WSUS v3 Service Pack 2 released to web today
![Lawrence Garvin [MVP]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
Download: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=161140
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
you...@hotmail.com
"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <lawr...@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:A1B7FB3D-E54A-4582...@microsoft.com...
John
Sorry, no results found for: downloads details aspx FamilyId a206ae20 2695
436c 9578 3403a7d46e40 displaylang en
Redirecting in 5 seconds to web results using Bing (if scripting is enabled)
"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <lawr...@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:A1B7FB3D-E54A-4582...@microsoft.com...
John
Everything under Get Started group at
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.aspx are dead links. I get a
message "Sorry, no results found for *blah* *blah*"
The only link that works is "Life Cycle and Roadmap FAQ"
Are they updating the links?
"John" <a> wrote in message news:u%23D2QabJ...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
you...@hotmail.com
I noticed the same thing, but if you go to Microsoft Update, sp2 is there.
Already updated and running it.
"John" <a> wrote in message news:uwn6LgbJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
John
<you...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oh2Pf6bJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
>Already updated and running it.
Yep.. I figured this was going to happen.
Content is in MU, and probably, thus, synchronizable via WSUS,
but not yet available in the Download Center.
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
>I keep getting the following:
>
> Sorry, no results found for: downloads details aspx FamilyId a206ae20 2695
> 436c 9578 3403a7d46e40 displaylang en
> Redirecting in 5 seconds to web results using Bing (if scripting is
> enabled)
Yes.. .<sigh>.. I jumped the gun on posting -- when i saw the links,
and only discovered later that there were issues.
The content is "en route" to its home at those links, and the links should
be working later today.
John
SP2 setup, it tells me that I need Report Viewer 2008.
So I go to the following URL to get it:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=6ae0aa19-3e6c-474c-9d57-05b2347456b1
The above page shows that I need .NET Framework 3.5 prior to installing
Report Viewer 2008. Then I go to the following URL to get it:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=AB99342F-5D1A-413D-8319-81DA479AB0D7&displaylang=en
Are those the latest version of .NET Framework 3.5 and Report Viewer 2008?
Am I missing anything else?
"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <lawr...@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:01729588-58B1-4E79...@microsoft.com...
John
I'm installing WSUS 3.0 SP2 over existing WSUS 3.0 SP1 installation that has
been running fine for over 2 years. So this would be an upgrade over
existing installation.
"John" <a> wrote in message news:%23tn1Lrn...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
>I chose to manually download and install WSUS SP2 today. While running WSUS
>SP2 setup, it tells me that I need Report Viewer 2008.
True statement. I haven't checked yet to see if it actually got NOTED in the
Release Notes. It's a significant change in the infrastructure, and I'm
disappointed a better effort wasn't made to point it out. I'm also a bit
concerned that, it would appear, all of the reporting infrastructure was
moved to the SQL2008 reporting engine, but the data remains on a SQL2005
database engine, and all of that merely as a Service Pack release -- not
even a New Release of the product.
> So I go to the following URL to get it:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=6ae0aa19-3e6c-474c-9d57-05b2347456b1
>
> The above page shows that I need .NET Framework 3.5 prior to installing
> Report Viewer 2008.
A blatantly *FALSE* statement... :-/
I think more of the political hogwash trying to invoke ".NET Framework 3.5
Everywhere".
> Are those the latest version of .NET Framework 3.5 and Report Viewer 2008?
> Am I missing anything else?
Actually, the latest version of the RV is SP1. I don't know that there's any
difference in the requirements for one or the other, but I installed Report
Viewer 2008 SP1 just to be safe. It works.
Skip the .NET Framework install. It's not needed.
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
> Oopss.. I forgot to include 1 crucial information:
>
> I'm installing WSUS 3.0 SP2 over existing WSUS 3.0 SP1 installation that
> has been running fine for over 2 years. So this would be an upgrade over
> existing installation.
That should work without any issues.
btw.. the Report Viewer 2008 will install side-by-side with the Report
Viewer 2005, and you can uninstall the RV2005 at a later time, if you wish.
John
more below...
"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <lawr...@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:9D2D7BB9-A183-4005...@microsoft.com...
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=6ae0aa19-3e6c-474c-9d57-05b2347456b1
>>
>> The above page shows that I need .NET Framework 3.5 prior to installing
>> Report Viewer 2008.
>
> A blatantly *FALSE* statement... :-/
You're right about .NET 3.5 requirement. I just installed RV 2008 without
SP1. It doesn't check for .NET 3.5. Telling us to install what we don't need
is NOT COOL, Microsoft.
>> Are those the latest version of .NET Framework 3.5 and Report Viewer
>> 2008?
>
> Actually, the latest version of the RV is SP1. I don't know that there's
> any difference in the requirements for one or the other, but I installed
> Report Viewer 2008 SP1 just to be safe. It works.
You mean this one?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bb196d5d-76c2-4a0e-9458-267d22b6aac6&DisplayLang=en
The RV SP1 published date (8/20/2008) is older than RV without SP1 published
date (9/9/2008) that I posted earlier. Also, RV 2008 without SP1 shows the
following under Overview section:
Target: This release is for both customers who want a fresh installation of
the Microsoft Report Viewer Redistributable 2008 as well as customers who
are already using the Microsoft Report Viewer Redistributable 2008. The
current version supersedes all previously released versions of the Microsoft
Report Viewer Redistributable 2008.
I thought since it was published later than RV 2008 SP1 and it says that it
supercedes ALL previously RV2008 versions, it should be the latest version.
It gets so confusing when they have so many different versions.
What I do know is that after installing RV 2008 redistributable (without
SP1) and checking MU (thru IE) site, I'm not offered Report Viewer 2008
updates.
Dave Mills
Thanks L
This is a much nicer web site layout than before, easy to see what is where.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:54:47 -0500, "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]"
<lawr...@news.postalias> wrote:
>Home Page: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.aspx
>
>Download: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=161140
--
Dave Mills
There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.
John
"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <lawr...@news.postalias> wrote in message
> "John" <a> wrote in message news:eIYNFIoJ...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Oopss.. I forgot to include 1 crucial information:
>>
>> I'm installing WSUS 3.0 SP2 over existing WSUS 3.0 SP1 installation that
>> has been running fine for over 2 years. So this would be an upgrade over
>> existing installation.
>
> That should work without any issues.
>
>
> btw.. the Report Viewer 2008 will install side-by-side with the Report
> Viewer 2005, and you can uninstall the RV2005 at a later time, if you
> wish.
Got it. Btw, which WSUS SP2 feature would be unavailable if I don't have
Report Viewer 2008 installed?
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
>> btw.. the Report Viewer 2008 will install side-by-side with the Report
>> Viewer 2005, and you can uninstall the RV2005 at a later time, if you
>> wish.
>
> Got it. Btw, which WSUS SP2 feature would be unavailable if I don't have
> Report Viewer 2008 installed?
Uh... viewing reports <??> <g>
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
"John" <a> wrote in message news:O8w2$foJKH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You mean this one?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bb196d5d-76c2-4a0e-9458-267d22b6aac6&DisplayLang=en
Yes.
> The RV SP1 published date (8/20/2008) is older than RV without SP1
> published date (9/9/2008) that I posted earlier.
That, it does... but the RV SP1 has a build number of 9.00.30729.01
The "without SP1" date of 9/9/2008 is a publication date of a modified
package, caused by MS08-052, and contains v9.0.21022.142 of the associated
DLL files, dated 7/15/2008.
> Also, RV 2008 without SP1 shows the following under Overview section:
>
> Target: This release is for both customers who want a fresh installation
> of the Microsoft Report Viewer Redistributable 2008 as well as customers
> who are already using the Microsoft Report Viewer Redistributable 2008.
> The current version supersedes all previously released versions of the
> Microsoft Report Viewer Redistributable 2008.
Yes.. because this version of the RV updates the original release version
because of the vulnerability identified in MS08-052 and repaired with the
v9.0.21022.142 DLLs dated 7/15/2008.
But the =SP1= release for SQL 2008 supercedes all of that, and even though
the publication date of the SP1 package precedes the publication date of the
modified RTM package, take note that the real point is the modification date
of the updated files. The SP1 package does have a newer build.
> I thought since it was published later than RV 2008 SP1 and it says that
> it supercedes ALL previously RV2008 versions, it should be the latest
> version. It gets so confusing when they have so many different versions.
This why I look at *FILE* dates and file versions and not *document* dates
and versions. The 9/8/2008 date is the date the package was published to
Microsoft's site, not necessarily the date that reflects the repair of the
identified vulnerability.
> What I do know is that after installing RV 2008 redistributable (without
> SP1) and checking MU (thru IE) site, I'm not offered Report Viewer 2008
> updates.
That's cuz they ain't published via MU/WSUS! :-(
A pointed reply to the WSUS blog post makes note of this ironic deficience.
The WSUS3SP2 package requires RV2008, nothing actually distributes RV2008,
and the effort at pointing out this requirement has been a bit thin, IMO.
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
news:k05b959r5qcjctr2p...@4ax.com...
> It all works now
>
> Thanks L
>
> This is a much nicer web site layout than before, easy to see what is
> where.
Yeah I noticed that too.. much less busy than previously.
Although I was intrigued to see *advertising* on the site!
I still gotta ask about that one. Microsoft policy prohibits them from
linking to my WSUS webcasts because they're published on a third-party
vendor's site... but it doesn't prohibit them from actually displaying
linked advertising on the site? Go figger!!!