|Date: ||Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:34:47 -0600|
|Reply-To: ||John Kuster <KusterJ@TEN-NASH.TEN.K12.TN.US>|
|Sender: ||"SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||John Kuster <KusterJ@TEN-NASH.TEN.K12.TN.US>|
|Organization: ||Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools|
|Subject: ||Re: 10.05 install failure|
|Content-type: ||text/plain; charset=us-ascii|
Remember that because there are temporary working files associated with any
install, more space is required than what you see when the install is done.
This can be particularly deceptive when the target drive is not the system
drive. The target may have lots of space, but the temporary working files are
going to want to go to the system drive. If it's simply a lack of space you may
be able to get away with an install if you temporarily create some additional
room by moving/removing/compacting some files and then restoring them after the
install. Sometimes I've had to remove multiple versions of word processors or
whole earlier suite versions that weren't removed during an upgrade. That can
sometimes create problems if you use an uninstall utility as it may remove
components needed for the later versions (you may have to reinstall the later
version after removing the earlier one). Of course, a new HD in only $100.
"Evonich, George" wrote:
> I'd check space. Also did they uninstall first? The only problems I've run
> into installing have all been due to my bad habit of not checking the simple
> things, like space, if the person is an administrator, etc. But this is
> just an ignorant guess...... 10 is bigger than 9, and if it's an older
> machine space may be an issue.
> Good luck,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Cline [mailto:dhc@PAWNEE.ASTATE.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:42 PM
> To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: 10.05 install failure
> One of our staff tried to install 10.05 in one of our off campus
> computer labs with somewhat older machines. She kept getting an error
> message something to the effect "unable to decompress openspss.exe" and
> the install fails. (I wasn't there so I don't have any other details).
> Version 9 installed on those same machine 1 1\2 years ago without any
> problem. Any ideas about what's going on here? thanks.
> Dan Cline