|
|
Hi Folks;
I'm running WSUS 2.0 (as we only have Windows 2000 Servers). We recently
installed it and on the Computers page we're only seeing the domain
controller listed.
Shouldn't we be seeing all the computers on the LAN ?
Thanks!
Dave
|
|
"Dave Onex" <dave[ at ]onex.com> wrote in message
news:%23yFwtVhOJHA.2492[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hi Folks;
>
> I'm running WSUS 2.0 (as we only have Windows 2000 Servers). We recently
> installed it and on the Computers page we're only seeing the domain
> controller listed.
>
> Shouldn't we be seeing all the computers on the LAN ?
Theoretically, yes.
How did you configure/apply the policy?
Download and run the Client Diagnostic Tool on one of your non-DC client
systems and post the results for analysis.
Incidentally, be acutely aware that support (read: the ability to
synchronize updates) for WSUS v2 expires in April, 2009 -- about six months
from now.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
Hi Lawrence;
Thanks for the reply - I looked into it further and there seems to be an
issue with group policy :-(
On the DC I can add the template for Windows Update but for some reason when
I try to edit it I get an error message "Administrative Templates: The
Process Cannot Access the File Because it is Being Used by Another Process"
I did manage to get my server's address to 'stick' and so the other machines
are now showing up but I can't seem to configure all the options because of
the above :-(
6 months 'till no synchronization? That really bytes.....
Best & Thanks;
Dave
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
news:OINS87iOJHA.2060[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > "Dave Onex" <dave[ at ]onex.com> wrote in message
> news:%23yFwtVhOJHA.2492[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Folks;
> >
> > I'm running WSUS 2.0 (as we only have Windows 2000 Servers). We recently
> > installed it and on the Computers page we're only seeing the domain
> > controller listed.
> >
> > Shouldn't we be seeing all the computers on the LAN ?
>
> Theoretically, yes.
>
> How did you configure/apply the policy?
>
> Download and run the Client Diagnostic Tool on one of your non-DC client
> systems and post the results for analysis.
>
> Incidentally, be acutely aware that support (read: the ability to
> synchronize updates) for WSUS v2 expires in April, 2009 -- about six
months
> from now.
>
>
> --
> Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
> Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
> Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
>
> MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
> My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
> http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
> My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
>
|
|
"Dave Onex" <dave[ at ]onex.com> wrote in message
news:Og0WKBjOJHA.2912[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> Incidentally, be acutely aware that support (read: the ability to
>> synchronize updates) for WSUS v2 expires in April, 2009 -- about six
> months
>> from now.
> 6 months 'till no synchronization? That really bytes.....
Well.. WSUS =v3= has been out since May 2007, and WSUS v3 SP1 was released
several months ago. :-)
And... given that WSUS v2 is running on an unsupported database server on
top of an unsupported operating system,
it's a miracle that they haven't pulled the plug sooner!
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:13:25 -0500, "Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam>
wrote:
[Quoted Text] >"Dave Onex" <dave[ at ]onex.com> wrote in message
>news:Og0WKBjOJHA.2912[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>>> Incidentally, be acutely aware that support (read: the ability to
>>> synchronize updates) for WSUS v2 expires in April, 2009 -- about six
>> months
>>> from now.
>
>> 6 months 'till no synchronization? That really bytes.....
>
>Well.. WSUS =v3= has been out since May 2007, and WSUS v3 SP1 was released
>several months ago. :-)
>
>And... given that WSUS v2 is running on an unsupported database server on
>top of an unsupported operating system,
Interesting. I am trying to install ISA2006, a current product, and guess what
database it uses? I wonder if it "knows" it is not supported and that is why it
is refusing to install :-)
> it's a miracle that they haven't pulled the plug sooner!
--
Dave Mills
There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.
|
|
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
news:OsVwtmpOJHA.3968[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> Well.. WSUS =v3= has been out since May 2007, and WSUS v3 SP1 was released
> several months ago. :-)
>
> And... given that WSUS v2 is running on an unsupported database server on
> top of an unsupported operating system,
> it's a miracle that they haven't pulled the plug sooner!
>
>
Yes, but that means we would not be able to run Windows 2000 - and that's
the core issue. We really don't want to 'upgrade' to a new server O/S -
we're very happy with Windows 2000 - it's the best O/S Microsoft has ever
released.
In fact, the primary reason for running WSUS is so that we keep our own
Windows Update server 'in stock' with all the Windows 2000 updates because
we fear Microsoft will continue to try to force us to 'upgrade' by removing
Windows 2000 updates.
I realize that might sound paranoid but there's got to be a reason for the
newer WSUS releases not working on a Windows 2000 platform.......
|
|
"DaveMills" <DaveMills[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:a0tjg4p3p98r80dogjsr8n9l7hmnvq266c[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > Interesting. I am trying to install ISA2006, a current product, and guess
> what
> database it uses? I wonder if it "knows" it is not supported and that is
> why it
> is refusing to install :-)
Yeah.. I realized that earlier today also on my brand-new ISA2006
installation.
Not sure why ISA2006 didn't use the WID; after all, ISA2006 /requires/
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, so there's no reason not to have
installed the WID.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
"Dave Onex" <dave[ at ]onex.com> wrote in message
news:%23QTNXSsOJHA.3496[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Yes, but that means we would not be able to run Windows 2000 - and that's
> the core issue. We really don't want to 'upgrade' to a new server O/S -
> we're very happy with Windows 2000 - it's the best O/S Microsoft has ever
> released.
>
> In fact, the primary reason for running WSUS is so that we keep our own
> Windows Update server 'in stock' with all the Windows 2000 updates because
> we fear Microsoft will continue to try to force us to 'upgrade' by
> removing
> Windows 2000 updates.
>
> I realize that might sound paranoid but there's got to be a reason for the
> newer WSUS releases not working on a Windows 2000 platform.......
Microsoft isn't going to force you to do anything.
But here's three realities:
1. If something "breaks" and you try to call Microsoft for help, their sole
response is going to be "Windows 2000? So sorry? Upgrade, then call back."
2. Consultants, like myself, charge more money to support systems on older
operating systems. In my case, it's one less product to have to deal with
anomalies and vagaries. If I have a client who insists on using Windows
2000, Windows 9x, Windows NT - sure.. I'll provide them services... but it's
VERY expensive -- more expensive than upgrading, as it turns out. And since
Microsoft won't help you -- consultants, like myself, are your only resource
for help beyond your in-office skillset.
and, the most important... especially for you:
3. In April, 2009, you won't be able to get new content for a WSUS 2.0
server, no matter what operating system it's installed on, so if you want to
keep using WSUS -- you have no choice but at least move the WSUS to WSUS 3.0
on a Windows Server 2003 system. Then, if you so desire, you can keep
updating security patches on your Windows 2000 systems --- until that
pipeline dries up in July, 2010.
So... no need to "fear" Microsoft.... it's already a guaranteed promise with
a date-specific deadline attached.
See http://www.microsoft.com/lifecycle for more information on the
wherefores and whycomes.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
Answered in line...
[Quoted Text] >
> Microsoft isn't going to force you to do anything.
>
> But here's three realities:
>
> 1. If something "breaks" and you try to call Microsoft for help, their
sole
> response is going to be "Windows 2000? So sorry? Upgrade, then call back."
I know, that's why we don't call Microsoft for support :-) That, plus the
last time we called they wanted an arm & a leg for each question (that was
back in the 90's when we were running NT).
>
> 2. Consultants, like myself, charge more money to support systems on older
> operating systems. In my case, it's one less product to have to deal with
> anomalies and vagaries. If I have a client who insists on using Windows
> 2000, Windows 9x, Windows NT - sure.. I'll provide them services... but
it's
> VERY expensive -- more expensive than upgrading, as it turns out. And
since
> Microsoft won't help you -- consultants, like myself, are your only
resource
> for help beyond your in-office skillset.
I understand, but we don't really bring in consultants, although if we did
we would certainly call you because your understanding and ability to
respond to questions/problems accurately is evident - you know your stuff -
that much is clear.
>
> and, the most important... especially for you:
>
> 3. In April, 2009, you won't be able to get new content for a WSUS 2.0
> server, no matter what operating system it's installed on, so if you want
to
> keep using WSUS -- you have no choice but at least move the WSUS to WSUS
3.0
> on a Windows Server 2003 system. Then, if you so desire, you can keep
> updating security patches on your Windows 2000 systems --- until that
> pipeline dries up in July, 2010.
That's the part that bothers us. Forced upgrades. When XP came out we really
paid attention to it's validation 'feature'. We understand that Microsoft
wants to protect itself from piracy but the truth is that Microsoft let
piracy go for a very long time because it served their interests by
increasing market share.
Once market share got to an acceptable level the new validation feature came
out. Now here's the thing - We own many Microsoft products, legit software
that we can install at any time. Even 10 years from now we can install
Windows 98 if we want to. That's up to us because we bought the software.
With XP that's not the case. It's dependant on Microsoft 'validating' the
legit software that we bought. There's two important sides to this - one is
the presumption of guilt (unless proved otherwise) and the second is that
when Microsoft decides that XP is 'past due' all they have to do is turn off
the validation servers and guess what? Another forced upgrade.
Those last two things really bother me. We had to call into Microsoft to
re-validate an XP Pro installation. It was literally the presumption of
guilt until I could convince them that we really had bought the CD and that
it was legit. I found that very, very offensive - cretainly because I was
the one who had bought the software in the first place and know that it's
legit.
The fact that Microsoft has ultimate decision control over whether my legit
purchase is really legit bothers me. We don't have to deal with any of these
issues with Windows 2000.
Now I'd like to take a quick moment to explain something really
interesting.... The vast majority of what we do is email & office documents.
We still use Office 2000 on Windows 2000. We don't need nor want the latest
O/S because we feel the merits aren't worth it. We don't want the latest
Office because we use it primarily to type letters. We run ISA 2004 as it
gives our network excellent security and inceredible VPN access etc. We run
Exchange 2000 because it's also great and does everything we need.
Here's what's really cool - because we don't 'need' the extra 'features' of
all the latest and greatest from Microsoft we can also run old 2U rack
servers at 10% of the cost of new. In fact, the surest way to make a server
fly is to run an older O/S like Windows 2000 on a dual 3.2Ghz rack server
that we bought off e-bay for $500. The power and speed is incredible. Same
thing with desktops - want to see a desktop really fly? Install Windows 2000
Pro on last years hardware and it will fly!
So for us, we see the continual upgrade of hardware and software as a
vicious cycle that primarily benefits Microsoft. Why should we make
Microsoft a recipient of an annual recurring revenue stream when our needs
are met by Windows 2000?
How many people really need the features of the latest Office Suite? I mean
truthfully, how many people can justify the cost because it does something
that Office 2000 can't? Do we really need Vista with all the problems that
come with it?
Or, should we truthfully assess our needs, determine what the best
cost-effective solution is and then implement it?
Let's do some quick math, a modern (new) 2U rack server properly optioned
typically costs $10K. The fact is that I can buy (10) 2U rack servers (last
years model) on e-bay for $5K (or have price for 10x the quantity) That
means that even if we needed only one of them we can keep 9 of them as
identical standy-by spares. Or, we could get super exotic and implement a
cluster. Who cares about warranty when we have 9 identical spares ready to
deploy?
Honestly folks, I could build a data center for 10% of the cost of new by
going with last years hardware models. Provided one stays with an older O/S
it will be smokin' fast. The key is the relationship between software bloat,
increased hardware resources and desired functionality. And let's not forget
maturity. While Windows 2000 many not be supported for much longer it sure
is mature which is more then I can say for Vista.
Upgrades for the sake of running the 'latest & greatest' is not for us.
I used to sell off some of our used software on e-bay complete with
licenses. We were careful to un-install anything we were selling in order to
comply with licensing requirements. Do you know what Microsoft used to do?
They would monitor e-bay, contact them when they saw one of our auctions and
then get e-bay to kill the auction on the grounds that we were selling
'illegal' software. It's true. We changed our auction listings to include a
high res partial scan of the CAL and the software to indicate it's
authenticity. Microsoft still contacted e-bay and insisted they remove the
auctions.
Why? Because it was interfering with new software sales for them. This meant
that Microsoft would arbitrarily contact e-bay, tell them we were illegally
selling software and shut it down.
So, we're more then a little weary when it comes to upgrades (the recurring
revenue stream) and Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot about
Microsoft we like but it's also clear that they are also more then willing
to operate on the basis of judge, jury and executioner - when it serves
their needs and at the expense of our reputation. That's pretty bad
behavior. In any civilized nation in the world there is a presumption of
innocence. Not so with Microsoft.
>
> So... no need to "fear" Microsoft.... it's already a guaranteed promise
with
> a date-specific deadline attached.
> See http://www.microsoft.com/lifecycle for more information on the
> wherefores and whycomes.
I know, that's why we're doing everything possible to prepare for the worst!
;-)
Best & Thanks;
Dave
|
|
|