From: Ellen K. 

I have to say it actually does bother me that my SQL Server boxes at work
have internet access in order to go to WindowsUpdate.  I would prefer that
they not have internet access, even though ports 1433 and 1434 are blocked
at the firewall.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:50:42 -0500, "Geo" 
wrote in message :

>Rich,
>
>an internet server that runs a patch check on your machine and allows you to
download and install patches is great but it requires 2 things, it requires
internet access and it requires that the patch server be available. What
I'm describing is the other patch system which could be stored on a CD and
doesn't require either internet access or a server.
>
>Others at microsoft understand this difference and it's the reason
WindowsUpdate is not the only method to patch. The fact that you can't
understand this is not my shortcoming, it's yours.
>
>Geo.
>
>  "Rich"  wrote in message news:420dc125{at}w3.nls.net...
>     Your whining is ridiculous.  First you complain that there is no UI to
select individual updates.  When it is pointed out that such a UI exists
(which you already knew of) you complain that that is not good enough
because some time in the future it may no longer be available to you.  Oh
well.  I guess in the event this happens you would either have to forego
checkboxes or simply write your own or ask someone to do so for you. 
Nothing is stopping you from doing this today if it really was important to
you.  If you don't do so then it must not be that important after all.
>
>     Why would I want to avoid Windows Update and instead manually update my
system only so that I can have Windows Update report that I succeeded in
doing what it would have done automatically?
>
>  Rich
>
>    "Geo"  wrote in message
news:420d52a2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>    I have a choice of windowsupdate or patch files. Windows update has been
made quite easy, I think the manual patch files could use a bit of work.
One is not an excuse for the other and I think my issues with 67 different
patch files for post SP4 W2K is a valid complaint.
>
>    When it comes to the patch files I don't need an excuse, the current
system is so frelled it begs for improvement. If you don't believe me, why
don't you try to list the names of the manual patch files required for post
SP2 XP so that you can apply SP2 and the files from your list then go to
Windows update and have it say you are fully patched. Go ahead, give it a
try, you'll see what I mean.
>
>    Geo.
>      "Rich"  wrote in message news:420c3afe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>         So that nonsense about wanting a bunch of checkboxes was just another
excuse for you to complain.
>
>      Rich
>
>        "Geo"  wrote in message
news:420c1f21{at}w3.nls.net...
>        Windows update doesn't give me what I want. I want independence from
the requirement that Microsoft maintains a server that I use to patch. I
want this independence so that Microsoft can't stop me from patching by
turning that server off when they decide the software is obsolete because
should I need to reinstall after that point I would not be able to patch.
>
>        I don't believe this to be an unreasonable position.
>
>        Geo.
>          "Rich"  wrote in message news:420bf6fb{at}w3.nls.net...
>             No it would not be simpler.  Most installation is silent with no
UI.  When you don't want user interaction requiring a UI is a bad thing. 
If you don't want a silent UI, use Windows Update which gives you exactly
what you describe, a set of checkboxes or equivalent to select which
updates you want.
>
>             If you look you would see that updates are combined when they
affect the same file or already dependent files.  Otherwise, any update is
kept as independent as possible from any other.
>
>          Rich

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5