Discussion on:

Learn how Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) makes Windows Server 2003 patch management easier

I have just deployed WSUS. I've been using SUS for a year or so before.

It does have a lot more features than SUS and it?s definitely an excellent product for the money ($0). However, like any new piece of software, it still has glitches and they?re not documented.

The biggest problem I had was the fact that I installed WSUS on a partition with the default NTFS permission (full control for Everyone) modified and with disk quota enabled. It took me a while until I realized I had to give Mr. Network Service full control permission on the WSUS folder and also change the quota limit to ?no limit? for the same Mr. Network Service.

Also, I still have a lot of computers who would not switch from the SUS client status to the WSUS client status.

Steven

The article states "SUS had several limitations, including the fact that it only updated the Windows operating systems?and only Windows 2000 and earlier versions."

SUS will patch Win XP and Win 2003. Depending upon how you define "OS" it may also be argued that SUS patches one application... Internet Exploder.

You may have to edit the registry for the computers that would not switch from SUS to WUS.

use group policy to define the wsus server. A couple of restarts or gpupdate /target:computer or the /force switch should help

That is not always true. I have a domain and set up group policy to point to WUS server, but ended up editing all of the registries (you can do this remotely). It was a small price to pay to get it working.

... in your comments that SUS "only updated ... Windows 2000 and earlier versions."

I am running SUS at two sites currently, and it updates all versions of 2000, XP SP1 & 2, and 2003 Server versions. I'm fairly sure it doesn't update versions earlier than 2000.

So, sorry, you've got it completely backwards.
(Have you ever used it ?)

That was a typo in the article that made it past my proofing and the editors.

And, yes, I have used SUS

Scott

A bit of a stretch to call that a typographical error - more an error of fact, especially since the context of the following sentence reinforces the error.

However we all suffer from brain-fade from time-to-time, so all is forgiven.

Yeah... brain-fade is probably a more appropriate term than typo.

I like this service, but we still have some pre-2000 machines and have to protect them from threats. We currently use Scriptlogic's Desktop Authority update services. Plus we get the ability to group our deployments.