in the UA CD takes much less space than integrating them. Has this way (no integrate) any disadvantage over the other one? Are the updates applied in the same way? If so, why MS adds the /integrate option in their hotfixes?I only think that some update may not be used during the install process because that update is not integrated, and therefore the files in the I386 directory are the old ones, they're not the new versions included in the hotfixes.Any idea or opinions about this? Thanks and regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponghy Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 No ideas, advices or opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clintb Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 The main advantage I see is a much cleaner install. You won't have all the crazy directories left over in the Windows directory with a slipstreamed install. Try this: Install from a non-patched source cd, then do all the normal drivers, updates, etc... and see how many extra directories are left in c:\windows. All those "$NtUninstallxxxxxxxx$" will be very numerous. How about being able to install and not have a bunch of junk to do in the way of downloading patches, installing drivers, etc...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I think the top of my site sums up pretty efficiently why integrating the fixes (specifically by my method) is superior to other hotfix installation methods.1. Since the files are being directly overwritten on the CD, there is no period of vulnerability between when the files are copied to the hard drive and the hotfixes are run. This guarantees maximum stability and security.2. All necessary registry entries needed by Windows Update, QFECheck, and Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer are imported during Windows setup, meaning that the integration is transparent to Windows.3. Security Catalogs necessary for Windows File Protection to recognize the updated files as digitally signed are installed, once again ensuring maximum transparency to Windows.4. Since the updated files are being directly overwritten on the CD, this pack has the minimum possible amount of overhead associated with integrating hotfixes in comparison to other methods - both in space used on the CD and in Windows installation time.5. This pack works regardless of whether or not the Windows installation is unattended.While some of these points are specific advantages over the /integrate method, some are generic to just integrating hotfixes into the CD in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSpear Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Putting aside all the benefits of bug fixes and increased security, a huge benefit to integrating the hotfixes is that you won't have to spend a long time inside of Windows Update / Microsoft Update after the OS installation is finished. Depending on your connection to the internet, this could take hours. If you are working with a non-connected machine, then you're stuck installing them all by hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Having had the recently displeasure of working on a machine with only 56K, that can be a HUGE advantage (and time saver!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponghy Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 (edited) OK guys, thank you very much for your answers I would intend to include the hotfixes in my CD, with this manner or another one. My doubt is about why the KBxxxxx.exe files contained in SVCPACK\ folder must be there even when integrating the hotfixes with the /integrate argument. I think this is redundant and it takes more space than necessary...Regards.PD: RyanVM: Do you have your update pack translated for the spanish language? Edited April 21, 2006 by ponghy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 (edited) I think somebody made a thread in my forum about it once upon a time, but that's as far as it's gone. But hey, somebody's got to start one And yes, the EXE still does need to be run when using /integrate, or else no registry entries will be properly created and I can guarantee you that Windows Update will pitch a fit on at least a few of them (like the IE cumulative update). Edited April 21, 2006 by RyanVM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponghy Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 If I'm able to reproduce manually these registry entries with a script of my own, can I get rid of those EXE files from the SVCPACK folder? The HF goal is ONLY to recreate the registry entries? If so, I think I can to recreate the needed registry entries by doing a regshot and finding out the differences.And you didn't answer to my postdata: Is your update pack available for the spanish language? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 If I'm able to reproduce manually these registry entries with a script of my own, can I get rid of those EXE files from the SVCPACK folder? The HF goal is ONLY to recreate the registry entries? If so, I think I can to recreate the needed registry entries by doing a regshot and finding out the differences.Well, you still have the disadvantage of the files sitting uncompressed in i386 using way more space than they should.And you didn't answer to my postdata: Is your update pack available for the spanish language? Thanks.I think somebody made a thread in my forum about it once upon a time, but that's as far as it's gone. But hey, somebody's got to start one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponghy Posted April 22, 2006 Author Share Posted April 22, 2006 Well, Ryan, you're right, if I use the /integrate method, the I386 files remain uncompressed. But, Is it possible to compress them manually? (with the MAKECAB command). And when done, what files I should to change aswell to reflect the new compressed files? (any problem with CAT files or digital signatures when doing this?)Sorry for several questions. Thanks for your valuable help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 You know, if you compress the files and figure out the registry entries to add, you're like 90% of the way to creating an Update Pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incroyable HULK Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Maybe he wants to compress the KBxxxxxx.exe files and keep them separated in his svcpack folder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew84uk Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 In my opinion I would never intergrate anything with xp, if something isn't right I no its not xp itself I no its an install ive done. I don't really care how big the xp install is as long as it fits on a 4GB DVD.As a personal opinion i prefer the manual way of batch files and registry editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Suit yourself, most of us feel otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now