I am a bit worried about the updates to Windows Update, I went and read the article you posted from winsupersite, and then went and read the applicable section of the microsoft paper.

In the article, someone is quoted as saying that the new Windows Update will be more in users faces. If something is in my users face, that means they are in my face, that is what as known as "a bad thing".

Presently we do not use the freely available Software update server(or whatever it is called, I forget) because we found that it did not work terribly well. In addition, configuring some clients to acces it was cumbersome at best and SMS is a hella lot a monaaay, we tend to use auto-update, or in certain cases, not, but someone checks the machine every time they have to go there to sort a users issue out(mostly for highly bitchy users). The article hints at a better Software Update server, but in my read of the relevant section of the whitepaper I see no mention of it, only the Windows Installer stuff, and no mention of the server component at all.

I suppose the new Windows Update will be configured to work well with SMS 2003, but, that is not an option for many organizations, mine included. A working, free or low cost local Windows Update Server really needs to happen if they are going to be more in the users face about patching. As I said, SMS is really not an option, the Current Software Update Server is nowhere near configurable enough as far as what patches are allowed and not. We have certain client machines and even servers that serve a specific purpose which cannot be automatically updated because a certain patch or Service Pack breaks them. Sure you can disallow certain patches with SUS, but that disallows it for everyone, not really a good thing.

So, I really hope they come out with a better version of SUS, cause having users in my face more often is definitely going to sour me even more than I already am.