Update scheduler: change its behaviour please !

  • Thread starter Thread starter ObiWan
  • Start date Start date
O

ObiWan

I'm not sure if this is OT or not here, anyways...

I'd like to see a checkbox on the "autoupdater
settings" panel saying:

"if the machine is not powered on or online at
the specified time, check as soon as it powers
on and/or goes online"

the idea is that one may configure the updater to
run (say) at 9.00 AM, but for one reason or another
the machine may be powered off or disconnected
from the network/internet, at that point, by checking
the above checkbox, MSAS could retry the update
as soon as the machine powers on or connects to
the network/internet (btw *after* 9 AM)

Regards

--

* ObiWan

Microsoft MVP: Windows Server - Networking
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/MVP/MVP.mspx
http://italy.mvps.org

DNS "fail-safe" for Windows clients.
http://www.ntcanuck.com

Newsgroups and forums
news://news.ntcanuck.com
http://forums.ntcanuck.com

408+ XP/2000 tweaks and tips
http://www.ntcanuck.com/tq/Tip_Quarry.htm
 
I suspect the update behavior will be quite different in Beta2.

This is definitely the place for such suggestions, though--thanks!
 
I suspect the update behavior will be quite different in Beta2.
This is definitely the place for such suggestions, though--thanks!
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply and for confirming that this is the right place
I really hope that Beta2 will carry many improvements (and not just for
the update mechanism); now, since we're at updates; there's an idea
which is already in use by some s/w and allows to check for updates
with an high enough frequency (say.. even hourly) w/o overloading the
update servers, that is, using DNS to carry version informations; the
idea is to setup a DNS "TXT" record like (e.g.) "msas.microsoft.com"
at this point the clients will query the DNS for such a record, the result
will be something like "01000615:5751" that is, the program version
followed by the pattern version (add more if needed), as you may see
such a mechanism is lightweight (works over UDP) and allows to quickly
retrieve the version infos to see if an update may be needed, such a thing
may even allow to setup a "check for updates every hour" if desired :-)

Regards

--

* ObiWan

Microsoft MVP: Windows Server - Networking
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/MVP/MVP.mspx
http://italy.mvps.org

DNS "fail-safe" for Windows clients.
http://www.ntcanuck.com

Newsgroups and forums
news://news.ntcanuck.com
http://forums.ntcanuck.com

408+ XP/2000 tweaks and tips
http://www.ntcanuck.com/tq/Tip_Quarry.htm
 
idea is to setup a DNS "TXT" record like (e.g.) "msas.microsoft.com"
at this point the clients will query the DNS for such a record, the result
will be something like "01000615:5751" that is, the program version
Click to expand...
<snippage>

For a working example of the above, try opening a command prompt
and running "nslookup -type=TXT current.cvd.clamav.net" this will
return the version string for the ClamAV antivirus, the idea I propose
is the same, that is, using DNS to check the versions and to avoid
download servers overloading

Regards
 
I thought this was happening with this BETA already was it
not? Mine is set daily for 1AM. If my machine is powered
off during that period, then as soon as I power on and
connect my personal firewall tells me MSAS auto updater is
trying to access the internet. Whereupon I have to grant
it permission to do so.

Stu
 
Thans, Stu--I knew there were times when the beta went out for defs without
a clear request, but couldn't characterize when it does it. For example, a
brand new install of the downloaded version (which contains old defs) will
autoupdate on first startup, I believe--so it'll come up with current defs,
even though the package, in fact, had old defs in it.

--
 
You welcome Bill. In fact it did it again today - same
thing as I mentioned before. By the way, I`m using Zone
Alarm Pro 6.0.631.009. You know, the one with the
antispyware update bug! ):

Stu
 
I`m using ZoneAlarm Pro 6.0.631.009.

I wonder why the people loves using bloatware
which "infects" their machine and doesn't even
have a working uninstaller :-)
 
(-: too!! Did you know they`ve fixed it now? At least on
my machine anyway. 6.0.667.000.

Stu
 
ObiWan said:
I wonder why the people loves using bloatware
which "infects" their machine and doesn't even
have a working uninstaller :-)
Click to expand...

The power of ONE...

ONE UI to learn.
ONE scheduler to set up.
ONE update to run.
ONE place to go to for all related events.

But, hey, that's just ONE man's opinion. <bEg>

Bob Vanderveen
 
Anonymous Bob said:
The power of ONE...

ONE UI to learn.
ONE scheduler to set up.
ONE update to run.
ONE place to go to for all related events.

But, hey, that's just ONE man's opinion. <bEg>
Click to expand...

Here's hoping!
 
Anonymous Bob explained on 2005-09-09 :
The power of ONE...

ONE UI to learn.
ONE scheduler to set up.
ONE update to run.
ONE place to go to for all related events.

But, hey, that's just ONE man's opinion. <bEg>
Click to expand...

Hi Bob

Sorry, but this sounds like old Russia with one car
to buy for all users, "one" of everything........... ;)

Everything with only "one" choice for a consumer scares me.
But maybe MS is going towards this "One".............

If MS and Windowsupdate could allow other 3rd parties
to run updates form Windowsupdate it is a great idea.
 
The power of ONE...
Click to expand...
<snippage>

Hmm I don't think I'll like this ONE <g>

I'd prefer ONE common programming
interface so that whatever you'll choose
for your firewall, AV, AT, whatever else
may be controlled using the same set
of tools... I wonder why Microsoft is not
enforcing the use of the MMC for such
tasks... it would be easy enough, just
add the needed snap-ins and you'll
have everything in a single place
 
plun said:
Anonymous Bob explained on 2005-09-09 :

Hi Bob

Sorry, but this sounds like old Russia with one car
to buy for all users, "one" of everything........... ;)

Everything with only "one" choice for a consumer scares me.
But maybe MS is going towards this "One".............

If MS and Windowsupdate could allow other 3rd parties
to run updates form Windowsupdate it is a great idea.
Click to expand...

Think of it as one stop shopping rather than one size fits all.<g>

As for updates, although there could be some profit in that approach for a
Microsoft server farm, it would also be one address to ddos and prevent all
security updates.

I have a feeling that Microsoft has more than one thought in mind with their
entry into the security realm. Certainly to grow the company, but also to
reduce their support cost and repair their reputation. I sincerely hope they
do it well.

Bob Vanderveen
 
ObiWan said:
<snippage>

Hmm I don't think I'll like this ONE <g>

I'd prefer ONE common programming
interface so that whatever you'll choose
for your firewall, AV, AT, whatever else
may be controlled using the same set
of tools... I wonder why Microsoft is not
enforcing the use of the MMC for such
tasks... it would be easy enough, just
add the needed snap-ins and you'll
have everything in a single place
Click to expand...

I would guess that the MMC is too restrictive. Other venders would probably
reject that approach due to a perceived need for produce differentiation.

Bob Vanderveen
 
Symantec's corporate AV product uses the MMC, FWIW. This doesn't negate
your comments at all though!
--
 
Anonymous Bob laid this down on his screen :
Think of it as one stop shopping rather than one size fits all.<g>

As for updates, although there could be some profit in that approach for a
Microsoft server farm, it would also be one address to ddos and prevent all
security updates.

I have a feeling that Microsoft has more than one thought in mind with their
entry into the security realm. Certainly to grow the company, but also to
reduce their support cost and repair their reputation. I sincerely hope they
do it well.

Bob Vanderveen
Click to expand...

Hi

I must really say that I hope that "One Care" will be a failure and
that
3rd parties will build much better apps from now.

It is something totally wrong with this and MS is probably just looking
for a way to "trap" more users and go on with Longhorn and a security
chip in the name of "Our users wants it" ..............

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2141489/microsoft-vowes-play-nice

And we are really stupid if we goes into this trap !

It is tougher for MS now with Google,Firefox/Thunderbird, Open Office,
new Linux builds and it must be so and it is also really good for us
consumer.

Otherwise we will have a modern form of communism without any
competition. But maybe this is Ballmers plan .........!?
 
Otherwise we will have a modern form of communism
without any competition.

But maybe this is Ballmers plan .........!?
Click to expand...

Hmm ... why don't you just ask to S.Ballmer "Hey Steve
are you a communist by chance ?" during the summit :-) ?
 
Back
Top