none
KB2607607 for all languages showing on WSUS RRS feed

  • Question

  • KB2607607 arrived on my WSUS server on the 23rd, but I received the meta for all languages. I double checked my options in WSUS and English is the only language checked. Does anyone else have this problem? Is it possible that Microsoft  classified them as English? Thanks.
    Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:44 PM

Answers

  • These Language Pack updates appear to function the same as the dreaded WSUS Feature Installer (on-demand) for Windows 2008/2008R2 server manager.

    More or less correct. Each of those updates is installable on **ALL** instances of the given operating system. Whether the update is actually installed or not, depends on whether the WSUS Administrator approves (or declines) the update(s).

    WSUS really has a deficiency here, it needs another category.

    Actually.. it does:

    • Windows Server 2008 Server Manager Dynamic Installer
    • Windows Server Manager - Window Server Update Services (WSUS) Dynamic Installer
    • Windows 7 Language Packs
    • Windows Vista Ultimate Language Packs

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin


    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:46 AM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Hi,

    KB2607607 is not arrived on the WSUS.It is just an article which tell us how to install/uninstall Windows 8 language packs. Could you provide us a screencap for "received the meta for all languages"?
    If you double checked options in WSUS and English is the only language checked,other language specific updates will certainly not imported to the WSUS console.

    Regards,

    Clarence

    TechNet Subscriber Support

    If you are TechNet Subscription user and have any feedback on our support quality, please send your feedback here.


    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.


    Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:59 AM
    Moderator
  • All Server 2012 language packs here.

    Oh, and worse yet - while I certainly could decline all the unneeded ones - the approved ones actually do not show on the WSUS clients and will not make it possible to install the LP, so - I kinda miss what is behind this feature design? As it is, the approved  LPs only waste space on WSUS server, without any of the clients seeing the LPs as available. Neither via Windows Update, nor via the Control Panel - Language - Options. Eh.
    • Edited by Doktor Notor Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:13 AM Add more information
    Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:02 AM
  • Hi,

    Answer is simple here.It has nothing to do with the only English language you checked in the WSUS console.Here is the Language Pack you select for specific product(i.e server 2012).It is the language packs.If you don't want to install this language pack on your server 2012,just decline them.You must have checked the Windows server 2012 language packs box in the products and classifications pane,just uncheck it.We only approved one of them when we need to install language pack on the OS to change the display language of the OS.

    regards,

    Clarence


    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.



    Friday, October 26, 2012 2:11 AM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

    Answer is simple here.It has nothing to do with the only English language you checked in the WSUS console.Here is the Language Pack you select for specific product(i.e server 2012).It is the language packs.If you don't want to install this language pack on your server 2012,just decline them.You must have checked the Windows server 2012 language packs box in the products and classifications pane,just uncheck it.We only approved one of them when we need to install language pack on the OS to change the display language of the OS.


    Dear Clarence, unfortunately you did not address my questions at all. This provides no way whatsoever to actually install the language packs on the clients. Kindly re-read my previous comment. 

    Additionally - say you have 5 languages you want to provide. Even after you installed one of them on the client, the remaining 4 will be reported as "needed" by all the target (W8/W2012) clients. Nice way to make the reports messy. Wanting to provide users with several languages to choose from does not mean they want everyone to install all those LPs on every client. (Rather, the opposite would seem to be the case.) The only way to get the LPs out of the view is declining them. Any approved and not installed one remains reported as "needed".

    Providing updates for say, Office 2010 via WSUS, does not mean they will install on every client out there, only on those where the relevant product is installed. Same logic - the LPs should only be "needed" if the language in question is enabled in language settings on the WSUS client.

    Regardless the above rant on bad design: what is the way to install those LPs via WSUS? Either selectively or even all approved ones if the former cannot be done. As it is, this product provides just a way to waste quite some HDD space. The LPs are totally invisible to the WSUS clients. Cannot install them via WSUS. 


    • Edited by Doktor Notor Friday, October 26, 2012 8:16 AM Add more info
    Friday, October 26, 2012 8:00 AM
  • After multitude of useless wuauclt commands and checks for updates via the WU GUI in control panel, a double reboot made the testing VM finally detect the approved LPs in the Language control panel. Ugh.

    Now, back to my previous post - English language pack is still reported as needed in WSUS console - for a client with an English OS. Needless to say it cannot even be installed. (Oh, and no, I do want to decline it since it has been approved intentionally for the purposes of administration/troubleshooting of non-English OS variants.) 

    Back to design board, I guess.

    Friday, October 26, 2012 9:29 AM
  • Here are my thoughts on this situation, worth exactly what you paid to read them.

    These Language Pack updates appear to function the same as the dreaded WSUS Feature Installer (on-demand) for Windows 2008/2008R2 server manager. This update shows up as "needed" on every Server 2008/2008R2 you have because it can be installed on-demand.

    Similarly, in the WSUS list of computers, every Windows 8 machine is listed as "needing" 58 updates, and every Windows Server 2012 machine "needs" 36 updates.

    As I learned with the WSUS update long ago, the only way to keep your screens from being cluttered with all these "false positives" is to decline the updates. Since I have my WSUS infrastructure built already, and I have a local copy of the WSUS installer available, I declined the WSUS feature that all my other servers "needed" and it cleaned up the computer views. Everything was fine until this week, when my view of "failed or needed" computers now needlessly contains every Windows 8 and Server 2012 that has ever contacted the server. They are of course completely up to date and only "need" the language packs.

    WSUS really has a deficiency here, it needs another category. Instead of "needed" these updates should be marked as "installable on demand" so they would not show up in a "Failed or Needed" list.

    Right now, your choices are:
    - Approve them or don't, and ignore the fact that you can no longer use "Failed or Needed" for a quick glance of what machines need attention.
    - Decline them, and lose the ability to install them on demand if needed.

    We need another choice.

    Friday, October 26, 2012 2:30 PM
  • @PepperdotNet: Indeed. Optional is optional, not needed. At least the issue I mentioned however should be solvable without need for any new category - the "native" language of the OS cannot use the same LP. WSUS already has the OS language info. Why is then the LP classified as needed when it cannot ever be possibly installed? Bug.

    All of the above reminds me - how long will I have to keep declining those Itanium updates that noone in this galaxy and nearby universe needs?! Argh. </rant>

    Friday, October 26, 2012 3:44 PM
  • Regardless the above rant on bad design: what is the way to install those LPs via WSUS? Either selectively or even all approved ones if the former cannot be done. As it is, this product provides just a way to waste quite some HDD space. The LPs are totally invisible to the WSUS clients. Cannot install them via WSUS. 



    LPs installation is just a little different with other packages.For example,once you approve the japanese LP in the WSUS console,it doesn't mean to install all the japanese LP among all the selected groups.It is just make you allow to install on this selected groups.(i.e.If you don't approve the japanese LP on the WSUS,the WSUS clients will show "Japanese is unavailable for download").

    I don't know why you said "The LPs are totally invisible to the WSUS clients. Cannot install them via WSUS. " Instead,once you approve one LP and LP has been downloaded to WSUS, then you can add a language in the Control panel to install the LP.

    regards,

    Clarence



    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Monday, October 29, 2012 7:27 AM
    Moderator
  • I would like to confirm what is the current situation?
    Well, the current situation is - approved LPs detected on clients (in the Languages CP). Installed LPs not detected as installed on WSUS. Both installed and not installed LPs reported as needed on WSUS.
    Monday, October 29, 2012 7:34 AM
  • Language Pack is a *special* package.If your statement is true,probably WUA didn't have the ability to distinguish which Language Pack is installed among the KB2607607.Basically,we just seldom install one more Language Pack on the OS system.MS suggest only one more Language Pack installed.Two or more LPs would be have a performance impact on the OS.In addition,to install the LP on the client side need to add langugae thru the control panel.So, instead of waiting WUAgent expend wasted effort in evaluating an irrelevant update,I am agree with Pepperdotnet,just decline them even if it is a detection flaw.

    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:01 AM
    Moderator
  • Problem is, I don't necessarily *want* to decline them in case one of my bilingual users wants them, but I don't *want* them to show as needed either on every machine.

    I am going to decline them though, as there seems to be no other option at this point.

    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:51 PM
  • Language Pack is a *special* package.If your statement is true,probably WUA didn't have the ability to distinguish which Language Pack is installed among the KB2607607.Basically,we just seldom install one more Language Pack on the OS system.MS suggest only one more Language Pack installed.Two or more LPs would be have a performance impact on the OS.In addition,to install the LP on the client side need to add langugae thru the control panel.So, instead of waiting WUAgent expend wasted effort in evaluating an irrelevant update,I am agree with Pepperdotnet,just decline them even if it is a detection flaw.


    Let me repeat this once again - I do not want to decline English LP which is explicitely there for administration of non-English systems (which frequently come from OEMs). WSUS being unable to detect that the LP is actually inapplicable and cannot be installed at all - despite having the OS language information available and shown in the console - is clearly a bug, no matter how "special" the package is. And so is inability to detect that the LP has been actually installed. It just shows any approved LP as needed, installed or not.
    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:32 PM
  • I'm truly shocked that this thread is still unanswered after a week....
    but I received the meta for all languages.
    Correct. This is how Language Packs are distributed. This is nothing new, and if you go back to a fresh Vista or Win7 installation and scan Windows Update, you'll find all of those OS Language Packs offered. Most consumers simply HIDE the updates; most WSUS Administrators DECLINE them. End of conversation.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:25 AM
    Moderator
  • This provides no way whatsoever to actually install the language packs on the clients.

    To install the language packs, APPROVE them -- just like any other updates.

    say you have 5 languages you want to provide. Even after you installed one of them on the client, the remaining 4 will be reported as "needed" by all the target (W8/W2012) clients.

    Correct. In fact, ALL of the language packs will be reported as "Needed" (as discussed numerous times before, part of the problem here is interpreting "Needed" to mean "you should install these" rather than "you can install these if you want").

    Nice way to make the reports messy.

    As with any other update you don't need -- DECLINE the update and be done with it.

    Wanting to provide users with several languages to choose from does not mean they want everyone to install all those LPs on every client.

    If you WANT your users to have languages to choose from, then you MUST install the LP. It's really rather simple.

    The only way to get the LPs out of the view is declining them.

    Exactly!

    Providing updates for say, Office 2010 via WSUS, does not mean they will install on every client out there, only on those where the relevant product is installed.

    Correct. Systems where they cannot be installed are reported as "Not Applicable"; systems where they can be installed are reported as "Needed". YOU (the WSUS Administrator) make the decision whether they will, or will not, actually be installed by APPROVING the update for installation. Of course, approving a "Not Applicable" update would be an exercise in futility. Language Packs are installable on ANY operating system instance of that version (e.g. Vista, Win7, Win2008, Win2008R2, Win8, Win2012).

    Same logic - the LPs should only be "needed" if the language in question is enabled in language settings on the WSUS client.

    And herein exists the fundamental problem -- your logic is exactly the opposite of the reality! As noted, this is how language functionality for Windows has functioned since Vista was released almost six years ago. Windows Server 2003 was the last OS that had language-specific installations.

    YOU need to decide which machines need to support multiple languages, approve the language packs for installation, and be done with the project.

    what is the way to install those LPs via WSUS

    Approve the update(s) that you want to install!


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:35 AM
    Moderator
  • After multitude of useless wuauclt commands and checks for updates via the WU GUI in control panel, a double reboot made the testing VM finally detect the approved LPs in the Language control panel.

    Consider the possibility that the reason the clients could not 'see' the updates is because the FILES had not yet been downloaded to the WSUS Server!

    English language pack is still reported as needed in WSUS console - for a client with an English OS.

    So approve it and let it install. I really do not understand what the big deal is all about? Either you trust the Windows Update Agent to properly detect, download, and install the appropriate approved updates -- or you don't. If you don't, then I suggest pulling the plug on the WSUS server and downloading all updates manually from the Microsoft Download Center and installing the ones you want from the command line. Hopefully you won't pick any that aren't needed; more significantly, hopefully you won't miss any that are needed!


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin


    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:38 AM
    Moderator
  • These Language Pack updates appear to function the same as the dreaded WSUS Feature Installer (on-demand) for Windows 2008/2008R2 server manager.

    More or less correct. Each of those updates is installable on **ALL** instances of the given operating system. Whether the update is actually installed or not, depends on whether the WSUS Administrator approves (or declines) the update(s).

    WSUS really has a deficiency here, it needs another category.

    Actually.. it does:

    • Windows Server 2008 Server Manager Dynamic Installer
    • Windows Server Manager - Window Server Update Services (WSUS) Dynamic Installer
    • Windows 7 Language Packs
    • Windows Vista Ultimate Language Packs

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin


    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:46 AM
    Moderator
  • the "native" language of the OS cannot use the same LP. WSUS already has the OS language info.

    Might I suggest that this statement is fundamentally incorrect, and that part of the issue here is you not understanding what's in the Language Packs vs what's in the native OS installation?

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:48 AM
    Moderator
  • Problem is, I don't necessarily *want* to decline them in case one of my bilingual users wants them, but I don't *want* them to show as needed either on every machine.

    Well, you cannot have it both ways, and these updates are no different than the other several thousand updates in WSUS.

    If you want Silverlight v5 installed on some systems (e.g. desktops) but not on other (e.g servers), then you just have to suck up the fact that Silverlight reports as needed on servers.

    If you want IE9 installed on *some* Windows 7 desktops, but not on other Windows 7 desktops, then you create a group where IE9 can be installed, you approved the update for that group -- but Guess What!? IE9 still shows as NEEDED for ALL Windows 7 systems in your enterprise!

    It's not perfect.. but it is FREE and today you're dealing with functionality (Silverlight; Language Packs) that did not exist when WSUS was designed in 2004 -- so you learn to adapt! ADAPT! If you cannot adapt, you're in the wrong profession.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:52 AM
    Moderator
  • I do not want to decline English LP
    And you shouldn't! You NEED to approve it so that it can be installed!
    which is explicitely there for administration of non-English systems (which frequently come from OEMs).
    There is no such thing as a "non-English" system. Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 systems that come from OEMs as what you are calling "non-English" have (at least 2) language packs (pre)installed, and some other language pack (not the English one) is set as the DEFAULT language pack for that system.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:57 AM
    Moderator
  • There is no such thing as a "non-English" system. Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 systems that come from OEMs as what you are calling "non-English" have (at least 2) language packs (pre)installed, and some other language pack (not the English one) is set as the DEFAULT language pack for that system.

    Really? What are these then?

    https://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/subscriptions/securedownloads/hh442904#searchTerm=&ProductFamilyId=481&Languages=ar&PageSize=10&PageIndex=0&FileId=0

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:53 AM
  • Problem is, I don't necessarily *want* to decline them in case one of my bilingual users wants them, but I don't *want* them to show as needed either on every machine.

    Well, you cannot have it both ways, and these updates are no different than the other several thousand updates in WSUS.

    If you want Silverlight v5 installed on some systems (e.g. desktops) but not on other (e.g servers), then you just have to suck up the fact that Silverlight reports as needed on servers.

    If you want IE9 installed on *some* Windows 7 desktops, but not on other Windows 7 desktops, then you create a group where IE9 can be installed, you approved the update for that group -- but Guess What!? IE9 still shows as NEEDED for ALL Windows 7 systems in your enterprise!

    For Windows 7, I approved the language packs to a "Language Packs Approval" group. They do not currently show as "needed" on existing Windows 7 clients, and to the best of my recollection, they did not show as "needed" prior to being approved; but if I launch Windows Update pointed at my WSUS and look under optional updates, they are available and can be installed. That is the behavior I want.
    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:02 AM
  • In fact, ALL of the language packs will be reported as "Needed" (as discussed numerous times before, part of the problem here is interpreting "Needed" to mean "you should install these" rather than "you can install these if you want").
    That explains it. I have a dictionary and Microsoft doesn't.
    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:06 AM
  • In fact, ALL of the language packs will be reported as "Needed" (as discussed numerous times before, part of the problem here is interpreting "Needed" to mean "you should install these" rather than "you can install these if you want").
    That explains it. I have a dictionary and Microsoft doesn't.

    Sarcasm doesn't help. Learning how to use the product properly before jumping off the deep end will. I submit that the real issue here is simply not understanding how the product is designed and works (regardless of whether you agree with the design or operation). I'm not faulting your lack of knowledge, but I will fault your propensity for casting aspersion and blame where it's not warranted or justified.

    Nothing in this conversation has not been documented and discussed ad infinitum in a hundred different places over the past seven years, so your lack of familiarity with the issue is simply evidence of your lack of familiarity.

    Yes, even *I* do not like the use of the term "Needed" in the context of WSUS (and I've commented on this in numerous other places, including several times in this forum). In fact, "Needed" is an oversimplification of three actual states: "Not Installed", "Downloaded", and "Installed Pending Reboot", which I so do wish had been originally used in the UI rather than creating this pseudo-state that is, sometimes, so very confusing.

    But it wasn't. So it is what it is, and it has been that way for going on ten years now (since the original release of SUS 1.0 in 2002, I believe), and it's not likely going to change in the next ten years.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:35 AM
    Moderator
  • For Windows 7, I approved the language packs to a "Language Packs Approval" group. They do not currently show as "needed" on existing Windows 7 clients, and to the best of my recollection, they did not show as "needed" prior to being approved; but if I launch Windows Update pointed at my WSUS and look under optional updates, they are available and can be installed.
    This statement is fundamentally contradictory, so I'm not really sure what to say to you. They cannot be both "not currently show as needed" and yet still "appear as available and can be installed".

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:43 AM
    Moderator
  • Sarcasm doesn't help. Learning how to use the product properly before jumping off the deep end will. I submit that the real issue here is simply not understanding how the product is designed and works (regardless of whether you agree with the design or operation). I'm not faulting your lack of knowledge, but I will fault your propensity for casting aspersion and blame where it's not warranted or justified.

    Nothing in this conversation has not been documented and discussed ad infinitum in a hundred different places over the past seven years, so your lack of familiarity with the issue is simply evidence of your lack of familiarity.

    Yes, even *I* do not like the use of the term "Needed" in the context of WSUS (and I've commented on this in numerous other places, including several times in this forum). In fact, "Needed" is an oversimplification of three actual states: "Not Installed", "Downloaded", and "Installed Pending Reboot", which I so do wish had been originally used in the UI rather than creating this pseudo-state that is, sometimes, so very confusing.

    But it wasn't. So it is what it is, and it has been that way for going on ten years now (since the original release of SUS 1.0 in 2002, I believe), and it's not likely going to change in the next ten years.


    Arrogance doesn't help either, but I resisted the urge to point that out before. Your replies to myself and others, while in most cases factually correct, also seem to indicate an attitude of superiority that is, frankly, beneath a Microsoft MVP.

    Nowhere did I say I hadn't heard of this issue before, in fact I stated familiarity with it in my first post, comparison to "the dreaded WSUS Feature Installer" - yet you cite my lack of familiarity. I was in fact one of those who used the original SUS 1.0 and am very familiar with it. Stating something that, in my opinion, is a blatant error in the design does not mean I have a "lack of familiarity" or any other defect.

    It's not sarcasm to say that "needed" means what it says in the dictionary. Unless you were interpreting "sarcasm" to mean "speaking the truth."


    • Edited by PepperdotNet Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:14 AM meant to quote
    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:07 AM
  • For Windows 7, I approved the language packs to a "Language Packs Approval" group. They do not currently show as "needed" on existing Windows 7 clients, and to the best of my recollection, they did not show as "needed" prior to being approved; but if I launch Windows Update pointed at my WSUS and look under optional updates, they are available and can be installed.

    This statement is fundamentally contradictory, so I'm not really sure what to say to you. They cannot be both "not currently show as needed" and yet still "appear as available and can be installed".

    I apologize for the momentary confusion, I just checked and realized that the Windows 7 language packs have never been in WSUS; I was thinking of the Vista language packs. I haven't had any Vista Ultimate machines on any of my networks for a couple of years now so I can't test how those behave. I believe your explanation, since "needed" means "available to install" then if I had any Vista Ultimate machines they would "need" the language packs.
    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:35 AM
  • These Language Pack updates appear to function the same as the dreaded WSUS Feature Installer (on-demand) for Windows 2008/2008R2 server manager.

    More or less correct. Each of those updates is installable on **ALL** instances of the given operating system. Whether the update is actually installed or not, depends on whether the WSUS Administrator approves (or declines) the update(s).

    WSUS really has a deficiency here, it needs another category.

    Actually.. it does:

    • Windows Server 2008 Server Manager Dynamic Installer
    • Windows Server Manager - Window Server Update Services (WSUS) Dynamic Installer
    • Windows 7 Language Packs
    • Windows Vista Ultimate Language Packs

    Actually, whether one of these updates is installed or not is determined by Administrator approval, followed by the user initiating the "on demand" action (server manager for the WSUS package; control panel for the language pack).

    Maybe category is the wrong word, I was referring to the status. What I meant was instead of a single status "Needed" meaning "available to be installed" it should be at least two statuses: "Needed" meaning "if approved, this will be installed" and "Optional" meaning "if approved, this will be offered but the user may choose whether or not to install." In such a scenario, looking at the list of computers "Failed or Needed" once again has meaning.

    By the way, it did occur to me that there might be a more appropriate place than this forum to discuss WSUS deficiencies and feature upgrades, perhaps at Connect. Alas, there's no WSUS group in Connect.



    • Edited by PepperdotNet Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:13 AM
    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:01 AM
  • There is no such thing as a "non-English" system. Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 systems that come from OEMs as what you are calling "non-English" have (at least 2) language packs (pre)installed, and some other language pack (not the English one) is set as the DEFAULT language pack for that system.

    Dear Lawrence.

    en-US LP cannot be installed on an OS that natively comes with en-US. Sorry. Go back to testing, try this and then please come back to comment. (Otherwise, you made a complete mess out of this thread with your excessive successive comments).

    Then there are two possibilities here - either MS is producing totally useless LP that cannot be installed anywhere just for the purpose of producing more LPs, or you are plain wrong in your statement. The second alternative would be more likely considering the fact that with the localized Vista/W7 versions, there was just no place those would offer me to switch the language to English by default. Not without installing the en-US LP.

    So: "For Windows 7, I approved the language packs to a "Language Packs Approval" group. They do not currently show as "needed" on existing Windows 7 clients, and to the best of my recollection, they did not show as "needed" prior to being approved; but if I launch Windows Update pointed at my WSUS and look under optional updates, they are available and can be installed. That is the behavior I want."

    +1 on the above.

    P.S. If you are surprised that this thread is still unanswered that might be because there is no answer to the bugs and defects in WSUS here.



    • Edited by Doktor Notor Wednesday, October 31, 2012 9:00 AM
    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:45 AM
  • What I meant was instead of a single status "Needed" meaning "available to be installed" it should be at least two statuses: "Needed" meaning "if approved, this will be installed" and

    "Optional" meaning "if approved, this will be offered but the user may choose whether or not to install."

    This capability is offered via WU/MU. The Language Packs actually do show up as Optional Updates. The concept of "Optional" is not available in the native WSUS console, because presumably with centralized management of updates, the end-user doesn't get a choice. I think we need to be careful to keep the conversation separate from "what the end-user can do" and "what is displayed in the console". I think this conversation, so far, has been about the console, but I'm happy to also discuss how to manage the end-user experience as well, if you wish.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:13 PM
    Moderator
  • en-US LP cannot be installed on an OS that natively comes with en-US.

    Last Friday you posted this statement:

    English language pack is still reported as needed in WSUS console - for a client with an English OS.

    So which are you claiming now:

    • The en-US LP is not reported as Needed on an en-OS installation of Windows 7, or
    • your original statement, that it is reported as Needed?

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:19 PM
    Moderator
  • en-US LP cannot be installed on an OS that natively comes with en-US.

    Last Friday you posted this statement:

    English language pack is still reported as needed in WSUS console - for a client with an English OS.

    So which are you claiming now:

    • The en-US LP is not reported as Needed on an en-OS installation of Windows 7, or
    • your original statement, that it is reported as Needed?

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    The en-US LP is reported as needed today, exactly as was reported as needed last Friday. It is reported as needed for OS with en-US language shown in the WSUS console. The whole time we are talking about the WSUS blatant inability to even detect that the LP is not applicable for that particular client. 

    WSUS also fails to detect that (another) approved LP was already installed and still reports the installed LPs as "needed". To sum this up - this functionality is a complete and utter fail. 

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:13 AM
  • The en-US LP is reported as needed today, exactly as was reported as needed last Friday. It is reported as needed for OS with en-US language shown in the WSUS console.

    Then you should approve the update, let the WUAgent download/install it, and be done with it.

    If the installation of the update fails then we have a conversation worth pursuing.

    The whole time we are talking about the WSUS blatant inability to even detect that the LP is not applicable for that particular client.

    Your opinion about the applicability of the update is duly noted, however, the detection logic written in the package definition, and the analysis performed by the Windows Update Agent, contradicts your opinion. In all of the years I've been working with Windows Updates, SUS, and WSUS, it is, indeed, a *RARE* occurrence, that a package reports as applicable/NotInstalled when it is not. And when that has happened, the issue is usually found within hours of its release and fixed within days. Now, given that these language packs have been in existence for over three years, my money is on the WUAgent and the package as being authoritative, and correct, in this circumstance. Beyond that, it's your decision as to how you handle the situation. It seems to me you have four choices:

    • DECLINE the update.
    • IGNORE the update.
    • APPROVE and INSTALL the update.
    • Find another patch management system that behaves the way you want it to.
    WSUS also fails to detect that (another) approved LP was already installed and still reports the installed LPs as "needed".

    That's certainly a possible condition, albeit for entirely different reasons. And, to be sure, "WSUS" doesn't detect anything .. what you are seeing in the WSUS console is a result of what the WUAgent has evaluated as the factual state of the client machine. There are any number of reasons why an update might fail to report as Installed on a client machine, so this scenario requires a completely different investigative technique.

    Feel free to start a NEW THREAD and I'll be happy to pursue this particular situation with you.

    To sum this up - this functionality is a complete and utter fail.

    I'm certainly willing to accept that the functionality is not behaving in the way you would LIKE, or in the way you THINK it should -- but before attributing the problem to the product (WSUS), I submit that a bit more understanding and expertise of the product and how it works is probably warranted before rendering such an opinion.

    At this point, my money is still on WSUS, the WUAgent, and the update packages as being correct.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:35 PM
    Moderator
  • Sigh. 

    1/ The updates are approved and installed and working, NOT failed in any way. I would like to "be done with it", unfortunately that is not what WSUS is able to catter for. Also, WSUS has no trouble detecting installed updates for anything else, except these LPs.

    2/ The detection login that shows an inapplicable, impossible to install package as needed is flawed/broken. That is not any opinion, that is a mere statement of fact. "Find another patch management system that behaves the way you want it to" is a wonderful solution, really. I would also like to note that WSUS has exactly zero problems with detecting inapplicable updates for other products. It is just broken - yeah, broken - with language packs.

    3/ No, again, nothing failed, the LPs shown as "needed" are fully installed and perfectly working on the WSUS clients.

    4/ You have just lost your money, sorry. 

    Finally, may I ask if someone actually involved with MS to comment on this? Because with all respect, Lawrence's comments bring us exactly nowhere - two weeks later. Beating around the bush and claiming that clear defects are no problem at all and actually are "by design" (such as #2) is really not something I'd buy.




    • Edited by Doktor Notor Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:08 PM
    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:06 PM
  • Hi,

    I am trying to involve someone familiar with this topic to further look at this issue. There might be some time delay. Appreciate your patience.
    Thank you for your understanding and support.

    Regards,

    Clarence

    TechNet Subscriber Support

    If you are TechNet Subscription user and have any feedback on our support quality, please send your feedback here.


    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:28 AM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

    I am trying to involve someone familiar with this topic to further look at this issue. There might be some time delay. Appreciate your patience.
    Thank you for your understanding and support.


    Thank you, highly appreciated. 

    Thursday, November 8, 2012 3:09 PM
  • Hi,

    Where are we stopped? I think Lawrence have give us the details about the issue. Is there any errors when we using the WSUS? :-)

    Thanks,

    Spencer


    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Friday, November 9, 2012 10:56 AM
  • Hi,

    Where are we stopped? I think Lawrence have give us the details about the issue. Is there any errors when we using the WSUS? :-)


    Spencer, we are still stopped at the same state - with WSUS still

    - showing already approved and installed LPs as needed

    - showing approved but inapplicable LPs as needed (such as en-US for a client with en-US OS language)

    resulting in useless clutter in the WSUS console.

    Monday, November 12, 2012 10:51 AM
  • With the LPs showing, will this affected the WUSU usage or any performance impact? Seems like a normal behavior.

    Thanks,

    Spencer


    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:38 AM
  • With the LPs showing, will this affected the WUSU usage or any performance impact? Seems like a normal behavior.


    Spencer, yeah, showing tens and tens of machines with bogus "needed" updates "kinda" hinders the usability of the WSUS console, really. How are you supposed to monitor the hotfixes install when the view is cluttered with irrelevant incorrect information? 
    Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:11 PM
  • I have scrolled to this entire discussion and I may have missed something, but I wonder why this is such a long discussion at all. This behavior is not a feature IT IS A NASTY BUG.

    I want to be able to approve updates to language packs in case someone actualy installed a language pack (yes, I give my users that freedom). But the update should only be marked as needed if it is eeerr... needed. As it is, since the update isn't needed, it will never be installed on the client and there is no value in the reporting. I just cannot, for every client that seems to be behind in installing updates, check if they are just language packs.

    I fail to see where LP's are different from other products. Updates to Office 2010 are also not flagged as needed on computers that still ise Office 2007. And that is how it should be.

    Luckily I am also using Secunia. This may also not be perfect, but as it us much more useful. So Microsoft: fix this bug.


    Jan Z

    Friday, November 30, 2012 9:52 AM
  • I want to be able to approve updates to language packs in case someone actualy installed a language pack (yes, I give my users that freedom). But the update should only be marked as needed if it is eeerr... needed.

    And therein lies the fundamental defect in this conversation, and the several of its ilk that have occurred in years previous.

    The word NEEDED does not mean "Thou Shalt Install This Update So Sayeth Microsoft".

    It means that the update **CAN** be installed on the identified system, and it's up to **YOU**, through the feature of WSUS known as Update Approvals, to determine whether the update **WILL** be installed on the identified system.

    As it is, since the update isn't needed, it will never be installed on the client and there is no value in the reporting.

    I fail to comprehend the significance of this statement. If the update cannot be installed, it is reported as NotApplicable. If the update can be installed it is reported as Needed. If you don't want the status of the update in your report, or you think that the update is not needed by any of your systems, then decline the update and be done with it.

    I fail to see where LP's are different from other products. Updates to Office 2010 are also not flagged as needed on computers that still ise Office 2007.

    They are if a component of Office 2010 is installed! But update applicability to applications is an entirely different discussion. Language Packs are applicable to the Operating System. ALL instances of the operating system! They are installable to the raw *RTM* installation of the operating system, and these Win7 LPs are no different than the Vista LPs in 2007. If you install a brand new Win7 system and point it to Windows Update, among the gazillion of other needed updates, you'll also be presented with these language packs. Most people either ignore, or actually HIDE, those updates using the Control Panel | Windows Update applet. But if the updates are available for detection on the WSUS Server ... the WUAgent IS going to report a status for that update. You get three choices: Installed, Not Applicable, or Needed. Which one do you think it should be if the LP is not installed?


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Friday, November 30, 2012 11:59 PM
    Moderator
  • There is no "fundamental defect" in this conversation, or in "the several of its ilk that have occurred in years previous. The defect is in WSUS or the WUAgent, specifically in the fact that "You get three choices: Installed, Not Applicable, or Needed."

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/needed?s=t

    noun
    1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: There is no need for you to go there.

    Since the updates mentioned in this thread are not required, the word "needed" is an incorrect description. They should instead be listed as "installable" or "optional" implying a fourth choice.

    "If you install a brand new Win7 system and point it to Windows update" the language packs are listed as "Optional" rather than "Important" - if Windows Update can figure that out, why can't WSUS?

    Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:02 AM
  • I fail to comprehend the significance of this statement. If the update cannot be installed, it is reported as NotApplicable. If the update can be installed it is reported as Needed. If you don't want the status of the update in your report, or you think that the update is not needed by any of your systems, then decline the update and be done with it.

    Well, sorry, but that is NOT the case. Once again.

    - LPs that "cannot be installed" (such as en-US LP on en-US system) are still reported as Needed. Been repeated many times on this thread, once again to be ignored by these "there is no bug" guys.

    - I do NOT want to decline the updates. Again, the goal described repeatedly above. 

    MS needs to look up what Needed means in some dictionary, instead of trying to persuade others that "needed" does not really mean needed in MS land. Not just because of the basic communication breakdown, but - once again - due to cluttering the WSUS console with useless, incorrect stuff, making it effectively unusable for the purpose of monitoring of updates install on the clients.

    Lawrence, you really contribute nothing to this thread, sorry.

    Sunday, December 2, 2012 4:33 PM
  • - LPs that "cannot be installed" (such as en-US LP on en-US system) are still reported as Needed.
    Have you actually attempted to install the en-US LP on an en-US system? Did that installation actually fail? Could you please post a clip of the Windows Update History or the WindowsUpdate.log showing that installation as failing?
    MS needs to look up what Needed means in some dictionary
    You know.. I'm sympathetic to your frustration; but I absolutely disagree. The *PRODUCT* (in this case WSUS) quite clearly has defined the term "Needed", and it has been clearly defined since the original release of Software Update Services over ten years ago. I appreciate that you do not personally like that definition, but in this case you're just going to have to get over it and move on with your life.
    Lawrence, you really contribute nothing to this thread, sorry.
    That may well be the case; perhaps some empirical information will prove that to be true, in time. In the meantime, though, I've yet to see any actual data that demonstrates that anything is working other than it has been designed. You just don't like the design.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:24 AM
    Moderator
  • Lawrence, it obviously cannot be installed. No, I have not tried it and could not try it, because the control panel GUI does not even offer to install it. It is already preinstalled there. Kindly, move your useless "suggestions" out of this thread, Mr. "Head Geek". Enough is enough. Not the first thread where you managed to make people angry with completely pointless noise. Your "advise" and attitude in general are an insult to what the "valuable" in the MVP acronym stands for. Or maybe the "valuable" has a totally different meaning in the MS parallel universe, exactly like the term "needed". And the same could be said about the "professional" part.




    Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:35 PM
  • No, I have not tried it
    Thank you.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2012)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin

    Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:31 AM
    Moderator
  • Lawrence: Wow, way to prove Cocotus.Interruptus' point.

    FYI, I did try it.

    Control Panel... Language... Add a Language... double click English. Surprise, "English (United States)" is grayed out. Yet WSUS insists this machine "needs" the English language pack.


    • Edited by PepperdotNet Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:13 AM
    Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:11 AM
  • Lawrence: Wow, way to prove Cocotus.Interruptus' point.

    FYI, I did try it.

    Control Panel... Language... Add a Language... double click English. Surprise, "English (United States)" is grayed out. Yet WSUS insists this machine "needs" the English language pack.


    Yeah, which is exactly what I meant by "could not try it, because the control panel GUI does not even offer to install it" in my previous post - of course that was misquoted/taken out of context by Mr. "M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA, MVP"... From now on, I am going to report Mr. "Head Guru's" incessant noise as off-topic/irrelevant. Enough is really enough.


    • Edited by Doktor Notor Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:21 PM
    Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:20 PM
  • We've hit this problem, I've got a machine that has English and American English installed. KB 2607607 is showing up as 'needed' on the WSUS server. It's approved, set for install but never actually shows up on the W8 client. You can restore hidden updates (it's not hidden), check for it online but nothing will get it to appear on the client machine.

    Has anyone found a workaround for this bug yet?

    I don't want machines reporting errors to WSUS unless they're actually in an error condition.

    Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:33 PM
  • I Had this problem on  server 2008R2  with wsus 3.0 sp2 on my windows 8 and server 2012 machines. 

    I've checked back here for an answer over the last few months then I gave up and migrated my wsus server to 2012, but  I still had the same problem.

    But I've found if I decline an update in the Updates container of WSUS instead of the Computers container its gone so that my reports show that computers are patched correctly.

    The Dialogue box even says" If you decline this update, all of its approvals will be removed and the update will be hidden from the default view. Also, any events reported by computers for this update will be deleted from the database."

    Monday, March 25, 2013 1:43 PM
  • We've hit this problem, I've got a machine that has English and American English installed. KB 2607607 is showing up as 'needed' on the WSUS server. It's approved, set for install but never actually shows up on the W8 client. You can restore hidden updates (it's not hidden), check for it online but nothing will get it to appear on the client machine.

    Has anyone found a workaround for this bug yet?

    I don't want machines reporting errors to WSUS unless they're actually in an error condition.

    If you don't need the update... Decline it. That will remove it from your reporting. Problem solved.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2013)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:41 AM
    Moderator
  • I Had this problem on server 2008R2 with wsus 3.0 sp2 on my windows 8 and server 2012 machines.

    I've checked back here for an answer over the last few months then I gave up and migrated my wsus server to 2012, but I still had the same problem.

    Because the "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with the version of WSUS, or the version of Windows. The update behaves however the update behaves. If you don't need the update, decline it. If you do need it, approve it and install it.

    But I've found if I decline an update in the Updates container of WSUS instead of the Computers container its gone so that my reports show that computers are patched correctly.

    "Where" you decline an update is irrelevent, but just to be pedantic ... you cannot Decline an update from the Computers container; although you can run a Status Report from the Computers container and decline the update from the Status Report.

    Regardless of how an update is declined, "Decline" is a boolean value. Either an update is DECLINED, or its NOT.  The behavior does not change based on the methodology of setting the boolean flag.

    The Dialogue box even says" If you decline this update, all of its approvals will be removed and the update will be hidden from the default view.

    Correct. A DECLINED update is the antithesis of an APPROVED update. The two conditions cannot coexist. The "default view" is Approval="Any Except Decline", so by declining an update, de facto, you remove it from the "default view".

    Also, any events reported by computers for this update will be deleted from the database."

    Correct. Presumably if you decline an update, you don't give a rat's behind about the update, so whatever the clients might have reported about that update is irrelevant. If you do care about the state of an update for clients, then don't decline it, and accept that some clients will report it as "Not Applicable", and some clients will report it as "Needed", and you simply choose to ignore that information.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2013)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:48 AM
    Moderator
  • This thread has not really been answered, rather people have merely been insulted and defects denied, much like the attitude of some regarding Windows 8.0, where any criticisms are written off with ad hominem attacks on people as either too old or too stupid to use computers any more.

    The conclusion to this problem with WSUS I see is, if you have one person in a thousand users who might install Bulgarian, several who might install Chinese or Arabic, you have to forget about WSUS for supplying these updates. Just decline all of the language packs and either help the users or trust that they can themselves, update a language pack in the unlikely case that it really, really needs to be done.

    Now, I'm off to decline them all, content in the knowledge that I will once again, in WSUS, be able to see that all of my computers are satisfied that they have all possible updates installed.

    The benefit of having a console capable of showing that everything across hundreds of computer is up to date far outweighs the work involved in the possibility of me having to manually update the Chinese IME on some of our computers.

    Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:35 PM
  • What bugs me about this is all Windows 8 and Server 2012 machines show up in Failed or Needed when I'm looking for clients that are actually not up to date.  In spite of the fact that they have all of the mandatory patches installed, they still show up.

    Where I work, there are people from all over the world.  Maybe one of them wants to use a language pack that isn't en-us.  I'd like to:

    • offer language packs as a download from the WSUS server
    • keep that language pack up to date should it ever change

    I do not want to do this manually, nor should I have to (I have WSUS after all).  Therefore, declining language packs is not an option.  Here's an idea, Microsoft.  Exclude language packs from the failed or needed view if their status is needed.  It's a workaround to be sure, but it's way better than the crap we're looking at now.

    This, by the way, has nothing to do with Windows Vista/7 or Server 2008/R2.  I've never had any issues with them showing up needlessly in the console as failed or needed.

    Friday, November 22, 2013 10:44 PM
  • The conclusion to this problem with WSUS I see is, if you have one person in a thousand users who might install Bulgarian, several who might install Chinese or Arabic, you have to forget about WSUS for supplying these updates.

    No. You don't. The solution is very simple. For the one user who needs to install the Bulgarian language pack, you create a group named "Bulgarian", approve the update for that group, and add that one computer to that group. If you have several who need to install Chinese or Arabaic, then create groups for "Chinese" and "Arabaic", approve those language packs for those groups, and place the needed systems in those groups.
    Just decline all of the language packs and either help the users or trust that they can themselves, update a language pack in the unlikely case that it really, really needs to be done.
    Well, certainly that is an option as well. There's also a couple of practical points here: How many Language Packs are actually installed in the field as opposed to being installed prior to the machine being deployed to the end user? There have never been (to my knowledge) updates to a language pack, they are one-time installations (and as noted, should be part of the initial deployment/delivery process, and thus the responsibility of I.T., not the end-user or patch administator).
    Now, I'm off to decline them all, content in the knowledge that I will once again, in WSUS, be able to see that all of my computers are satisfied that they have all possible updates installed.
    See, this is the fundamental fallacy in how you manage your updates. Just because the pie chart is all green does not, and has never, been a reliable indication that all possible updates are installed.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2013)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Lawrence R Garvin
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Sunday, December 1, 2013 8:09 PM
    Moderator
  • I'd like to:
    • offer language packs as a download from the WSUS server
    • keep that language pack up to date should it ever change

    That can certainly be done, although the second bullet point is somewhat irrelevant. I've never known a language pack to be "updated", making this, as previously noted, a one-time deployment exercise not a patch management exercise. Frankly, IMHO, those language packs should be installed onto those systems prior to the system being delivered to the end-user.

    I do not want to do this manually, nor should I have to (I have WSUS after all).

    And you don't! The methdology for deploying these language packs has been previously described.

    Therefore, declining language packs is not an option.

    Okay, then deal with the implications of reporting, or else learn how to properly use the reporting system so that the language packs are automatically excluded from your reports.

    This, by the way, has nothing to do with Windows Vista/7 or Server 2008/R2.  I've never had any issues with them showing up needlessly in the console as failed or needed.

    The behavior of these updates has not changed since Windows Vista. I can't speak historically to what you did or did not observe, but this thread is all about Windows 7 Language Packs, so unless it's your intent to contradict the observations of everybody who has posted in this 14-month-old thread, I'd have to say you're mistaken about your observations with Win7 language packs.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA, MCSA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2013)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Lawrence R Garvin
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Sunday, December 1, 2013 8:17 PM
    Moderator
  • It's just a nasty bug.

    Needed=client needs it. My clients does not need it. Needed English for englisch clients = BUG.

    dixi


    • Edited by IT Admin Friday, June 27, 2014 12:01 PM
    Friday, June 27, 2014 12:01 PM
  • Needed=client needs it.

    WRONG!

    And that's the fundamental flaw in this entire argument.

    You're trying to make a word mean what you WANT it to mean, rather than what the infrastructure is designed to make it mean.

    Somebody moved your Cheese. I get it. It's not how you WANT it to be; but it is how it IS. Life sucks when things don't work exactly as we want it to work, even if our perspectives are flawed.

    Get over it. Do something more significant with your day than whine about trivial stuff that you cannot control.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCSA, MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2014)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Lawrence%20R%20Garvin-32101
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Monday, June 30, 2014 12:02 AM
    Moderator
  • Hi Lawrence

    I have just found this old thread which at the first reading seems to deal with a bug in either the design of WSUS or in its implementation. I read all the comments and it seems to me that there are two opposing points of view which actually do not deal with the same issue.

    I will try to explain the issue in more detail based on a real-life scenario.

    I live in Australia and installed Windows 2012 R2 with the Australian English language. Microsoft currently recommends that the DISPLAY language for Australia to be the one which comes with the English-UK Language Pack to conform with the English spelling in Australia, although the implementation is still not complete, like "Center" in "Action Center"should be spelled "Centre" in UK English, but this is a subject for a different discussion.

    Coming back to the point, after approving the UK English Language Pack, this can be installed from the Language applet of the Control Panel and the recommended Display language enabled.

    However, and this is where the misunderstanding in this thread has been, although this particular server has the Language Pack installed, it still shows as needed in the reporting of the WSUS.

    This maybe the most important observation which has not been mentioned until now: on the client, the KB 2839636 shows in Windows Update/View update history but not under Programs and Features/View installed updates.

    I mention that the Language Pack functions correctly and what I said above may be by design on the client.

    Maybe this is where the issue is, the client installation to be seen as incomplete by the WU agent and report it as such to the WSUS Server?

    All the not required Language Packs have already been denied so this is not the problem which we discuss. It is about Language Packs which are installed and may be required in the future for other client computers.

    It is all about the client reporting to the server incorrectly or maybe it is something which we all miss in how the full installation of a Language Pack starting with Vista should be performed?

    Just as side note, I tend to disagree with some of the comments above in relation to Lawrence's input in the forum as by reading many other posts in various threads he shows a very deep understanding of the product and there is lot to be learnt from those many replies.

    Friday, August 22, 2014 1:46 AM
  • although this particular server has the Language Pack installed, it still shows as needed in the reporting of the WSUS.

    If that's the case, that is a BUG in the UK English Language Pack and should be taken up with the Windows product group who built the packages.

    on the client, the KB 2839636 shows in Windows Update/View update history but not under Programs and Features/View installed updates.

    This is entirely possible, but is a function of the product installer explicitly putting itself in the Programs and Features listing -- or not as seems to be the case here. It's in the Windows Update History simply by virtue of the fact that it was launched via the Windows Update functionality.

    Maybe this is where the issue is, the client installation to be seen as incomplete by the WU agent and report it as such to the WSUS Server?

    Well, I understand the intent of your point, and the intent is valid, but the mechanics are not quite there. It's the *package* that defines the criteria that establishes whether it is "Installed" or "Not Installed". The WUAgent merely evaluates that criteria as TRUE or FALSE. But if the criteria is defective, then the evaluation will be defective.

    But to your other point, the conversation in this thread has morphed several times, and I came to the conversation a week into it. But at that point, the crux of the conversation was very similar to previous conversatations that have been held around the purpose and use of Dynamic Updates.

    There appears to be this preconceived notion among some people that WSUS should only support one kind of update and those updates should all behave identically and that it's sacrilege for WSUS to provide content of any other type (e.g. the WSUS/Server Manager Dynamic Update, IE Dynamic Updates, Language Packs). As such, when these new type of updates are encountered, it throws those people sideways because the situation is non-conformant to their preconceived expectations.

    Language Packs are really pretty simple. WSUS is a repository (just like WU) from which Language Packs can be obtained. The only difference is, just like ever other update, the *WSUS Administrator* gets to decide which Language Packs are actually available for installation to client systems. This is done by approving the updates for the eligible clients. Then (and this is the part that confuses everybody, just like the WSUS/Server Manager update) .... the update is NOT installed automagically by the Windows Update Agent -- it is only installed WHEN a user on that system chooses to do so. In the case of the WSUS/Server Manager update, that happens when the Server Admin chooses to install the WSUS role. In the case of a Language Pack, presumably that happens when the end user NEEDS a Language Pack.

    Then there's the secondary argument about the definition of "Needed", because the way it's used in WSUS doesn't match the way some people want to use it, and so the product must be at fault, because .. well .. humans are infallible and never have misunderstandings about anything and always have exact precise definitions for every word in the dictionary which *everybody* agrees to all of the time. :-)

    And finally, there's the "the report doesn't tell me what I want to know". Okay. Quite possibly. WSUS Reporting sucks. That's no big secret. Either use the PUBLIC_VIEWS, or the API, and build a better report, or buy a third-party product that provides better WSUS reporting. We ain't gonna fix reporting design in this forum. :-)


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCSA, MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2014)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Lawrence%20R%20Garvin-32101
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.


    Friday, August 22, 2014 10:22 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you for your detailed reply and acknowledging that it may be a bug in the Language Packs when it comes to WSUS reporting only. I haven't tested other combinations than the one presented in my post in detail which I will do. I would like other people to confirm what I reported before raising the issue further although I think some of the posts above mentioned exactly the same behaviour without giving full details, which may be more difficult to be reproduced by most US users who have not worked much with Language Packs as there was never a reason to do so and until recently - Windows 8/2012, this was the same for Australian or UK users.

    There are similarities indeed with the functionality of the Dynamic Installer for WSUS as discussed here, however my understanding is that if the Dynamic Installer package is installed, then it shows correctly as not required like any other package which is different for the Language Packs, at least in Windows 2012 R2 on which I did my testing.

    What is definitely the case with the Language Packs, they have been redesigned starting with Windows 8 and they now behave and get installed differently than what was the case before in Windows 7, however the availability and how they are presented in WSUS seems to be the same. I think this is something that we have to accept and as you advised before, either decline those packages that are not needed or live with the reporting as is and understand how it works by design.

    I would be pleased if someone from Microsoft would look into the issue which I mentioned, although not overly critical. I have a track record of making Citrix looking into some obscure bugs in one of the editions of XenServer which I presented on the Citrix Forum, and although then it took few months, why not the same coming from Microsoft :)

    Friday, August 22, 2014 11:06 PM
  • if the Dynamic Installer package is installed, then it shows correctly as not required

    If the WSUS Dynamic Installer package is installed (i.e. the WSUS ROLE is installed), then that package should show as "Installed". The only time that package would show as "Not Applicable" is on systems where it cannot be installed at all, e.g. desktop operating systems, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Server 2012 and later).

    I would be pleased if someone from Microsoft would look into the issue

    I know that this forum is monitored by a member of the WSUS product group, but unfortunately that product group is not responsible for the *content* of updates. Language packs are a function of the *Windows* product group, and they don't monitor this forum.

    Sadly, short of opening a support ticket (which won't be free since this isn't a security issue), I'm a bit challenged to offer any advice on how to get some traction. If you have a Technical Account Manager (TAM), you might be able to get some assistance through that channel, particularly since this is a regional issue.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCSA, MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2014)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Lawrence%20R%20Garvin-32101
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Sunday, August 24, 2014 5:40 AM
    Moderator
  • Just an update to the issue mentioned above.

    It appears that when the Language Pack is installed from WSUS then it is correctly reported to WSUS as installed, while when it is applied from Windows Update it does not report correctly. Both methods involve using the Language applet of the Control Panel which behaves relatively weirdly with misleading error messages when there is a proxy server involved with incomplete configuration.

    The whole Language Pack thing looks fiddly and it can be made working with a lot of effort which I am wondering if it justified especially for the UK Pack which has been promoted a lot from the Microsoft side.

    For those interested there is also KB2938322 - Language Pack updates for Windows 8.1 Update 2919355 hard to find for Windows 2012 R2, as it refers mostly to Windows 8.1 explicitly but links to the Feature Pack fixes for the server version at the bottom of the page.

    Saturday, September 13, 2014 2:17 AM
  • I'm glad more people feel my pain in this matter.

    I want to make available 2 language packs to my users.

    If I aproove them for installation on my SBS2011 console they will be available on the client computers for detection and manual installation (at the language preferences) but my console will flood with warnings about clients in need of "updates" and this will not change no matter how long I wait for them to install.

    If I decline them they will not be available for detection when a user wants to install one of them.

    If this mess with language packs is by design, then I miss the days I could aproove updates for detection only.

    Language packs installation over wsus needs to be fixed.

    Not trying to hijack this thead. Just taking sides :)


    • Edited by Mastrom Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:39 PM minor clarification
    Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:26 PM
  • but my console will flood with warnings about clients in need of "updates" and this will not change no matter how long I wait for them to install.

    Correct. And as stated a gazillion times now the only issue here is your interpretation of the term "Needed".

    If you choose to interpret it how you *want* to interpret it, you'll be frustrated until the end of time.

    If you choose to interpret it how the product *USES* the term, you'll be just fine.

    The term "Needed" does **NOT** mean IT MUST BE INSTALLED.

    The term "Needed" means it is *NOT INSTALLED YET* and **CAN BE** installed if you choose to do so.


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCSA, MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2014)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Lawrence%20R%20Garvin-32101
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Thursday, December 25, 2014 1:47 AM
    Moderator
  • A gazillion times and still you are mistaken. It’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s a practical problem. Instead of getting useful information from the SBS console I get misinformation. Instead of getting direct info about important updates that are not yet installed on the clients I get warnings about language packs not yet installed (which is normal). So I need to take further action and check which “updates” are missing from each client and if they are language packs I say “Ohh OK, no problem”. This way the console  doesn’t serve it’s purpose anymore.

    Friday, December 26, 2014 12:42 PM
  • So I need to take further action and check which “updates” are missing from each client and if they are language packs I say “Ohh OK, no problem”.

    You're absolutely right! and that is the **JOB** of a Patch Administrator!

    And that operation is not exclusive to Language Packs. It *should* be performed with every NON-Security update considered for deployment.

    Welcome to the gig! :-)


    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCSA, MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    SolarWinds Head Geek
    Microsoft MVP - Software Packaging, Deployment & Servicing (2005-2014)
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Lawrence%20R%20Garvin-32101
    http://www.solarwinds.com/gotmicrosoft
    The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of SolarWinds.

    Friday, December 26, 2014 11:29 PM
    Moderator
  • They say a picture is worth a 1000 words so I've included some screen shots to clarify my questions and save several thousand words.

    It was my expectation that WSUS would offer language pack updates to computers only if they had that language pack installed.  My computers have ALL got "English (Australia)" with "Keyboard layout: US", for the record, so my expectation was that the Turkish, Serbian and German language packs, to name a few, would not be detected as required and would not be offered as updates.  Despite my expectation, in the last batch of updates were dozens of language packs identified as being required by my computers.  I declined most of them but I don't believe it should have been necessary to take that action.  They simply should not have been offered unless a machine with those language packs appears on my network.

    In particular, I have a machine called das004 which, in the "All Computers" window in WSUS (the selected computer), reportedly requires 6 updates.  These are the same 6 updates required by "family" which is NOT Windows XP Home Edition but is actually a Windows 8.1 computer - but WSUS can't tell that, apparently.


    The status report for that computer shows that the following updates are needed.

    When I check updates on the machine in question, it reports that there are none to be applied

    But what's *really* interesting is that if I go into the "Language" applet in Control Panel, I see:

    which says "Windows display language: Available for download"

    So, my questions are:

    1) Why do *all* the language packs show up as required components? Why are they required?  And why don't users who are *not* using WSUS, but get their updates directly from  Microsoft via Windows Update, also get told they are required?

    2) If approved for install, why do they not install?  Why are they not detected by the Windows Update client? 

    3) Why does the Language applet also show that it's available for download - shouldn't it all be controlled via the Windows Updates? 

    As the Patch Administrator, I want WSUS to make my life easier and to reduce my workload, not add to it.  As a firm believer in the idea that software should conform to the "Principle of Least Astonishment", which states that "the result of performing some operation should be obvious, consistent, and predictable", I find that I am unable to fully rely on WSUS.  I don't believe there is any reason to have to redefine the term "needed" but perhaps the WSUS development team could be encouraged to use the same definition as everyone else.

    Regards

    David Stafford

    Melbourne, Australia

    Saturday, August 15, 2015 12:37 PM
  • Lawrence Garvin,  I've read this entire thread, because I have the same problem everyone here is dealing with, and I've concluded one thing.  You are wrong.  You are doing everyone a disservice by trying to "educate" us about a product which objectively provides a false-positive.

    I’ve got a dozen Win2012 R2 servers who report they “need” 2 lang pack updates.  They don’t need them.  They have them.  WSUS is reporting a False-positve.

    Admittedly, before this issue I didn’t know anything about language packs.  I’ve never ran into a language pack issue.  A home system doesn’t complain it “needs” a language pack update, because it doesn’t.  However WSUS complains a system “needs” an update when it doesn’t.  That’s confusing.

    Yes, I get it, the WSUS server is a “patch repository” and not necessarily a measure of patch compliance across your environment… but guess what?  …People use WSUS to ensure patch compliance across their environment.

    This stupid WSUS product is reporting I don’t have patches on systems.  It says I need 2 English language packs on every Win2012R2 server.  Upon seeing that I have to conclude something is wrong.  I have to conclude that I have failed to properly patch, and that I must have a WSUS misconfiguration.  So I need to research what’s broke to figure out why my servers wont patch.  So I read.  And finally find all your smart-alleck remarks which confuse everyone because you simply won’t admit up-front that this WSUS product is reporting a false-positive. Simple as that.

    One liner.  WSUS says Lang Packs are needed patches on computers even though they are already installed.  
    It’s a False-positive for patching deficiency.

    Lawrence, you are really knowledgeable on WSUS, and your other response have very much helped me, but you may want to consider that everyone is naturally approaching the WSUS product from a particular perspective, specifically patching compliance, and no amount of snark will change the endless flow of new folks like myself that are totally baffled by your refusal to admit the WSUS product doesn’t behave like a reasonable person would expect.  

    Just admit that up front so we can all adjust our thinking/expectations.  It would have saved me a lot of worthless reading. 

    Tuesday, May 17, 2016 6:56 PM
  • Lawrence Garvin passed away on February 8 2015. R.I.P.

    LAWRENCE GARVIN- SO LONG, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH


    Rolf Lidvall, Swedish Radio (Ltd)

    Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:40 PM
  • Hello All,

    to get the issue resolved follow These steps hope it helps.

    1. on WSUS sarch for the update f.e. KB2607607 and set it to "not approved"

    2. open Powershell type "get-wsusupdate" look that the KB ist listed. (Classification Update)

    3. get-WsusUpdate | Where {$_.update.title -ilike "*KB2607607*"} | Deny-WsusUpdate

    4. let WSUS Cleanup Assistent run.

    5. make sure that no Auto approve will approve Language Packs

    I think the "needed" will only show up when WSUS has tha KB Package in ist lokal Patchrepository.

    regards Dennis


    • Edited by d.termeer Monday, August 29, 2016 2:05 PM
    Monday, August 29, 2016 2:04 PM

  • - LPs that "cannot be installed" (such as en-US LP on en-US system) are still reported as Needed. Been repeated many times on this thread, once again to be ignored by these "there is no bug" guys.

    I can't believe I had to deal with this today on updates for a Server 2012 machine :p  Luckily I don't use any language packs (and I don't have them selected in the products either!) so I could just decline it.  But this is definitely borked compared to the way every other update works in WSUS.  
    Thursday, September 8, 2016 1:10 AM
  • The Way to Automate this in powershell for English Lang : 

    get-WsusUpdate | Where {$_.update.title -ilike "*Lang*" -and $_.update.title -notlike "*en-*"} | Deny-WsusUpdate

    Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:42 PM