VS2005 SP1: Un-freaking-believable
-
This is not a programming question - this is a Windows Installer rant. I have a Win2k3 box, 4G RAM, quad-processor, i.e. the works. And it has nothing of significance running on it (308MB commit charge). I installed VS2005 yesterday, and let it download the mammoth SP1 overnight. I start installing it about 45 minutes ago. Just now, I get an error telling me that a file hasn't passed the digital signature check, and I need to check here[^] for information on how to fix it. Turns out, there's not enough contiguous memory available to verify the digital signature on this mammoth patch. What ridiculously brain-dead signature checking algorithm requires that the entire file reside in contiguous memory before being checkable? And the "solution" in the link above is priceless - "We strongly recommend that you disconnect the computer from the domain before you follow these steps." I have to disconnect this server from the domain before I can install a frikkin patch - using a hacky (at best) workaround? Failure. Looks like no VS2005 SP1 for me. Oddly, it had no problem installing itself on my XP SP2 desktop box with 2G memory and running instances of SQL Server Desktop.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
This is not a programming question - this is a Windows Installer rant. I have a Win2k3 box, 4G RAM, quad-processor, i.e. the works. And it has nothing of significance running on it (308MB commit charge). I installed VS2005 yesterday, and let it download the mammoth SP1 overnight. I start installing it about 45 minutes ago. Just now, I get an error telling me that a file hasn't passed the digital signature check, and I need to check here[^] for information on how to fix it. Turns out, there's not enough contiguous memory available to verify the digital signature on this mammoth patch. What ridiculously brain-dead signature checking algorithm requires that the entire file reside in contiguous memory before being checkable? And the "solution" in the link above is priceless - "We strongly recommend that you disconnect the computer from the domain before you follow these steps." I have to disconnect this server from the domain before I can install a frikkin patch - using a hacky (at best) workaround? Failure. Looks like no VS2005 SP1 for me. Oddly, it had no problem installing itself on my XP SP2 desktop box with 2G memory and running instances of SQL Server Desktop.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
What ridiculously brain-dead signature checking algorithm requires that the entire file reside in contiguous memory before being checkable?
Windows Installer? :yes yes yes! pleae say yes please!!:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
This is not a programming question - this is a Windows Installer rant. I have a Win2k3 box, 4G RAM, quad-processor, i.e. the works. And it has nothing of significance running on it (308MB commit charge). I installed VS2005 yesterday, and let it download the mammoth SP1 overnight. I start installing it about 45 minutes ago. Just now, I get an error telling me that a file hasn't passed the digital signature check, and I need to check here[^] for information on how to fix it. Turns out, there's not enough contiguous memory available to verify the digital signature on this mammoth patch. What ridiculously brain-dead signature checking algorithm requires that the entire file reside in contiguous memory before being checkable? And the "solution" in the link above is priceless - "We strongly recommend that you disconnect the computer from the domain before you follow these steps." I have to disconnect this server from the domain before I can install a frikkin patch - using a hacky (at best) workaround? Failure. Looks like no VS2005 SP1 for me. Oddly, it had no problem installing itself on my XP SP2 desktop box with 2G memory and running instances of SQL Server Desktop.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Heath's posted about this before as well. Have you tried following the work-around without disconnecting from the domain? I don't think all domains enforce that particular policy... And yeah, it's dumb... but come on, you're a VS user - surely you're used to Microsoft's idiocy by now...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Heath's posted about this before as well. Have you tried following the work-around without disconnecting from the domain? I don't think all domains enforce that particular policy... And yeah, it's dumb... but come on, you're a VS user - surely you're used to Microsoft's idiocy by now...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Shog9 wrote:
Heath's posted about this before as well. Have you tried following the work-around without disconnecting from the domain? I don't think all domains enforce that particular policy...
Yes - after I got that rant out, and cruelly poked a few defenseless but otherwise inanimate objects, I modified the registry and began the installation process again. It still makes me sick to my stomach X| Now I'm going to go pout in the fort we've constructed out of cardboard boxes in the empty cubicle. "No MS aloud!!!!"
Shog9 wrote:
And yeah, it's dumb... but come on, you're a VS user - surely you're used to Microsoft's idiocy by now...
Sure, but this wasn't VS - it was a core component of Windows. The way you're supposed to install and patch programs...
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"