1
First of all, I would like to thank Antonis and all the members of the AutoPatcher Team for all their dedication and hard work...your efforts are very much appreciated, and I wanted to thank everyone for making AutoPatcher such a great program.
I know we have APUP, which works quite well. If I may, I'd like to inquire as to why we can't use Windows Updates Downloader (WUD), and simply have our scripts written for it, much like the way the author has his own scripts for XP updates, server 2003 updates, etc. If no one here has tried WUD before, here is the URL:
http://wud.jcarle.com/
Of course, our copy of WUD would be branded as AutoPatcher Updater
Advantages of WUD over APUP
1: Downloads are much more stable. No more 'run time error 0', messages. No more pauses or hangups while downloading.
2: Improved user interface.
3: Updates are downloaded into folders for each OS (WinXP, Server 2003, etc.). Critical updates get their own folder for those of us who don't deploy recommended updates.
4: Ability to select which updates in the list are downloaded. Each update has its own description displayed as a tooltip.
5: By teaming up with the author, we no longer have two teams writing incompatible scripts which download the same updates from the same URLS on Microsoft's Servers - our efforts are now combined, allowing for quicker release times.
I am working on writing a proof of concept script which will download the required .apm files, and the AutoPatcher 5.6.0.81 core program, which will show how well WUD can work as the new APUP 2.0. Perhaps the author of the program would be willing to share code with the Autopatcher Team, so that we don't each have our own program that does the same thing?
The WUD update lists are compressed XML files, which can be downloaded and installed as Compressed Update Lists (.ulz files). Hope this helps!
Riley
Edited by RileyM3, 08 March 2008 - 04:15 PM.
