Shavlik or SUS?
From: OLOT (nospam_at_news.com)
Date: 11/10/04
- Next message: Henry Craven: "Re: Backup - Not Getting Any Response - Please Help"
- Previous message: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]: "Re: Routers, VPNs and DHCP for remotes"
- Next in thread: Steve Flynn: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Reply: Steve Flynn: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Reply: Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Reply: Mal Osborne: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:28:39 GMT
Setup:
(1) Windows SBS 2003
(1) Windows 2003 standard (member server)
(15) windows xp pro
(10) windows 98se (soon to be XP
My first thought was to install SUS on the SBS 2003 box, keeping both
servers and the XP machines up-to-date. Then I started to research the
Shavlik products and noticed it goes a step further. (windows updates,
sharepoint, exchange, sql, office, etc...)
sql server is the most used resource on the sbs 2003 box, (20 users
accessing through an internal web server application), so I like to offload
as much as possible to the member server. Ideally, I'd like to install
either one to the member server but I don't know if either will work
properly in that type of setup.
I don't object to purchasing the Shavlik product, (SUS being free), but my
main focus is maintaining critical updates on all my machines. Any help or
opinions would be appreciated, particularly in a member server install
option.
thanks
- Next message: Henry Craven: "Re: Backup - Not Getting Any Response - Please Help"
- Previous message: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]: "Re: Routers, VPNs and DHCP for remotes"
- Next in thread: Steve Flynn: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Reply: Steve Flynn: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Reply: Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Reply: Mal Osborne: "Re: Shavlik or SUS?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|