Microsoft Updates - Stuart Gunter
in

dotnet.org.za

South African .NET Developer Portal

This Blog

Syndication

News


Get Firefox!
<!-- Begin Nedstat Basic code --> <!-- Title: StuartGunter --> <!-- URL: http://dotnet.org.za/stuartg/ --> <!-- End Nedstat Basic code -->

Stuart Gunter

There's too much!

Microsoft Updates

I'm busy downloading updates for Windows and Office, and realised that this is actually now a monthly routine (despite me checking once a week out of habit). Now, considering all the issues we South Africans have with Internet access, I was wondering whether the thought had been entertained somewhere at Microsoft SA to host a Windows Update Server within South Africa? The way I see it is this...

Most South Africans cannot afford Telkoms ridiculously overpriced ADSL, or just can't justify spending that kind of money on an Internet connection for home. This means that the vast majority are still using dial-up. Now, let's pretend that they get “optimal speed” from the 56K modem and are downloading at roughly 5KBps (I've yet to hear of anyone averaging higher than this on dial-up). So for these users to download their updates, it would take no less than 46 minutes and 30 seconds (taking the current updates as an example, which are 13,890 KB. Now these are only the Office updates, in case I didn't mention that. They would still need to download the Windows updates.

Ok, and to be truly fair... I doubt everyone on dial-up will be getting their full 5KB when trying to connect to an overseas site. Then there's the issue of dropped lines, or bad quality connections. And the update sites don't support download managers... so if you download 10MB of the 13MB then your line drops... you're stuffed!

Even ADSL users battle, because we're limited to a 3GB cap. Once that cap has been used, that's it... say goodbye to any international bandwidth! Now I never use the full 3GB (in fact, I decided to go for 2GB because I don't need more)... but a LOT of people do.

Surely Microsoft recognises how much this is hampering the local community from updating their products and staying secure (which is what the MS site seems to be drilling into our heads every time we go there)?

Any comments from the MS guys? I think this would be a really useful service to the South Africans that use MS products.

It's a complete joke! The UK has their own update site, when they have gigabits upon gigabits upon more gigabits connecting them to the US for practically nothing. They're paying 30 quid for an 8Mb line, while we're paying the double the equivalent for a 192Kb line!

So where's our update site, I ask!?!?

[UPDATE: New thought]
Another thought just popped into my mind (as unbelievable as it may be). If MS SA is not prepared to spend any money hosting this locally, then why not chat to some of the bigger ISP's in SA and get them to host their own Windows Update Server? This would obviously only be available to their customers, but at least the option would be there. Why not get SAIX, IS, MWeb, Storm, etc. to host a Windows Update Server for their clients? Come on... this won't even cost them anything. A few hours to set it up, and it's DONE!

Published Apr 16 2005, 10:19 AM by stuartg
Filed under:

Comments

 

Craig Nicholson said:

Fantastic idea. Firstly I doubt Microsoft would let anyone else (especially a South African ISP) run one of their Windows Update sites. It would mean having to place an enormous amount of trust in them and it could compromise their security. But maybe this is something we as a community need to take up with Microsoft South Africa. I wasn't aware that other countries had their own sites.
April 16, 2005 11:45 AM
 

Stuart Gunter said:

Well... MS does have a "SUS" package that is freely downloadable (stand to be corrected), which allows you to configure a Windows Update Server for your network. This is typically what businesses would do to prevent wasted bandwidth. Typically, a single server would download the updates for a configurable list of operating systems and languages. When logging onto the network, it would set this to be your Windows Update Server. Then when you go to "Windows Update" it would just redirect to your local server.

I don't see how they can stop an ISP from doing this, since the Windows SUS is designed for this specific scenario.

That said, I'd much prefer MS themselves to take this on.

I have a feeling it would be run like a businessman though... in other words, you'd hear talk about it for a few years, but nothing would ever happen.
April 16, 2005 12:51 PM
 

Craig Nicholson said:

Well I'm actually using SUS at the moment and unfortunately it doesn't redirect Windows Update. It doesn't maintain the drivers collection and all the optional stuff, only the critical security updates.

Microsoft is working on the successor which is in beta and I think its called WSUS. I heard its a lot better. http://wsus.editme.com/whatsnewinwsus has more info on it.
April 17, 2005 8:27 PM
 

Craig Nicholson said:

"Do not deploy WSUS outside your corporate firewall to distribute updates to clients directly connected to the Internet. The WSUS license agreement specifically disallows this scenario."
April 17, 2005 8:46 PM
 

Stuart Gunter said:

Aah... so there goes that idea. Well then it's down to Microsoft SA on this one?

Guys? Has this idea been discussed before? It is likely to happen?
April 17, 2005 10:30 PM
 

Mark said:

I was thinking about a similar thing a little while ago. I reckon MS should consider having 'mirrored' sites of some sort for a lot of their downloads. I realise that would make up a heck of a lot downloadable material, but how many dialup users can successfully download XP SP2 (and now the SP for Win2003 Server - both @ > 250MBs) - and more specific dev things too like Enterprise Library...etc etc.
April 18, 2005 7:59 AM

Leave a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  

Enter the numbers above:
Add
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems