"Nate Goulet" <askifyouwantaaddress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:429e0e57.15472809@news.conversent.net...
> While I personally don't have a problem with rebooting for installing
> patches on the a Windows 2000 Server, I do have a problem with the
> whole idea of installing patches in the first place. There has to
> be a better way.
>
> I operate a server for a small company, run the updates, etc. I do
> not know everything about the the server's configurations, but I am
> very knowledgable about computers & most Windows versions in general.
> We had a networking company configure our server for us. I operate,
> manage accounts, install Windows critical updates, etc.
>
> Microsoft recently released some patches that caused a Generic Host
> error on bootup for Windows XP desktops. For the past couple months I
> was stumped on what was causing these. I was unable to find anyone
> until recently with a definitive answer. Now Microsoft admits the
> problem was caused by an update & released a patch to fix it. 3/4 of
> all the info I found online mentioned viruses causing this, but my
> instinct told me otherwise based on symptoms & experience.
>
> What happens when I install a patch on the server that causes a
> problem and have to wait 2 months to find out that Microsoft's updates
> caused the problems? We only have one server, and depend on it.
> (That was not my decision by the way).
>
> At the very least, there seems to be a lack of testing by Microsoft
> with their patches and what could go wrong by installing them. This
> newsgroup is one of the few decent solutions i've found to see what's
> going on, but it's not enough. How could Microsoft miss such a wide
> spread problem with their updates that caused problems for so many,
> then leave us all wondering if are computers are infected with a
> virus?
>
> Until there is a better solution, i'd have a hard time recommending
> Windows based servers.
>
And if you are managing an infrastructure with multiple desktops and servers
(or one of any size) it also falls to you to appropriately test all patches
in your specific environment to assess their suitability and impact prior to
releasing them on your estate.
Non of my corporate clients would ever roll out anything to desktop or
servers without testing it first - including patches
As regards our testing of patches we have instituted new procedures to
increase the depth and breadth of our testing prior to release.
--
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights
Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
"Nate Goulet" <askifyouwantaaddress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:429e0e57.15472809@news.conversent.net...
> While I personally don't have a problem with rebooting for installing
> patches on the a Windows 2000 Server, I do have a problem with the
> whole idea of installing patches in the first place. There has to
> be a better way.
>
> I operate a server for a small company, run the updates, etc. I do
> not know everything about the the server's configurations, but I am
> very knowledgable about computers & most Windows versions in general.
> We had a networking company configure our server for us. I operate,
> manage accounts, install Windows critical updates, etc.
>
> Microsoft recently released some patches that caused a Generic Host
> error on bootup for Windows XP desktops. For the past couple months I
> was stumped on what was causing these. I was unable to find anyone
> until recently with a definitive answer. Now Microsoft admits the
> problem was caused by an update & released a patch to fix it. 3/4 of
> all the info I found online mentioned viruses causing this, but my
> instinct told me otherwise based on symptoms & experience.
>
> What happens when I install a patch on the server that causes a
> problem and have to wait 2 months to find out that Microsoft's updates
> caused the problems? We only have one server, and depend on it.
> (That was not my decision by the way).
>
> At the very least, there seems to be a lack of testing by Microsoft
> with their patches and what could go wrong by installing them. This
> newsgroup is one of the few decent solutions i've found to see what's
> going on, but it's not enough. How could Microsoft miss such a wide
> spread problem with their updates that caused problems for so many,
> then leave us all wondering if are computers are infected with a
> virus?
>
> Until there is a better solution, i'd have a hard time recommending
> Windows based servers.
>