First, I will start by saying thank you for the release of the patch and giving us a bit of hope for the future of our program. However, your users should not have to scream, throw tantrums and insult you all to get some response (admitting personally to all of the above, but it finally did work, didn't it!). As you can see by the responses both here and on the UFT-L list regarding the problems with this upgrade, we are all more than willing to work WITH you to fix problems such as these. I doubt it will sink in, but G.c needs to remember that in the future. Just knowing that this upgrade was indeed in the works would have gone a VERY long way in calming the waters. I'm sure that it would have been possible to have let us know just that, that it was in the works and due out, without giving away trade secrets.
I too have had no success installing the patch. Here are my particulars:
I've tried installing it on the 3.0 upgrade. Using a Compaq Armada 7800 laptop. Plenty of memory, disk space (64 MB RAM, 14 GB HD, with 11 free--I think that would be sufficient for ANY program...) My UFTree.exe is from 5/6/99, 3:01 AM. The file is 8,557 KB. I have defragged and scandisked and all is well. I do run McAfee, but disabled it prior to install. I have 3 directories on my C drive that involve the program: Roots5 which holds my the projects that were converted from the earlier incarnations (when I moved my programs from the desktop to the laptop, that is where backup/restore forced them); UFT which is the 3.0 Upgrade; finally I have UFT1, which is the older 2.9 which had the SSDI and other goodies that were not a part of 3.0. That was installed after UFT 3.0 as I needed to use the SSDI disks. I installed all as fresh installs when I got the laptop 2 months ago. I have not installed the two related earlier patches for 3.0--tutor and studio--because I do not use them. I have tried applying first the upgrade patch, then the other, just to test. Neither works and they do not accept my uftree.exe as a valid 3.0.
I have tried, without success, all the suggestions put forth on Genforum and on the UFT-L list with one exception. I do not mess with the registry unless absolutely necessary. To do so can be a recipe for disaster and my computer is running quite nicely right now, thank you. Most people do not have the experience to even be using regedit and if that's what is going to be necessary, then there is a problem. The installation of the initial program or the patch should be able to do what it needs to the registry on it's own. If the user needs to do a regedit to get it to work properly, then the program is not ready for prime time.
Here's hoping that G.c will keep us informed as to the progress of the patch fix.