Autodesk DWF Viewer

[#1]

Ok, I have the DWF Viewer .MSI install file, and can install that fine to all our machines using group policy.

However, the service pack is a .EXE file. How on earth am I meant to deploy that?

Considering the bug fixes listed there I don't see this as an optional service pack (fixes b&w printing, and missing graphics on screen). Help please.

[#2]

After deploying the regular install via the MSI file, you would run the
service pack EXE on each of the installs. The service pack is an EXE that
"patches" the installed DLLs. It is not an installer. This approach allowed
us to make one service pack EXE for all of our supported languages instead
of creating and testing one installer per language. Recall that we released
the service pack in the middle of the Autodesk Design Review 2008
development cycle, so we worked to do this as swiftly (IE 7 was already out)
and efficiently (way busy on ADR 2008) as possible.

wrote in message news:5563452@discussion.autodesk.com...
Ok, I have the DWF Viewer .MSI install file, and can install that fine to
all our machines using group policy.

However, the service pack is a .EXE file. How on earth am I meant to deploy
that?

Considering the bug fixes listed there I don't see this as an optional
service pack (fixes b&w printing, and missing graphics on screen). Help
please.

[#3]

While I can appreciate you were busy with DR2008, please understand this inconsistency in delivery formats makes supporting your software a nightmare for IT departments.

Autodesk seem to be swaying towards MSI support for products, which is great as it means we can easily deploy them to multiple computers. However if you are going to support this format, please make a commitment to it, have someone research how it works in a group policy environment, and ensure all patches use the same installation techniques.

One particular problem this mixing and matching can cause which you may not be aware of is that any MSI deployed using group policy is protected by the windows file protection system. This means that if a user attempts to uninstall a program, or a virus infects it, windows detects that and automatically repairs the program using the MSI.

In fact, I've just tested your service pack on a machine where DWF viewer 7 has been installed using group policy, and the service pack .EXE file does nothing. Oh, it installs ok, but as soon as you attempt to run the program, the 'corrupted' files get replaced with the standard ones from the MSI and we're straight back at the original unpatched version.

[#4]

Thank you for this information. I did not know this. This is a problem. If
we ever do a service pack for Autodesk Design Review 2008, we may wish to
use MSI technology - not a patch.

wrote in message news:5564872@discussion.autodesk.com...
While I can appreciate you were busy with DR2008, please understand this
inconsistency in delivery formats makes supporting your software a nightmare
for IT departments.

Autodesk seem to be swaying towards MSI support for products, which is great
as it means we can easily deploy them to multiple computers. However if you
are going to support this format, please make a commitment to it, have
someone research how it works in a group policy environment, and ensure all
patches use the same installation techniques.

One particular problem this mixing and matching can cause which you may not
be aware of is that any MSI deployed using group policy is protected by the
windows file protection system. This means that if a user attempts to
uninstall a program, or a virus infects it, windows detects that and
automatically repairs the program using the MSI.

In fact, I've just tested your service pack on a machine where DWF viewer 7
has been installed using group policy, and the service pack .EXE file does
nothing. Oh, it installs ok, but as soon as you attempt to run the program,
the 'corrupted' files get replaced with the standard ones from the MSI and
we're straight back at the original unpatched version.

[#5]

An MSI patch / transform file would be ok, but you might find it easier to just put out a standard .exe patch, and separately release a full MSI of the updated version.

Re-installing the entire application is easy enough if you're using group policy. I think that would probably be the easiest solution for everyone. Message was edited by: robinsons