The case for and against auto updates?

[dr-pc]

One of the selling points of remote managed support is installing updates, but will MS and software vendors having auto update features how do you persuade clients that not using this method is best?

I know i can give examples of bad updates from MS and others, AV seem good at bad updates, to bolster my case but do others say, or do you just agree and have auto updates?

cheers

 

[ZenMike]

The RMM vendors will say their method is better than Automatic Update for one reason or another, but for me it's about, "Is it actually getting done?" Yes, the customers can setup all their PCs for Automatic Update and keep up to date on Flash and Reader and Java..., but more often than not I find that they don't.

So what I'm offering is to take that over for them so they can continue not thinking about it and also not assume unnecessary risk.

 

[dbdawn]

Some updates may break certain software or cause other problems. So better to manually push them through after testing than have it done automatically and have something break and you having to fix that.

 

[mraikes]

Business or home user? In my opinion . . .

If a business - Turn off automatic updates on any "essential" computer/server. Although it doesn't happen often, updates can and will break computers. And since there's rarely a compelling argument for immediate update installation, why risk the downtime (or worse)? The risk of applying updates immediately and indiscriminately outweighs the benefits of waiting a short while.

If a home user - Turn on automatic updates. Because they probably won't get installed otherwise and the risk in NEVER updating outweighs the risk of a damaging update.

Of course each of these guidelines are flexible depending on the exact situation and end user abilities.

The bottom line for me is that most updates will be installed, but there's not much risk in waiting at least a couple of weeks while monitoring Technibble for break reports!