AutoPatcher Forum

I was wondering, when developing a script for the Office releases, is there a minimum service pack level requirement expected,
it looks like none at the moment according to the "Depot" but I'm not sure? I do see "service packs" offered but I'm not sure if
they are expected to be installed, similar to the Windows XP SP3 requirement?

And are the following Office releases still being updated (when development resumes)?
...Microsoft Office XP/2002
...Microsoft Office 2003
...Microsoft Office 2007

When you have a moment.

Mike

well, if i'm not mistaken, minimum service pack level for each OS or Office if the current service pack, that means:
windows 2k: sp4
windows xp: sp3
windows vista: sp1
office 2k: sp3
office xp: sp3
office 2003: sp3
office 2007: sp1

> And are the following Office releases still being updated (when development resumes)?
well, i know for sure that erik was in charge of those. i know that james has office xp, but i'm not sure about. i also know that he had an beta version ready, but i don't know if he had the time for testing. i know for sure that i don't have any office, so i can't do anything on those except blindly, like i'm doing with vista_x64

> (when development resumes)?
i really don't know

[]s

For Office 2007, the minimum level is without SP1.. because SP1 is included in Autopatcher.

For Office 2003, the minimum level is probably SP2.. because SP3 is included in Autopatcher.

klymax, booth of those scripts are out of date and, because they include the current service pack, they are breaking the rule about support only the current version of the service pack. that doesn't mean that an service pack can't be included, because it can be included also an addon, not at the main package. just imagine, that the current service pack for windows xp is sp2. then, at the script, you could find and download of about 300mb for the sp3 and then all the remaining updates for the current service pack. that is absolutely an non-sense. the same thing with all the other scripts

[]s

@klymax

No, that's wrong.

You are quite right that the Service Packs are included in the downloads.

However, the minimum Service Pack level for XP/2002 and 2003 is SP3 and the minimum Service Pack level for 2007 is SP1.

That holds true for the existing scripts, whether or not they are out-of-date.

--

So basically, I should be tested for missing updates after installing the latest Office SP. However, AP can detect and install the latest SP if missing (unlike Windows releases). I tend to agree with Cristiano; this is inconsistent and the SPs should be moved to an addon in the future. However, with so many different SPs for Office, Project, Visio, Publisher, etc., it's difficult for an end user to know if they have them all, hence why the SPs were probably included in the first place! At least I know what my baseline should be though. Thanks!

@Cristiano

I'm just calling it as I see it.. if the scripts are out of date, then you guys need to get some help and get them fixed. A lot of space is currently wasted on my system with the extra files.

@James

The question by gUiTaR_mIkE and my answer was regarding the Office service packs and not Windows. Nevertheless, I don't see why include the Service Packs when the minimum supported version should be the latest service pack.

klymax, on Mar 17 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

So was mine!
Please re-read my post.

I was also correcting what Cristiano said, because he was partly wrong, too.

--

@Everybody

The question by the OP has been answered.

I'm not going to get in a discusion as to why Office releases have Service Packs but Windows releases do not.

It is not inconsistent, because the End User License Agreement (EULA) for Microsoft Office is different from the End User License Agreement (EULA) for Microsoft Windows. If you don't like that take it up with Microsoft's lawyers, not here. There are many other reasons why and I am not going to repeat them all again.

If you are a Network Administrator in charge of Office Deployment then you will know what some of the essential differences are, but like I have just said I am not going to go through them all again.

I am also not going over an argument we had two years ago when I helped develop the AutoPatcher for Microsoft Office releases.

--

Thank you all for answering my question, I see it as closed.

Mike

Having just re-read the entire topic, I see that there is one part to the OP we have not yet answered:

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Mar 15 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

The answers are, respectively:

Yes - ETA imminent (probably tomorrow);
Yes - ETA possibly next month (April);
Yes - ETA not yet known;

However, there will very probably be a change of direction, with support for Visio, Project and the Viewers being dropped. There will be a transition period before the Visio & Project updates are actually removed completely.

--

aaronpriest, on Mar 17 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Hmm?

Mike

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Mar 17 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

HAHA! You got me!



I'd hate to see Project and Visio updates, and also viewers dropped. I've used them frequently in the past.

aaronpriest, on Mar 18 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

Then volunteer

Netizen, on Mar 18 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

He is.

Mike

gUiTaR_mIkE, on Mar 19 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

Woops, was that there all the time? My bad Aaron

Netizen, on Mar 19 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

Haha, no problem! I think I've now located all my 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2007 Office, Project, Visio, and Publisher CDs and license keys. Wow, what a search. I haven't used some of them in years. I was going to load them up in some VMWare sessions this weekend and see what updates we were missing, but we've had a catastrophic server crash here, and it will take some time to rebuild a new RAID array and restore. Going to be a fun weekend...

No need for 2000, because we have never supported that. It was always too difficult trying to handle the "now load your original Microsoft Office 2000 CD" popup.

--

James, on Mar 20 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

Abandon Office XP (2002) as well

just kidding,

someone out there might install IE8 on my laptop for that (hahahaha!)
Edited by Netizen, 20 March 2009 - 06:25 PM.

James, on Mar 20 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

Yup, I agree, 2000 stunk in that regard.