Office 2000: Admin OK, User gets "Error Applying Transform"

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Karlo,

Yes, I guessed I had done some very bad things.

How do I recognize a log file? I do I recognize one that is related to
Office?

Just look in the temp folder for User2 - something like

c:\Documents and Settings\User2\Local Settings\Temp

Look at every file if you have to, until you find something that looks
like it's related to Office. It should have an *.txt extension. When you
find it, copy and paste it here. With any luck it will show the error.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Karlo,

Yes, I guessed I had done some very bad things.

How do I recognize a log file? I do I recognize one that is related to
Office?

Just look in the temp folder for User2 - something like

c:\Documents and Settings\User2\Local Settings\Temp

Look at every file if you have to, until you find something that looks
like it's related to Office. It should have an *.txt extension. When you
find it, copy and paste it here. With any luck it will show the error.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Karlo,

Yes, I guessed I had done some very bad things.

How do I recognize a log file? I do I recognize one that is related to
Office?

Just look in the temp folder for User2 - something like

c:\Documents and Settings\User2\Local Settings\Temp

Look at every file if you have to, until you find something that looks
like it's related to Office. It should have an *.txt extension. When you
find it, copy and paste it here. With any luck it will show the error.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Karlo,

Yes, I guessed I had done some very bad things.

How do I recognize a log file? I do I recognize one that is related to
Office?

Just look in the temp folder for User2 - something like

c:\Documents and Settings\User2\Local Settings\Temp

Look at every file if you have to, until you find something that looks
like it's related to Office. It should have an *.txt extension. When you
find it, copy and paste it here. With any luck it will show the error.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Evadne Cake]

Hi Evadne,



If you check out the Microsoft "setup and deployment" newsgroups, the
guys on there do big network roll-outs of Windows, custom builds etc. I
think you'll find few people agree with you. As I said above, you should
never upgrade Windows, this is a recipe for subtle problems down the
line, not to menion lack of a baseline DLL manifest, mismatched LSA and
you can't run a differencing engine against the registry (again no
baseline).

So you're now talking about oranges - not apples. Custom builds are clean
installations because there has never been another licence on there. Network
installations (rollouts to 40+ systems) are always better performed as a
clean installation, I would agree there. However, you made a sweeping
generalisation. If one is upgrading a single workstation, then I will
reiterate: - I can count on the fingers of less than one hand where a clean
installation would be necessary - and I know for a given fact that over 90%
of the Windows MVPs would agree (and anyone else who knows more about
computers than you so obviously do...). I have been in the Windows 2000/XP
groups since their inception, my dear, and I know what I'm talking about.
I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about and I
*know* you're talking BS. Premium quality, first-rate, top-of-the-range BS.

You cannot generalise.

 

[Joan]

"I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about"
Now there is a line of bs if I ever heard one.

 

[Joan]

"I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about"
Now there is a line of bs if I ever heard one.

 

[Joan]

"I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about"
Now there is a line of bs if I ever heard one.

 

[Joan]

"I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about"
Now there is a line of bs if I ever heard one.

 

[Joan]

"I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about"
Now there is a line of bs if I ever heard one.

 

[Joan]

"I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about"
Now there is a line of bs if I ever heard one.

 

[Joan]

"I've also upgraded 100s of systems, and I know what I'm talking about"
Now there is a line of bs if I ever heard one.