Re: new install of 9i on windows 2003

" - Dan -" <dan_at_domain.com> wrote in message news:40717379$0$46517$39cecf19_at_news.twtelecom.net...
> I will be doing my first install of 9i and before I download from the
> developers site, I have a question about the right path to install it. On
> the website, 9i was released first as 9.0.1 then came release 2 as
9.2.0.1.
> Now I did see someone write that the second digit moved its place (from
3rd
> to second place) so that's clear to me. But do I need to install 9.0.1
and
> then patch it to 9.2.0.1 (remember windows server 2003 here) or can I
> install 9.2.0.1 directly? It looks to me that the 9.2.0.1 download site
has
> 2 patches, not complete installs. Is this correct? Do I need to install
> 9.0.1 first, then 9.2.
>
> Thanks!

Don't even think about 9.0.1. Go straight for 9.2.

9.0.1 is "9i Release 1" and 9.2 is "9i Release 2", and whilst it's possible to migrate from Release 1 to Release 2, it makes far more sense in your case to install 9i Release 2 directly.

Release 1 was a mess, and something of a beta release, frankly.

What you will have to do (or ought to do) is having installed 9i Release 2 (9.2.0.1), patch it to 9.2.0.4. That patch, however, is only available to you if you have Metalink access (which you have to buy support for). Always read the patch's release notes to make sure, but in general you don't have to 'step patch'. Just as you can take Windows 2000 Advanced Server and immediately apply Service Pack 1, so you can take 9.2.0.1 and immediately patch it to 9.2.0.4: there's no need to apply 0.2 and 0.3 first.

Regards
HJR

-- 
-------------------------------------------
Dizwell Informatics: http://www.dizwell.com
  -A mine of useful Oracle information-
          -Windows Laptop Rac-
    -Oracle Installations on Linux-
===========================================