Prev: Error number: 0x800A01A8
Next: Windows Update error code 8007065E
From: Gerry Hickman on 1 May 2007 14:28
Hi Robert,

> I was only aware of a script being run. You think there's a file?
> Oh yes. I think you're right. If the SoftwareDistribution directory
> is cleared the WU generated History is lost somehow. So that part of it
> must be in there somewhere?

Yes, there's a folder called "database" below "SoftwareDistribution"
that probably contains historical entries.

> As I said I have never seen implementation details discussed in the WU NG.

It's sad. It's probably because the group is full of people having
problems with WindowsUpdate.

> Ohh... You've just given me an idea (synchronicity).
> This may be a good application for PowerShell scripting!
> E.g. port and adapt the script that WU runs to PowerShell...
> (foreach over "COM collection", registry branch, etc.)

Yes, but the big deal with PowerShell is it uses .NET objects. For
working with COM objects (COM is superior to .NET) you are probably
better off with ECMAScript, but regardless of which one you use there's
a major problem with making calls to WUA 2.x over DCOM when it's running
on a Vista machine, so this might have to wait a little while.

Overall, the Microsoft strategy is a mess. They've got COM on the client
and .NET on the WSUS server!

> These questions sound like something a BITS expert might know
> more about. E.g. what you want to do is tap BITS and capture the files
> as they are delivered by it for WU MU or AU? But sometimes they are
> still there in the Download directory perhaps unchanged anyway?

I don't think it's BITS related, the problem is that the format has
changed for Vista. The old EXE files would extract themselves into
SoftwareDistribution as individual files, BUT you could save them back
to a remote location as a single EXE file (very handy if you want to
build a repository of patches). With the Vista MSU files, they will also
extract into SoftwareDistribution, but if you try to save them to a
remote location, they will NOT turn themselves back into a single MSU
file. Very inconvenient if you want to try and build up a repository of
patches...

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
From: Harry Johnston on 2 May 2007 16:21
Gerry Hickman wrote:

> I don't think it's BITS related, the problem is that the format has
> changed for Vista. The old EXE files would extract themselves into
> SoftwareDistribution as individual files, BUT you could save them back
> to a remote location as a single EXE file (very handy if you want to
> build a repository of patches).

Not a good way to build a repository in any case. Updates packaged for WUA
aren't designed for use in any other way - they might work, in fact they
probably will, but it isn't a supported scenario, and sooner or later you're
likely to get caught out by some unexpected side-effect. (There may also be
copyright implications.)

If you want offline copies of patches, the safest way is to get them from the
download centre. That's what it's there for. Downloading half a dozen or so
patches once a month just isn't that big a chore.

Harry.
From: Gerry Hickman on 2 May 2007 16:42
Hi Harry,

> Not a good way to build a repository in any case. Updates packaged for
> WUA aren't designed for use in any other way - they might work, in fact
> they probably will, but it isn't a supported scenario, and sooner or
> later you're likely to get caught out by some unexpected side-effect.

Yes, this is true, but if it's not "supported", what are the
CopyFromCache() and CopyToCache() methods for?

> (There may also be copyright implications.)

Same question as above, anyway you already "agreed" to everything when
you opted into the service.

> If you want offline copies of patches, the safest way is to get them
> from the download centre. That's what it's there for. Downloading half
> a dozen or so patches once a month just isn't that big a chore.

Yes, but there's two major problems with this A) Windows Genuine
dis-Advantage, and B) lack of Automation. Plus you'd need to sit with a
list of every patch released on WU and then go to the convoluted
download site...

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
From: Harry Johnston on 2 May 2007 20:26
Gerry Hickman wrote:

>> Not a good way to build a repository in any case. Updates packaged
>> for WUA aren't designed for use in any other way - they might work, in
>> fact they probably will, but it isn't a supported scenario, and sooner
>> or later you're likely to get caught out by some unexpected side-effect.
>
> Yes, this is true, but if it's not "supported", what are the
> CopyFromCache() and CopyToCache() methods for?

I stand corrected. I was assuming you were obtaining the updates from the cache
and then using them stand-alone; if you're preloading another cache, that's a
different scenario. I still don't know whether it's supported, but as you say,
why else are these methods documented?

... on the other hand, I wonder whether the system would notice if the update
you preload isn't the latest revision?

>> If you want offline copies of patches, the safest way is to get them
>> from the download centre. That's what it's there for. Downloading
>> half a dozen or so patches once a month just isn't that big a chore.
>
> Yes, but there's two major problems with this A) Windows Genuine
> dis-Advantage, and B) lack of Automation. Plus you'd need to sit with a
> list of every patch released on WU and then go to the convoluted
> download site...

I need stand-alone patches so I have to do it this way. It takes perhaps an
hour or two a month, maybe less. Not all that big a deal.

Harry.
From: Gerry Hickman on 4 May 2007 17:52
Hi Harry,

> I stand corrected. I was assuming you were obtaining the updates from
> the cache and then using them stand-alone; if you're preloading another
> cache, that's a different scenario. I still don't know whether it's
> supported, but as you say, why else are these methods documented?

Well, with the "old" system you can do both, but with Vista it's more
complicated and extremely messy, in fact I think it's unworkable.

> ... on the other hand, I wonder whether the system would notice if the
> update you preload isn't the latest revision?

I don't think it matters, if you put an older version in the cache, it
simply won't match the request from the WUA agent and it won't try to
install it. The way I have it set up on Vista is to do a scan, then see
if the update is already in the cache, download it if not, then install it.

>> Yes, but there's two major problems with this A) Windows Genuine
>> dis-Advantage, and B) lack of Automation.

> I need stand-alone patches so I have to do it this way. It takes
> perhaps an hour or two a month, maybe less. Not all that big a deal.

I also need stand-alone patches, but when I pay tens of thousands to
Microsoft every year, I don't see why I should waste time on their badly
designed web pages that require WGA, the ActiveX version of which forces
users to adopt bad security by having to log onto the internet as an
Administrator.

On Linux I can get the updates using WGET as a scheduled job while I'm
in bed and it doesn't need Admin rights.

It's simply bad design (by Microsoft) to require Admin rights in order
to download a bunch of "security" updates, and to have to manually click
on a different web page for each one.

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Error number: 0x800A01A8
Next: Windows Update error code 8007065E