Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Been recently playing around with different options for management of my servers. One of these is WSUS.

Getting a beginning list of updates was simplistic enough (though, the list is a bit...long) but a question of terms comes into play.

MS uses the term Supersede when describing older updates that have been covered by a newer patch/service pack. But does this mean I can just flat out decline all updates that are superseded?

Or is there a pitfall with this attitude going forth due to poor terms or implementation on WSUS' part?

If so, is there a best way to identify when this is a poor idea for updates (declining all updates of Office 2003 and just installing SP3), or is it a matter of manually going through each update (making sure every update is installed preceding SP3)?

share|improve this question

Some of the newer updates have older updates/fixes implemented in them. And as far as SPs go, some have prerequisites that you can look up which ones they are. Hope this helps.

share|improve this answer

Declining updates that are superseded by a service pack is a fine way to do things as long as you know your base image will include the service pack.

I've had experiences where the service pack failed to install when individual updates were still applied. If your base image does not have the service pack preloaded, then I would consider approving the individual updates as well.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.