Thanks for the fast response. Although I did not know the document at your link I used the way as instructed in that document. There is no error message or anything else but at the end you are stuck with the old driver version.
All the files are copied to the driver directory but they will not be used. So in my case the instructions simply do not work (Windows 7 x64, Enterprise, Multi Language (English used), Service Pack 1).
The problem is that when you update the driver on the print server , indeed the clients are stuck with the old driver, but when i clients try to print , they will have a notification that they first need to update the driver... This doesnt happen with XP clients...
It would appear the 5.185.41 x86 PS XP driver is broken when installing on 2008 R2 x64.
I have no problems installing the HP UPD PS, Ricoh UPD PS, or Intermec x86 and x64 drivers on the 2008 R2 server all from within the Print Management console. However, the Xerox x86 driver will not install from print management as it asks for the x86 copy of ntprint.inf. As I've successfully done in the past, I connect up to the 2008 R2 print server from an XP SP3 client with my admin credentials, open the printers and faxes -> server properties for the print server and then update the driver. With the 5.185.41 driver, XP gets to the last screen of the print driver wizard (which states it was successfully installed), but then a popup dialog appears stating the driver installation failed. I tried this same procedure with a windows 2003 SP2 pc too with the same failed results.
However, if I try the exact same steps except use the 5.185.19 PS x86 driver -- it gets installed correctly. Thus, there is a bug with the 5.185.41 driver.
This is precisely why a release history for each driver version should be made public -- just like the other print vendors do.
We last updated the driver about 6 months ago. In the version we are using, when a job is held on the printer waiting for media (usually someone has printed A4 which we don't stock) this hold sends as an error, not a warning. The print queues (SNMP enabled) switch to Offline. This is not the correct condition as the printer can print around the held job. The printers are running the latest firmware for their models. Does a newer version of the driver address this issue?
I also believe more information should be posted about driver history. It would simplify answering questions like which version first officially supported Office 2010 or Acrobat 9.x or ... Then I would easily know which sites are most likely to need an update to support an application upgrade rollout. I don't want to be on hold with tech support for 30 minutes to answer this level of question.
The biggest reason we don't routinely upgrade is that users that will be broken with each upgrade. I need to justify more users will be fixed than the number of users we expect to be broken after each upgrade. A combination of documented fixes/new functionality is more likely to meet that criteria than any single issue.
Why do upgrades break users? I support hundreds of Xerox printers used by well over a thousand computers. The lack of a versioned global print driver makes each update a risk. For each upgrade, I need to schedule to delete all Xerox print queues, remove the old driver and recreate every print queue. This would be manageable by scripting, but reinserting the SNMP community string requires every print queue to be manually updated afterward. All that prep work makes standing up new print servers to replace the existing ones a safer option. The environment is way too large to justify that labor multiple times per year.
Additionally, even after I update the print server cleanly, that does not even address the users' computers. Without a versioned driver, there will always be computers that don't update all the files. Our help desk then needs to remote into each of those computers and help them through the upgrade - easily 10 minutes as at least one reboot is typically needed. That's not a process anyone wants to repeat often. A versioned driver would actually be more important to us than the release notes. Versioning also allows the upgrade process to stop if a problem is seen or upgrade queues in waves. Without it, users travel between sites with different versions and can corrupt their drivers moving back and forth.
Sorry to hijack this a bit with versioning, but I needed to in order to address why blind "it's new and improved" upgrades just don't work in large installs.