Windows XP Sp2 heads-up

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I must be the only one who had not one problem with all these updates from Windows....

I've seen Windows update do really stupid things. Like updating drivers to older versions, or not updating driver control panels, thus causing mismatches that stop both driver and control panel working properly.

I've even seen it insist on updating a "version 3" driver to a "version 4" driver, even though the version refers to hardware, not to drivers, thus installing the wrong drivers just because "4" is a higher number than "3".

I do think that Windows Update has come a long way in the last few years, especially for the average home user and MS/IE security updates in particular, but for us power users it's too out-of-date and too dumb in certain places to be trusted on automatic.

 

[Tahir2]

Tahir's Law
Adding more techies to a problem only increases the chance of more problems.
When a technician says it's done add twice the amount of time to the deadline to get it finished.
Never make a promise some other technician has to keep.
If you pay peanuts you get only get monkeys.

 

[silence]

Tahir's Law
Adding more techies to a problem only increases the chance of more problems.
When a technician says it's done add twice the amount of time to the deadline to get it finished.
Never make a promise some other technician has to keep.
If you pay peanuts you get only get monkeys.

words of wisdom....

 

[Althornin]

Is there anyone here who has their XP set to auto-update? :|

XP's auto-update feature isn't feasible to use on office machines because it would interrupt the normal use of the machines and it is a high security risk.

We are forced to use alternative means to update the machines which increase the costs even more.

M$ products are far too costly to use in business.

oh what horseshit.
Software update Services.
Cost=30 minutes to configure it and push out a GPO, and 5 mins a month to admin, if you've never done it before.

If you work for a company and aren't puching out patches to your machines, you should be shot, as you are incompetent - when free and easy to use tools exist for such. Now, SP2...it can cause problems, and has, for us - but we've fixed em.

 

[Frank]

Is there anyone here who has their XP set to auto-update? :|

XP's auto-update feature isn't feasible to use on office machines because it would interrupt the normal use of the machines and it is a high security risk.

We are forced to use alternative means to update the machines which increase the costs even more.

M$ products are far too costly to use in business.

oh what horseshit.
Software update Services.
Cost=30 minutes to configure it and push out a GPO, and 5 mins a month to admin, if you've never done it before.

If you work for a company and aren't puching out patches to your machines, you should be shot, as you are incompetent - when free and easy to use tools exist for such. Now, SP2...it can cause problems, and has, for us - but we've fixed em.

How many servers would Microsoft recommend for a company that uses all their stuff and employs more than 10 people? Let's see.

1. File/print server (duh)
2. Exchange server
3. MS SQL server
4. Domain master
5. IIS server
6. SUS server

While you can combine some of those, try adding Exchange or MS SQL on another server. The minimum requirement for about 25 people is 4 servers.

How do you manage your workstations? Active Directory, SUS and Remote Desktop Connection, right? That's a full-time job by itself, for 25 people. So you need at least two people.

Now you're going to install SP2, right? And you just push all updates that trickle in on the SUS server, right? And hire a programmer to fix all apps that won't work anymore? And hire someone else to help keep the flood of new problems under control?

I'd rather have some control over my infrastructure. Give me two Linux servers and my own workplace management system, and I can do that as well, for more than one of such companies. No sweat.



There are more ways to do things than only The Microsoft Way (TM). Some of them work at least as well. And no, TMW (TM) is _not_ a piece of cake. But you do get manuals of sorts, so you can just follow those.

 

[Althornin]

How many servers would Microsoft recommend for a company that uses all their stuff and employs more than 10 people? Let's see.

1. File/print server (duh)
2. Exchange server
3. MS SQL server
4. Domain master
5. IIS server
6. SUS server

While you can combine some of those, try adding Exchange or MS SQL on another server. The minimum requirement for about 25 people is 4 servers.

How do you manage your workstations? Active Directory, SUS and Remote Desktop Connection, right? That's a full-time job by itself, for 25 people. So you need at least two people.

Now you're going to install SP2, right? And you just push all updates that trickle in on the SUS server, right? And hire a programmer to fix all apps that won't work anymore? And hire someone else to help keep the flood of new problems under control?

I'd rather have some control over my infrastructure. Give me two Linux servers and my own workplace management system, and I can do that as well, for more than one of such companies. No sweat.



There are more ways to do things than only The Microsoft Way (TM). Some of them work at least as well. And no, TMW (TM) is _not_ a piece of cake. But you do get manuals of sorts, so you can just follow those.

Oh bollocks.
AD and SUS and 25 workstations shouldn't take a full time person - at least two people my ass, only if they both suck.

I have run all of those two servers before. Worked fine. For all the services you list, I'd recommend 2 servers - not 4.
"Flood of new problems"? sorry, I've pushed SP2 out to 1300 workstations so far, and I've had very few problems. Not enough to make me work extra.
As for "The Microsoft Way" - LOL!
Whatever. I've got plenty of flexibility in my infrastructure.

You know, I hate the fact that I always end up defending MS to skill-less linux fanboys. Solaris is my preferred poison, but MS has decent, non-time intensive solutions as well. The complete blowing out of proportion of some problems is the most annoying facet of penguin-heads.

 

[Frank]

Oh bollocks.
AD and SUS and 25 workstations shouldn't take a full time person - at least two people my ass, only if they both suck.

I have run all of those two servers before. Worked fine. For all the services you list, I'd recommend 2 servers - not 4.
"Flood of new problems"? sorry, I've pushed SP2 out to 1300 workstations so far, and I've had very few problems. Not enough to make me work extra.
As for "The Microsoft Way" - LOL!
Whatever. I've got plenty of flexibility in my infrastructure.

You know, I hate the fact that I always end up defending MS to skill-less linux fanboys. Solaris is my preferred poison, but MS has decent, non-time intensive solutions as well. The complete blowing out of proportion of some problems is the most annoying facet of penguin-heads.

Well, I would have agreed with you on that but for the "skill-less linux fanboys".

I wrote my own distribution and configuration system five years ago, which is used by some large companies to manage their Windows computers. You know the works, images, packages, settings etc, but at that time it was too new and "it isn't ever going to work that way", as all the IT professionals told me. So I do think I know what I'm talking about.

But tell me, how much do you have to think outside the book to make it all running smoothly?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

DiGuru .. I have to agree with Althornin. I've managed networks with over 500 computers and there were just two of us. On another network .. it was 300+ and I had managed that on my own.

The current network as over 1000+ users although the IT now runs the network. I run the mines network but do all the updates on my own as using automatic updates can cause problems with the programs that work here. Only after the programmers have tested the patches do I install it.

I do it this way because if the plant has to stop, the mine will loose over $100 000 per hour.

US

 

[London Geezer]

Jenkinson's Law:

It won't work.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I do it this way because if the plant has to stop, the mine will loose over $100 000 per hour.

EX-FUCKING-XACTLY!

 

[Frank]

Some companies still use the mainfraime model and run all applications through Cytrix on the server. Other companies standardize the hardware and applications, so all computers use the same, unmodified ghost image. Other companies have a small number of profiles, which translates in a small number of ghost images. And other companies allow everyone individually to use the applications they want / need.

Some companies disallow users to change any setting on their computers. Other companies enforce strict policies and the IT department manages all changes, while other companies give the users a lot of freedom and the IT department is only responsible for certain things, like the servers, backups and the infrastructure.

Some IT departments live by the rules, which often results in strange things, like multiple computers per user, having to put a document on a floppy to be able to print it, having to fill out a form to be able to print transparents, etc. Other IT departments try to give all users a good service, which often rsults in a large department. And some IT departments are outsourced, sometimes they have an all-encompassing SLA, sometimes everything beyond the basics is billed.

What kind of company and service are you talking about? And what are your goals? Is the IT outsourced, and is it the goal to create a lot of work and money, or as little as possible? And what is your service level?

But even the most demanding case can be done very efficient. And even the simplest can be done very poorly. And it depends on your point of view as a user, manager or IT-er what you value most.

And to make it totally clear: In the case I was talking about, all users could decide what applications to use by themselves, as long as someone paid for the licenses, users were local administrator, all software was distributed on demand, and they could log in on any computer and have all their stuff as they expected it. Changes were generally handled within an hour, or a few days for a new application or infrastructure change. So yes, it can be done very well.

Then again, I see a lot of companies where they only use a few ghost images or even install all computers by hand because of the varied hardware, and all changes (including installing new software and patches) are done manually with Remote Desktop Connection. YMMV.