Currently ,to install deployments, we need to depend on maintenance window . I would like to see option to install deployment (applications ,deployments,task sequence etc) when no user logged in (ignore maintenance window if it has any) for workstations .
There are lot of cases that, users will not be connected devices to network when the maintenance window is configured that delay the deployments. If we have this option enabled ,we can easily achieve deployments when user not logged in but device connected to network.

Please add a possibilty to filter Software Updates based on the Architecture. (32Bit or 64Bit)

Add the ability for DPs (presumably at remote locations) that have better connectivity to Windows Update) to download update [binaries] directly from Windows Update instead of through the normal content distribution process.

I would love to be able to push MSP's as an "application" but it only detects MSI's when going through the setup. It would be awesome to be able to use MSP's in the same manner as MSI's in the UI (detect presence of the MSP, etc.).

Any plan on adding Express installation files for Windows Server 2016 updates?

The UBR is also used to identify a machine is complaint to cumulative monthly patch or not.

Now that we have OS build (Buildext or UBR) info add to V_R_System via DDR, it would be great if the same UBR or OS Build is added to each update in V_Updateinfo table in SCCM Database
when the new updates released by Microsoft on MSPD, so that the win 10 compliance reporting would be much simpler.

In my company when sending updates we want to send personalized messages, that they are sending patches and it is from the company that we must restart. Example: The administration of _____ we have applied patches to restart your computer. Atte enterprise

Add conditions to Patches, such as certain processes not running, user not logged on, etc. Just like we've added for applications.

This is especially needed for certain 3rd-party updates. [cough] Adobe... [cough]

Software Updates Required View Status

Can we get an option to view status like in deployment status to view machines that are required and installed? We have no idea what does machines are.

Thanks.

That's 'fix' as in 'nail in the same place'. Who's forever getting frustrated at remembering where patch downloads get logged to depending on which user/process initiates the downloads? Can the Patchdownloader.log file not be always logged to the site server Logs folder? Not fussed if the solution has to create multiple log file, I would just like to know that I can go the the same place directly every time and there it is!

It will be good to allow options for users to select different timing for different days in the business hour setting Eg. 10am to 4pm on Monday, 12pm to 6pm on Tuesday, etc

We would like the capability to exclude a single patch from a specific computer. Right now, we have to exclude a server from all patches, manually patch it, or create a totally new deployment because a 3rd party vendor requires patch exclusions for their product to function. It would be a whole lot easier if there was a way to exclude a group of specific patches from singular systems or collections.

In a multi-administrator environment, it's often useful to check which user initiated the installation of the software updates.

Now all we have is: 'InstallUpdates Initiated by user'.
We don't really know which user initiated those updates.

It is about the topic, to deploy large software updates in the future (evergreen). Give each user a certain freedom, without losing complete control.

Here, we would like to give each user a defined timeframe for the update, rather than, define a fixed deadline for all in the beginning.

This would help to processing new windows channels in a higher frequency and to scale the rollout.

At 3 customer sites, someone has mistakenly entered in an incorrect path for a SUP package and overwritten the package source for other packages. For example, it's common practice to use \\server\share\<year>\<month> for package source. If I Package A uses \\server\share\<year>\<month>, and then a Package B is created and uses \\server\share\<year> as the package source, the <month> folder is overwritten and Package Source A has been corrupted. Might it be possible to prompt for "Are you SURE - this will overwrite the source for these packages:..." in such a scenario?

The lack of an "Installation Progress" indicator for most updates isn't an issue. But given the Feature Updates can take quite a while, it would be nice to have that progress percentage (perhaps just the "Mapped Global progress" form the setupact.log) displayed in Software Center.