Office 2003 SP2 Administrative Install?

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Peter Foldes]

Like Neo said the best way in my opinion is using WSUS. You can work around this by directly editing the registry on the client machines which can be scripted using REG.EXE. The WSUS documentation
lists the registry values that need to be set.



You can also use a batch file for distribution. Also read this KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Here is an example of a batch file using shortened names

@echo off
setlocal
set hotfixpath=\\servername\hotfixshare
%hotfixpath%\KB817787.EXE /Q
%hotfixpath%\KB819696.EXE -u -n -z -q
%hotfixpath%\KB905414.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\KB905749.EXE /quiet /norestart
%hotfixpath%\QCHAIN.EXE C:\Hotfix.log
Shutdown /r /t 30 /f

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[Scott]

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the software
install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up one day and
say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that more
difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was previously
a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a 60 page guide
with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need to be
configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as the
previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits of
MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity etc
now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in the ass
to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the average desktop
user dumb as a doorknob about system security and stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the time
to me these days.

 

[neo [mvp outlook]]

Skipping the parts where I feel that you are trying to start a debate what
system is what or MS is missing the boat, I will only reiterate what I said.

If the admin install point is updated with SP2, then redeploy using a GPO.
While this link isn't for SP2, it gives a good insight on how MS sees
updating admin point and client workstation after an update is applied.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA011525461033.aspx

Me personally... I'm fond of installing Office 2003 using the setup.exe file
and using a combination of chaining and/or patching via WSUS. If you site
uses something else to deploy/patch (SMS, Zenworks, Patchlink, .etc), by all
means use it because it fits your corporate strategy.

/neo

PS - before I forget, the MSI file still exists for the off the shelf
software. patches from Microsoft tends to be binary updates that are
packaged as an MSP. This allows the "updates" to be smaller.

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the
software install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up
one day and say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that
more difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was
previously a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a
60 page guide with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need
to be configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as
the previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits
of MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity
etc now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in
the ass to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the
average desktop user dumb as a doorknob about system security and
stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the
time to me these days.

The way I understand the install and patch process can be done a couple
of ways...

1) Office 2003 installed from GPO (assuming administrative install point)
- patch admin install point with fullfile sp2 update
- redeploy Office 2003 with GPO

2) Office 2003 installed using setup.exe
- patch using Microsoft Update or Windows Server Update Services

Just so you know, MS implements a binary update process. Therefore the
updates in SP2 fullfile exe download are MSP files. I prefer option #2
because one can modify the setup ini to include references to other
applications/patches that need to be installed after Office completes.
This isn't slipstreaming and does speed up deployment. Another benny is
that the workstation/laptop ends up with a local installation source.
This means the CEO in a hotel room doesn't need access back to corporate
network when it comes time to add a feature, repair the installation, or
patch.

 

[neo [mvp outlook]]

Skipping the parts where I feel that you are trying to start a debate what
system is what or MS is missing the boat, I will only reiterate what I said.

If the admin install point is updated with SP2, then redeploy using a GPO.
While this link isn't for SP2, it gives a good insight on how MS sees
updating admin point and client workstation after an update is applied.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA011525461033.aspx

Me personally... I'm fond of installing Office 2003 using the setup.exe file
and using a combination of chaining and/or patching via WSUS. If you site
uses something else to deploy/patch (SMS, Zenworks, Patchlink, .etc), by all
means use it because it fits your corporate strategy.

/neo

PS - before I forget, the MSI file still exists for the off the shelf
software. patches from Microsoft tends to be binary updates that are
packaged as an MSP. This allows the "updates" to be smaller.

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the
software install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up
one day and say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that
more difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was
previously a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a
60 page guide with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need
to be configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as
the previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits
of MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity
etc now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in
the ass to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the
average desktop user dumb as a doorknob about system security and
stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the
time to me these days.

The way I understand the install and patch process can be done a couple
of ways...

1) Office 2003 installed from GPO (assuming administrative install point)
- patch admin install point with fullfile sp2 update
- redeploy Office 2003 with GPO

2) Office 2003 installed using setup.exe
- patch using Microsoft Update or Windows Server Update Services

Just so you know, MS implements a binary update process. Therefore the
updates in SP2 fullfile exe download are MSP files. I prefer option #2
because one can modify the setup ini to include references to other
applications/patches that need to be installed after Office completes.
This isn't slipstreaming and does speed up deployment. Another benny is
that the workstation/laptop ends up with a local installation source.
This means the CEO in a hotel room doesn't need access back to corporate
network when it comes time to add a feature, repair the installation, or
patch.

 

[neo [mvp outlook]]

Skipping the parts where I feel that you are trying to start a debate what
system is what or MS is missing the boat, I will only reiterate what I said.

If the admin install point is updated with SP2, then redeploy using a GPO.
While this link isn't for SP2, it gives a good insight on how MS sees
updating admin point and client workstation after an update is applied.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA011525461033.aspx

Me personally... I'm fond of installing Office 2003 using the setup.exe file
and using a combination of chaining and/or patching via WSUS. If you site
uses something else to deploy/patch (SMS, Zenworks, Patchlink, .etc), by all
means use it because it fits your corporate strategy.

/neo

PS - before I forget, the MSI file still exists for the off the shelf
software. patches from Microsoft tends to be binary updates that are
packaged as an MSP. This allows the "updates" to be smaller.

whatever happened to the good old msi file you could just point the
software install package thing to in GPO? What did someone at MS wake up
one day and say "You know, that's just too easy, hmm, how can we make that
more difficult to do?" and walla here we are?

What the hell?

I thought MS was trying to make administration, use of systems etc EASIER
and LESS TIME CONSUMING for people now they come out with all these great
new extravegant ways of doing things that take something that was
previously a 10 page how to guide and 3-4 basic steps and turn it into a
60 page guide with dozens upon dozens of steps, other components that need
to be configured / installed etc just to achieve the same damn result as
the previous version...

This is really getting old, one of the [previous good ol' days] benefits
of MS over Linux was ease of administration, deployement, less complexity
etc now it seems MS's goal is to catch up with Linux in being a pain in
the ass to do anything with while simultaneously trying to keep the
average desktop user dumb as a doorknob about system security and
stability.

Mac's and Linux based PC's are looking more and more attractive all the
time to me these days.

The way I understand the install and patch process can be done a couple
of ways...

1) Office 2003 installed from GPO (assuming administrative install point)
- patch admin install point with fullfile sp2 update
- redeploy Office 2003 with GPO

2) Office 2003 installed using setup.exe
- patch using Microsoft Update or Windows Server Update Services

Just so you know, MS implements a binary update process. Therefore the
updates in SP2 fullfile exe download are MSP files. I prefer option #2
because one can modify the setup ini to include references to other
applications/patches that need to be installed after Office completes.
This isn't slipstreaming and does speed up deployment. Another benny is
that the workstation/laptop ends up with a local installation source.
This means the CEO in a hotel room doesn't need access back to corporate
network when it comes time to add a feature, repair the installation, or
patch.