Printable View
This is a bit off topic, but may change the programming environment.
After a few minutes I found that by altering the "vs_setup.pdi" file, you can eliminate the need for the prerequisite service pack!
My question is: Could this make the something not work?
I have not had any problems so far, but wonder if there could be a specific dependancy issue, that someone knows about. On the other hand, if it's so rare, then why bother worrying about it?
What did you change exactly?
mmm. surely if the developers of the program say that it(the program) needs sp2, then i am sure that they have their reasons...
cheers
patrick:wave:
a bit off topic here... but is it possible to install visual basic 2005 EXPRESS edition without internet connection? on a pc that already has windows installer and framework 2.0
Yes you can, you just need to download the Image file fully with the link below:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...pport/install/
Thanks for replying guys.
Okay, so that link shows how to disable all baseline requirements.
I changed these three lines, in the vs_setup.pdi file
I changed this, but dont know if it helped any.
AdminModeSupported=0 to AdminModeSupported=1
I deleted this which seems to help.
GFN_MID Windows XP SP2
And the occurances of:
gencomp6
So it doesn't seem to make a signifigant difference w/o SP2.
Its probably a rare scenario where it actually would cause an issue.
Thanks,
RESOLVED
Windows is less secure without SP2 installed. In my opinion no developer should intentionally make their system less secure.
Not just for security but also for bug fixes and patches in sp2. They wouldnt make it a requirement without good reason. Also, sp1 support is already coming to an end.
I would take into account what RobDog and jmcilhinney have said, but I have a quick rebuttle:
Well yes this is my original question, which no one here has easily answered.Quote:
They wouldnt make it a requirement without good reason.
If it's so good, then why is it not screaming in our face.
The good reason you speak of, may be more for their own benifit as well.
There is however an indication that it has a setup option that is semi-okay with ignoring the baseline requirements. :)
Yes, but that's a little ambiguous i think. I and others have problems with SP2, so that can be a security risk within itself. ;)Quote:
Windows is less secure without SP2 installed
There are other ways to beef up security, in a custom fasion too.
Besides, for a serious program the development machine, should have no connection to the internet, or any previous media input that could be malicious. Can't get much more secure than that. :thumb:
It's really about, what applies to the individual's needs.
[edit] Or the group as a whole, for application compatibiltiy, in that case.
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/...16/513018.aspx
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...=2123&SiteID=1
So, looks like windows installer 3.x is a key component. And it sounds like the reliance on SP2 was to speed up getting the 2.0 Framework out the door, with the side effect of helping to fight piracy.
If you take the risk and run on SP1 then at least install the new windows installer. You wont get support if you run into trouble.