MessageIt's true, he does. This has proven to work really well. It's the philosophy of get the foundation built well first and then build on top of it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Oglesby To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:25 PM Subject: [THIN] Re: Staging of a Citrix Server Through out the years there have been several problems with different MF versions that only happened when servers were upgrade from SPx to SPZ after MF was installed (not all but enough to remember them). A lot of times these problems would not manifest themselves on clean installs of the same product where Windows and its patches/SPs were installed then the latest and greatest from Citrix. Not that I know much but I make my guys always go Windows OS - Windows SPs- Windows HFs- Citrix - Citrix HFs Ron Oglesby Senior Technical Architect RapidApp Office 312.372.7188 Mobile 815.325.7618 email roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: Joe Shonk [mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:31 PM To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: Staging of a Citrix Server Preferably W2k3, Hotfixes, and then Citrix. That way you can create incremental images of W2k3 for a particular hardware platform (which could be used for other servers and services). Also, Citrix has done a really poor job with their installers so I like to save it for last. Create and Image then install. Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Petitti, Bruno Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: [THIN] Staging of a Citrix Server We are having a argument at work about the following situation. One tech says it's better to install Windows 2003, then Citrix XP and then all Windows service packs/patches. Another tech says it's better to install Windows 2003, all windows service packs/patches and then Citrix XP. What are your thoughts?