<snip>
> I am not sure how the different service packs work alongside each
> other...but I wouldn't run that way... it just sounds like it is asking
for
> trouble.... but I never tested it so who knows ;)
>
> Colby
There is a lot to be said for installing the most recent SP on all PCs on
which Protel (99 SE) has been installed. However, I would argue that any
installation of Protel (99 SE) *should* be able to run satisfactorily on any
PC, regardless of whether the SP that has been installed on that PC is the
same as the SP that has been installed on any other PC that is connected to
the same network.
However, just because I have said that that is what *should* happen, does
not necessarily equate what actually *does* happen in those circumstances,
though.
It might strike some as self-obvious that this should be supported, but
others may wonder how situations could exist where users might want to have
different SPs installed on different PCs. In that regard, I consider that
there really are times when this situation could come about.
When Protel releases a prerelease version of a SP, this is normally released
on a NDA basis. Amongst the conditions associated with downloading this, is
one in which the downloaded file can be installed on *one* PC only. To avoid
breaching this condition, premises with multiple installations of Protel (99
SE) could download a separate copy of the SP for each PC on which they want
to evaluate it (but I suspect that Protel would not vigorously pursue this
aspect of violating the NDA if the premises concerned complied with the
remaining aspects of this). However, because that SP is then in a prerelease
status, and thus might contain software of a less than fully tested nature,
many premises would prefer *not* to test that version of the SP on *all* of
their PCs (which have Protel (99 SE) installed on them).
And even after a SP has been released in its final form, some premises might
want to evaluate this on some (/one) of their PCs, before making a decision
as to whether it gets installed on *all* of their PCs. Although each SP
released normally results in some improvement to Protel's performance and
behaviour, many users subscribe to the view that many SPs are of a
"two/three steps forward, one step back" nature. Although they would
appreciate the "two/three steps forward", there could be times when they
regard the "one step back" as imposing unacceptable drawbacks on their usage
of Protel, and so they might consequently make the decision to *not* install
that SP on *all* of their PCs. (In the event that such a decision was made,
it would typically be made with some reluctance, because they could be
missing out on other features that they value and would otherwise enjoy. And
in some cases, the SP might be installed on all PCs at a later date, if
someone figured out some way of reducing the drawbacks (from their
perspective) associated with doing that.)
Extending the above scenario, it is not of the question that there could be
cases where the most recent SP has *not* been installed on all PCs at a
given location, and then *another* SP is then released. Regardless of
whether this new SP is tested in its prerelease form or its final form (or
both) on just some/one of the PCs concerned, the situation can then exist
where there is a "gap" that is *two* SPs "wide" between different PCs. And
that scenario could, in some cases, extend yet further... (if the new SP
does not overcome the (perceived) drawbacks of the SP, or SPs, that preceded
it).
Although this situation may sound far-fetched, or even contrived, I suspect
that it still does occur, and as such, it is something which should
subsequently be taken into account by Protel. I also have no experience with
running different SPs on different PCs (connected to the same network), and
it is not out of the question that that aspect, in itself, is in fact not
problematic. But then again, anyone running such a setup should not discount
the possibility that this situation might be problematic.
Regards,
Geoff Harland.
-----------------------------
E-Mail Disclaimer
The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken
or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are
confidential and not for public display.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To join or leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
