Superseded Updates

Hi!

When I select a superseded update, a message says 'we recommend that you
verify it is no longer needed by any computers'. If always aprove the
superseding updates, it's safe that I can decline the superseded ones, isn't
it?

There are 2 kinds of icon shown on the superseded updates. What's the
difference between them?

Thankyou in advance.

FM

In message <> "Fabio Martins"
<> was claimed to have wrote:

>Hi!
>
>When I select a superseded update, a message says 'we recommend that you
>verify it is no longer needed by any computers'. If always aprove the
>superseding updates, it's safe that I can decline the superseded ones, isn't
>it?

Probably. Why would you put the man-hours into it?

The WU client takes care of not installing older updates once a
superseding update is approved, and the server cleanup wizard will
eventually decline these updates anyway, so to me, manually going
through and declining old stuff is at best a make-busy exercise, and at
worst an opportunity for a mis-click.

>There are 2 kinds of icon shown on the superseded updates. What's the
>difference between them?

One indicates that the superseded update itself supersedes previous
updates, the other indicates only that it's superseded.

"Dave Warren" <dave-> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <> "Fabio Martins"
> <> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>When I select a superseded update, a message says 'we recommend that you
>>verify it is no longer needed by any computers'. If always aprove the
>>superseding updates, it's safe that I can decline the superseded ones,
>>isn't
>>it?
>
> Probably. Why would you put the man-hours into it?

There are rare exceptions mostly associated with legacy updates where the
updates are applicable to multiple platforms, but were then superceded by
service packs on *some* platforms. The most common scenario is updates
applicable to Win2000SP4/WinXPSP2 that were superceded by XPSP3.

In recent years packages have been more discrete in their applicability, and
the concern with cross-platform updates has not really been an issue for the
past few years.

You *should*, however, still verify than update is reported as
"Installed/Not Applicable" for 100% of your systems before declining it.



--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

My Blog: http://onsitechsolutions.spaces.live.com
Microsoft WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

In message <> "Lawrence Garvin
[MVP]" <> was claimed to have wrote:

>"Dave Warren" <dave-> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> In message <> "Fabio Martins"
>> <> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>Hi!
>>>
>>>When I select a superseded update, a message says 'we recommend that you
>>>verify it is no longer needed by any computers'. If always aprove the
>>>superseding updates, it's safe that I can decline the superseded ones,
>>>isn't
>>>it?
>>
>> Probably. Why would you put the man-hours into it?
>
>There are rare exceptions mostly associated with legacy updates where the
>updates are applicable to multiple platforms, but were then superceded by
>service packs on *some* platforms. The most common scenario is updates
>applicable to Win2000SP4/WinXPSP2 that were superceded by XPSP3.

Isn't this a perfect example of where you wouldn't want to decline
superceded updates?

In this example, you'd be declining the update for Windows 2000 boxes
that still needed it (or might need it in the future, if a 2000 box gets
rebuilt), while on XP, SP3 would take care of it, so no harm would
result from the update being left around.

>In recent years packages have been more discrete in their applicability, and
>the concern with cross-platform updates has not really been an issue for the
>past few years.
>
>You *should*, however, still verify than update is reported as
>"Installed/Not Applicable" for 100% of your systems before declining it.

Just because you're at 100% installed status for an update today doesn't
mean you will be at 100% status tomorrow or the day after. Machines get
brought back into service, restored, reinstalled, etc.

"Dave Warren" <dave-> wrote in message
news:...

>>There are rare exceptions mostly associated with legacy updates where the
>>updates are applicable to multiple platforms, but were then superceded by
>>service packs on *some* platforms. The most common scenario is updates
>>applicable to Win2000SP4/WinXPSP2 that were superceded by XPSP3.
>
> Isn't this a perfect example of where you wouldn't want to decline
> superceded updates?

Absolutely!

>>You *should*, however, still verify than update is reported as
>>"Installed/Not Applicable" for 100% of your systems before declining it.
>
> Just because you're at 100% installed status for an update today doesn't
> mean you will be at 100% status tomorrow or the day after. Machines get
> brought back into service, restored, reinstalled, etc.

True. And you do need to keep that in consideration. There's a fair amount
of human intelligence required in this process, and that's why there are
very few "always do this" rules.

In my case, I don't have any Windows 2000 systems so I don't need to
consider this. If I did install a Windows 2000 system for some testing
requirement, I'd probably update it from MU rather than complicate my WSUS
server with Windows 2000 content that I'm not synchronizing. But even if I
did decide to use the WSUS Server, it's a trivial exercise to go back and
find those updates and change the approval from Declined to Approved.

For those that do have a Win2000 system (or more), consideration to the
likelihood of needing a particular update in the future should definitely be
part of the decision making process.

Let me offer this re-wording of my statement above. Perhaps it will help.

At a *Minimum*, you should verify that an update is reported as
"Installed/Not Applicable" for 100% of your systems before declining it.
Then evaluate whether your particular environment might have need of the
update in the future.



--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

My Blog: http://onsitechsolutions.spaces.live.com
Microsoft WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

Please, the messages on superseded updates are the same.
What of the 2 explanations means the icon with a node with 3 sons?

Thankyou!

FM


"Dave Warren" <dave-> escreveu na mensagem
news:...
> In message <> "Fabio Martins"
> <> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>When I select a superseded update, a message says 'we recommend that you
>>verify it is no longer needed by any computers'. If always aprove the
>>superseding updates, it's safe that I can decline the superseded ones,
>>isn't
>>it?
>
> Probably. Why would you put the man-hours into it?
>
> The WU client takes care of not installing older updates once a
> superseding update is approved, and the server cleanup wizard will
> eventually decline these updates anyway, so to me, manually going
> through and declining old stuff is at best a make-busy exercise, and at
> worst an opportunity for a mis-click.
>
>>There are 2 kinds of icon shown on the superseded updates. What's the
>>difference between them?
>
> One indicates that the superseded update itself supersedes previous
> updates, the other indicates only that it's superseded.

In message <> "Fabio Martins"
<> was claimed to have wrote:

>Please, the messages on superseded updates are the same.
>What of the 2 explanations means the icon with a node with 3 sons?

One indicates that the superseded update itself supersedes previous
updates, the other indicates only that it's superseded.

Thankyou, Dave, for answering.

I am sorry, I think my English is not so good...
Which one indicates that the superseded update itself supersedes previous
updates?
The one with 3 sons or the other that has one son and again has another son?

Thankyou again.

FM



"Dave Warren" <dave-> escreveu na mensagem
news...
> In message <> "Fabio Martins"
> <> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Please, the messages on superseded updates are the same.
>>What of the 2 explanations means the icon with a node with 3 sons?
>
> One indicates that the superseded update itself supersedes previous
> updates, the other indicates only that it's superseded.

"Fabio Martins" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Thankyou, Dave, for answering.
>
> I am sorry, I think my English is not so good...
> Which one indicates that the superseded update itself supersedes previous
> updates?
> The one with 3 sons or the other that has one son and again has another
> son?

Fabio, the icons should be self-explanatory.

The icon with the blue colored parent is the current update.

The icon with the blue colored child is the superceded update.

And the icon with the colored box in the middle is the special case where an
update is both superceded by a newer update and supercedes an older update.

Matching the icons with the supercession metadata displayed on the details
pain should help reinforce this identification.

--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

My Blog: http://onsitechsolutions.spaces.live.com
Microsoft WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin