On 12 mars 2010, at 20:39, Julian Vrieslander wrote: > That begs the question. If the simple "Check for Updates" method of > installing updates is unreliable, why does MS provide it? If the more > complicated method that you describe is recommended, why is it not > conspicuously documented?
Though to be fair, Apple changed their way to apply System updates with leopard. Now the updater forces you to get into a semi logged-out state where all applications are quit so that the installer can perform its task properly. Ideally, the MS updater needs the same thing. Remember: you have to deal with updating a bunch of applications, all connected through a central database. In order to be able to update, no process that can access the database can be running for the update to take place (and not app that needs updating can be running either). Now, personally, I believe that booting with the shift key down is completely overkill and I never needed it — though it can't hurt. The only true benefit I see is that safe-booting purges the font cache (and font cache corruption is *evil*). Onyx can do that for you without need for safe-booting. What really matters is to have a clean Mac: fix permissions and check the drive for corruption., they you can quit all Office apps, and launch the updater. The updater checks that no Office-related process is running (including the database). 99% of the problems I've witnessed with the MS updater (the one for Office 2008) were related with Permissions (for the early ones), drive corruptions, or people messing up with the resources and thinking they can get away with it (Monolingual is a BAD idea). Corentin -- YouTalk mailing list List address: [email protected] List information: http://entourage.mvps.org/support_options/list.html List moderator: [email protected], [email protected] To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
