Is anybody using "Initial Update" as a way to deploy patches on a regular basis (i.e., instead of using "Automatic Update")?
I know it is not the approach listed in the best practices documentation but i was just wondering. I really like how it forces multiple reboots and just continues patching...
What would be the CONS of using "Initial Update" instead of "Automatic Update" as the default reoccurring patch install process?
Thank you all!
The few times I have used 'initial update' has resulted in nothing but problems. The machine(s) would not properly update, so two days later the initial update was still tyring to run and kept just rebooting the machines. Killed that procedure and used Auto update and everything worked great.
Initial update may be ok once a machine is caught up, but I don't like the not knowing of when the machine is going to reboot. The machine is unusable until patching is complete.
I wouldn't use Initials for normal patching, you're asking for trouble on this.
Thanks Jon. Do you use Automatic Update or the Windows Auto Update?