Slipstreamed Hotfix Detections...
AutoPatch
19 Jun 2008
I've just recently began experimenting with slipstreaming SP3 plus 11 hotfixes to my Office 2003 CD...
I've tried SEVERAL methods - the MOST promising being http://www.msfn.org/board/Office-2000-XP-2...er-t117422.html
Another very promising find being http://siginetsoftwa...thread.php?t=91
With the MSFN and the "alternate setup.exe", I can AT MOST get SIX of the 11 hotfixes as being "detected" by AutoPatcher...
(the way I see it, even if the slipstreaming "looks" to be a SUCCESS, unless AutoPatcher TELLS ME the hotfix is installed, I classify the slipstream as an UNSUCCESS...)
So my question now dials in on the registry entries for the Office 2003 hotfixes...
The several slipstream methods I've "attempted" all seem to create a ..\Installer\UserData\S-1-5-18\Products\904011.. registry entry...
Yet AutoPatcher is "detecting" the hotfixes via a HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\Installer\Patches\..\SourceList registry entry...
Can someone please explain the difference, pros or cons, of "detecting" the \Patches\..\SourceList versus the \S-1-5-18\ ?
Many thanks in advance...
I've tried SEVERAL methods - the MOST promising being http://www.msfn.org/board/Office-2000-XP-2...er-t117422.html
Another very promising find being http://siginetsoftwa...thread.php?t=91
With the MSFN and the "alternate setup.exe", I can AT MOST get SIX of the 11 hotfixes as being "detected" by AutoPatcher...
(the way I see it, even if the slipstreaming "looks" to be a SUCCESS, unless AutoPatcher TELLS ME the hotfix is installed, I classify the slipstream as an UNSUCCESS...)
So my question now dials in on the registry entries for the Office 2003 hotfixes...
The several slipstream methods I've "attempted" all seem to create a ..\Installer\UserData\S-1-5-18\Products\904011.. registry entry...
Yet AutoPatcher is "detecting" the hotfixes via a HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\Installer\Patches\..\SourceList registry entry...
Can someone please explain the difference, pros or cons, of "detecting" the \Patches\..\SourceList versus the \S-1-5-18\ ?
Many thanks in advance...
James
06 Jul 2008
I have had a look at the Office Slipstreamer at http://www.msfn.org and I am not convinced it is legal if you are using a retail product. Microsoft state:
I assume this means that you must have the correct Enterprise edition of Office 2003 and a volume license. There is actually a warning elsewhere on http://www.msfn.org that you may otherwise be violating your license terms.
The slipstreaming is not carried out correctly. Only the files are integrated and then fake registry entries are generated in order to trick Microsoft's Office Update into recognising the integrated files.
AutoPatcher installs patches properly, as intended by Microsoft. A properly installed patch will generate registry entries at
(1) HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\...\Installer\UserData\S-1-5-18\Products\{GUID1}\Patches\{GUID2}
and at
(2) HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\Installer\Patches\{GUID2}\...
AND
(3) elsewhere.
Both {GUID1} and {GUID2} are in the so-called compressed form. At location (2) the name of Microsoft's patch is given, which is what AutoPatcher is looking for. The Slipstreamer doesn't bother to put this in, probably because it throws the patch file away.
--
Quote
You must obtain the correct user licenses before you copy, modify, or distribute a customized version of the Office 2003 CD
The slipstreaming is not carried out correctly. Only the files are integrated and then fake registry entries are generated in order to trick Microsoft's Office Update into recognising the integrated files.
AutoPatcher installs patches properly, as intended by Microsoft. A properly installed patch will generate registry entries at
(1) HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\...\Installer\UserData\S-1-5-18\Products\{GUID1}\Patches\{GUID2}
and at
(2) HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\Installer\Patches\{GUID2}\...
AND
(3) elsewhere.
Both {GUID1} and {GUID2} are in the so-called compressed form. At location (2) the name of Microsoft's patch is given, which is what AutoPatcher is looking for. The Slipstreamer doesn't bother to put this in, probably because it throws the patch file away.
--
