WSUS 3.0 SP2 shows as not needed

I noticed that WSUS 3.0 SP2 was synchronized to my WSUS server during
it's last sync early this morning. However it doesn't show as needed by
my WSUS server. Has anyone else observed this behavior? Or is the
detection logic only set to update a remote console and not the server
itself?

I also noticed this was not applicable to Windows XP. Am I to assume
that MS has dropped support of the remote console from this platform?

"Wade Godfrey" <> wrote in message
news:Oc$...
>I noticed that WSUS 3.0 SP2 was synchronized to my WSUS server during it's
>last sync early this morning. However it doesn't show as needed by my WSUS
>server. Has anyone else observed this behavior? Or is the detection logic
>only set to update a remote console and not the server itself?

That depends.. which WSUS 3 SP2 package are you looking at?

KB972455 is the updater for existing installations. It should detect as
Needed any system with WSUS already installed, including remote console
systems. But remember -- it may take up to 22 hours for a client system to
report it as needed. Since you only synchronized it early this morning, that
XP system might not report it as Needed until it executes another detection.

KB972493 is the Dynamic Installer for Windows Server 2008 systems where WSUS
is to be installed as a Role and integrated into Server Manager. This update
will only detect on Windows Server 2008 systems.

> I also noticed this was not applicable to Windows XP. Am I to assume that
> MS has dropped support of the remote console from this platform?

You are not, and it's not a true statement.

This blog post contains the relevant details -- as to the Release Notes for
the product, which should *always* be read before applying any update.

http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...available.aspx



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

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
> "Wade Godfrey" <> wrote in message
> news:Oc$...
>> I noticed that WSUS 3.0 SP2 was synchronized to my WSUS server during
>> it's last sync early this morning. However it doesn't show as needed
>> by my WSUS server. Has anyone else observed this behavior? Or is the
>> detection logic only set to update a remote console and not the server
>> itself?
>
> That depends.. which WSUS 3 SP2 package are you looking at?
>
> KB972455 is the updater for existing installations. It should detect as
> Needed any system with WSUS already installed, including remote console
> systems. But remember -- it may take up to 22 hours for a client system
> to report it as needed. Since you only synchronized it early this
> morning, that XP system might not report it as Needed until it executes
> another detection.

I am indeed looking at KB972455. I had already looked at the detection
times and ran a detection cycle again just to make sure. My WSUS server,
2003 Standard Edition, and my remote box, Windows XP, both show as not
needing this update even though WSUS 3.0 SP1 is indeed installed on them.

I have verified that both boxes are detecting other updates that were
synchronized at the same time, for example, my XP box shows KB970653 and
KB 973874 as both needed.

>
> KB972493 is the Dynamic Installer for Windows Server 2008 systems where
> WSUS is to be installed as a Role and integrated into Server Manager.
> This update will only detect on Windows Server 2008 systems.

Not applicable to my environment. We aren't running Server 2008 as yet.

>
>> I also noticed this was not applicable to Windows XP. Am I to assume
>> that MS has dropped support of the remote console from this platform?
>
> You are not, and it's not a true statement.
>
> This blog post contains the relevant details -- as to the Release Notes
> for the product, which should *always* be read before applying any update.
>
> http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archiv...available.aspx

I did actually run onto the blog post after my posting here, which shows
as still supported on XP. My first thoughts came because on my WSUS
server the KB972455 update, under the Additional Details section,
doesn't list Windows XP as one of the products. Maybe just an oversight
by the package author, but I'm just trying to verify if others are
seeing this same information, and trying to figure out why my boxes are
not detecting this as needed.

My next thought was that maybe Report Viewer 2008 had to be installed
first before it would detect as needed, however I can confirm that even
with that installed on my XP box, it still doesn't show as Needed.

All this being said, I was never planning on updating my server via this
method. I'll download the package and install manually. I just find this
whole "Not Needed" problem to be strange and was wondering if others are
experiencing the same.

"Wade Godfrey" <> wrote in message
news:%...

>> KB972455 is the updater for existing installations. It should detect as
>> Needed any system with WSUS already installed, including remote console
>> systems. But remember -- it may take up to 22 hours for a client system
>> to report it as needed. Since you only synchronized it early this
>> morning, that XP system might not report it as Needed until it executes
>> another detection.
>
> I am indeed looking at KB972455. I had already looked at the detection
> times and ran a detection cycle again just to make sure. My WSUS server,
> 2003 Standard Edition, and my remote box, Windows XP, both show as not
> needing this update even though WSUS 3.0 SP1 is indeed installed on them.

That is not the expected, or desired, behavior for that package!

> I did actually run onto the blog post after my posting here, which shows
> as still supported on XP. My first thoughts came because on my WSUS server
> the KB972455 update, under the Additional Details section, doesn't list
> Windows XP as one of the products.

Myopia. The *server* isn't supported (won't even install) on desktop
operating system, but the failure of the package builders to recognize that
the package should also be usable to deploy CONSOLE updates is also not a
good thing.

> Maybe just an oversight by the package author, but I'm just trying to
> verify if others are seeing this same information, and trying to figure
> out why my boxes are not detecting this as needed.

I'm going to go take a good look at my several WSUS servers and see what
they're all saying about this update. I've been having several different
email conversations with the WSUS Community PM today about this upgrade, one
more won't shake the boat that much -- particularly if there's a flaw in the
detection logic <sigh>.

> My next thought was that maybe Report Viewer 2008 had to be installed
> first before it would detect as needed, however I can confirm that even
> with that installed on my XP box, it still doesn't show as Needed.

Not impossible, as the technology does support defining other updates as
prerequisites, but I would hope that's not the case, since RV2008 is not
being distributed via MU/WSUS.

Besides.. strictly speaking... RV2008 is not *required* to install WSUS --
it's only required to display the reports. The console will work perfectly
without Report Viewer installed at all. I have several test machines wiht no
RV installed whatsoever.


> All this being said, I was never planning on updating my server via this
> method. I'll download the package and install manually. I just find this
> whole "Not Needed" problem to be strange and was wondering if others are
> experiencing the same.

It's a valid question, Wade. I'll see what else I can find out.



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

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

"Wade Godfrey" <> wrote in message
news:%...

> I am indeed looking at KB972455. I had already looked at the detection
> times and ran a detection cycle again just to make sure. My WSUS server,
> 2003 Standard Edition, and my remote box, Windows XP, both show as not
> needing this update even though WSUS 3.0 SP1 is indeed installed on them.

We're going to need to evaluate this in your environment. I was not able to
reproduce any detection failures in my network -- a half dozen different
WSUS servers correctly detected the update for installation, including my
Windows Vista console-only installation.

Two items still pending evaluation:
1. Yes, the metadata fails to list Windows XP as an applicable platform, and
it should, since Windows Vista and Windows 7 are both listed. I've not yet
been able to test detection on a WinXP machine (turns out I had no
console-only WinXP machine to test with .. I'm making two right now.)

2. The update will NOT detect on a WSUS3SP2 =RC= system (and I suspect is
also the case for SP2 beta systems). My guess is that they set the detection
to look for versions <= 3.1.6001.65 and did not explicitly code the update
to detect on Beta/RC systems.

As a first step.. can you confirm that your WSUS Server has =Windows 2003
Service Pack 2= installed. It's a minor point that's been lost on several
people in the past few months, but all recent updates released have been
coded to be applicable only to =Win2003SP2= systems -- since SP1's support
lifecycle terminated at the end of April, 2009. I suspect WSUS3SP2 is also
coded to only detect on =Win2003SP2= systems. I'm going to test that
momentarily as well -- I think I have a VM I can fire up into Win2003SP1
mode.)


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

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:7C34876A-C8D9-4322-B2F8-...

> Two items still pending evaluation:
> 1. Yes, the metadata fails to list Windows XP as an applicable platform,
> and it should, since Windows Vista and Windows 7 are both listed. I've not
> yet been able to test detection on a WinXP machine (turns out I had no
> console-only WinXP machine to test with .. I'm making two right now.)

The update did fail to detect on my Windows XP SP3 system running WSUS3SP1
console-only. I've reported this to the WSUS team.

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

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:7AD8C61E-FEAC-40CA-9732-...
> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:7C34876A-C8D9-4322-B2F8-...
>
>> Two items still pending evaluation:
>> 1. Yes, the metadata fails to list Windows XP as an applicable platform,
>> and it should, since Windows Vista and Windows 7 are both listed. I've
>> not yet been able to test detection on a WinXP machine (turns out I had
>> no console-only WinXP machine to test with .. I'm making two right now.)
>
> The update did fail to detect on my Windows XP SP3 system running WSUS3SP1
> console-only. I've reported this to the WSUS team.

And the answer is....

Mainstream Support ended for Windows XP on April 14, 2009.

WSUS v3 SP2 will not detect on WinXP systems -- By Design.

Windows XP is no longer a supported platform for installation of Remote
Consoles.



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

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

Funny thing happened when I checked my server this morning. Low and
behold, KB972455 now shows as needed by the WSUS server. For the life of
me I can't figure out why it detected as needed at 4am this morning,
when it didn't detect as needed at 9 am yesterday when I did a manual
detection and the update was synchronized at 2 am yesterday.

Guess my server just took the advice I've been giving my users. If I
don't get to it today, just wait longer :-)

Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
> "Wade Godfrey" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>
>> I am indeed looking at KB972455. I had already looked at the detection
>> times and ran a detection cycle again just to make sure. My WSUS
>> server, 2003 Standard Edition, and my remote box, Windows XP, both
>> show as not needing this update even though WSUS 3.0 SP1 is indeed
>> installed on them.
>
> We're going to need to evaluate this in your environment. I was not able
> to reproduce any detection failures in my network -- a half dozen
> different WSUS servers correctly detected the update for installation,
> including my Windows Vista console-only installation.
>
> Two items still pending evaluation:
> 1. Yes, the metadata fails to list Windows XP as an applicable platform,
> and it should, since Windows Vista and Windows 7 are both listed. I've
> not yet been able to test detection on a WinXP machine (turns out I had
> no console-only WinXP machine to test with .. I'm making two right now.)
>
> 2. The update will NOT detect on a WSUS3SP2 =RC= system (and I suspect
> is also the case for SP2 beta systems). My guess is that they set the
> detection to look for versions <= 3.1.6001.65 and did not explicitly
> code the update to detect on Beta/RC systems.

Not applicable. Didn't have time this year to evaluate.

>
> As a first step.. can you confirm that your WSUS Server has =Windows
> 2003 Service Pack 2= installed. It's a minor point that's been lost on
> several people in the past few months, but all recent updates released
> have been coded to be applicable only to =Win2003SP2= systems -- since
> SP1's support lifecycle terminated at the end of April, 2009. I suspect
> WSUS3SP2 is also coded to only detect on =Win2003SP2= systems. I'm going
> to test that momentarily as well -- I think I have a VM I can fire up
> into Win2003SP1 mode.)

Win2003 SP2 is installed, but as mentioned above, all is well now.
Thanks for your time.

Good to know! I can confirm that a manual install on Windows XP will
install, even if it's unsupported.

Lawrence Garvin [MVP] wrote:
> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:7AD8C61E-FEAC-40CA-9732-...
>> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
>> news:7C34876A-C8D9-4322-B2F8-...
>>
>>> Two items still pending evaluation:
>>> 1. Yes, the metadata fails to list Windows XP as an applicable
>>> platform, and it should, since Windows Vista and Windows 7 are both
>>> listed. I've not yet been able to test detection on a WinXP machine
>>> (turns out I had no console-only WinXP machine to test with .. I'm
>>> making two right now.)
>>
>> The update did fail to detect on my Windows XP SP3 system running
>> WSUS3SP1 console-only. I've reported this to the WSUS team.
>
> And the answer is....
>
> Mainstream Support ended for Windows XP on April 14, 2009.
>
> WSUS v3 SP2 will not detect on WinXP systems -- By Design.
>
> Windows XP is no longer a supported platform for installation of Remote
> Consoles.
>
>
>

"Wade Godfrey" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Funny thing happened when I checked my server this morning. Low and
> behold, KB972455 now shows as needed by the WSUS server. For the life of
> me I can't figure out why it detected as needed at 4am this morning, when
> it didn't detect as needed at 9 am yesterday when I did a manual detection
> and the update was synchronized at 2 am yesterday.

The details of the answer can be found by analyzing the WindowsUpdate.log on
the WSUS Server if you really want to know. :-)

> Guess my server just took the advice I've been giving my users. If I don't
> get to it today, just wait longer :-)

Hehe...


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

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin