Automatic Updating & MS System Update Service

If I've got all of my PCs set to do automatic updating,
downloading AND installing, at 5 or 6 a.m. every day, why
would I need to use any other patch mechanism then? I'm
using either XP or Win2k sp4, so all PCs have the
necessary auto. update features.

I ask this because someone told me to download and use
Software Update Services.

Thank you.

Robert
Fri Nov 28 14:19:08 CST 2003

Peter Bailey wrote:
> If I've got all of my PCs set to do automatic updating,
> downloading AND installing, at 5 or 6 a.m. every day, why
> would I need to use any other patch mechanism then? I'm
> using either XP or Win2k sp4, so all PCs have the
> necessary auto. update features.
>
> I ask this because someone told me to download and use
> Software Update Services.

No you don't *need* SUS under these circumstances. Whether you might think
SUS makes your good idea even better is another thing.

To cut a long story short, SUS is like your own localised version of Windows
Update. Your SUS server downloads updates from Microsoft on a schedule, and
your clients download their updates from your SUS server on a schedule also,
using the same client side kind of settings you have now.

The improvement would be slightly improved control over what gets installed
(only updates you approve are distributed by SUS), and of course a reduction
in bandwidth used for update downloads as you only have to download stuff
from microsoft once, and afterwards the client updates are done via your
LAN.

This is especially attractive if your internet connection is relatively slow
or you are paying for it by volume of traffic.


--
--
Rob Moir
Microsoft MVP for servers & security
http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
"802.11bofh - the *other* power over ethernet standard"

Peter
Mon Dec 01 07:02:33 CST 2003

Thanks very much for your response, Rob. You've answered
my question. We have very good bandwidth, being part of a
large company, so I'm not too concerned about that, but I
can see the "neatness" of SUS -- having just one source
within our firewall.
>-----Original Message-----
>Peter Bailey wrote:
>> If I've got all of my PCs set to do automatic updating,
>> downloading AND installing, at 5 or 6 a.m. every day,
why
>> would I need to use any other patch mechanism then? I'm
>> using either XP or Win2k sp4, so all PCs have the
>> necessary auto. update features.
>>
>> I ask this because someone told me to download and use
>> Software Update Services.
>
>No you don't *need* SUS under these circumstances.
Whether you might think
>SUS makes your good idea even better is another thing.
>
>To cut a long story short, SUS is like your own
localised version of Windows
>Update. Your SUS server downloads updates from Microsoft
on a schedule, and
>your clients download their updates from your SUS server
on a schedule also,
>using the same client side kind of settings you have now.
>
>The improvement would be slightly improved control over
what gets installed
>(only updates you approve are distributed by SUS), and
of course a reduction
>in bandwidth used for update downloads as you only have
to download stuff
>from microsoft once, and afterwards the client updates
are done via your
>LAN.
>
>This is especially attractive if your internet
connection is relatively slow
>or you are paying for it by volume of traffic.
>
>
>--
>--
>Rob Moir
>Microsoft MVP for servers & security
>http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
>"802.11bofh - the *other* power over ethernet standard"
>
>
>.
>

Karl
Tue Dec 02 05:58:28 CST 2003

Note that SUS doesn't update everything, just the core components that come
with a base install of Windows. Office, SQL, Exchange, antivirus, firewall,
etc. and anything else you install after windows is installed is not updated
by SUS.

Another advantage to SUS is more control over the update process... you can
centrally approve or un-approve patches to do testing on them or as problems
are discovered [like the IE scroll bar problem with the November IE
Cumulative Update]. There's also an IIS log file that logs which clients
receive updates, though in a large environment, you'd probably have to parse
the log yourself in some way to make it meaningful. And it might slightly
reduce the risk of someone using automatic updates to put malware on your
computers.


"Peter Bailey" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00b301c3b5d4$a722dd40$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> If I've got all of my PCs set to do automatic updating,
> downloading AND installing, at 5 or 6 a.m. every day, why
> would I need to use any other patch mechanism then? I'm
> using either XP or Win2k sp4, so all PCs have the
> necessary auto. update features.
>
> I ask this because someone told me to download and use
> Software Update Services.
>
> Thank you.