Microsoft

System Center Configuration Manager Feedback

Suggestion box powered by UserVoice

Bryan Dam

My feedback

  1. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Ideas » Application Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam shared this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Ideas » Operating System Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam shared this idea  · 
  3. 22 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam commented  · 

    It occurred to me just now that while SUPs are the one I've seen most frequently (probably because nuke-n-pave is a popular option) this should probably apply to all boundary aware site roles. If clients will only use a newly created role based on boundary information then make that part of the configuration process so that admins do not neglect it.

    Bryan Dam shared this idea  · 
  4. 92 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Ideas » Client Settings  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam commented  · 

    I'd like to suggest the more generic case. Adam is proposing something specific here for Windows Setup. Fine and dandy but what if the bar was simply lowered for inventorying _any_ registry key/value? Eliminate the need for Reg2Mof or manual MOF changes in general.

    In the same way we can import a local or remote WMI class allow us to import a registry key/value.

  5. 52 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  6 comments  ·  Ideas » Setup and Server Infrastructure  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam commented  · 

    Let's take a step back here: why should we have to do this at all during an upgrade? If the docs say this needs to be done the why should we do it manually? Integrate this into the upgrade process and be done with it.

  6. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Admin Console  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam commented  · 

    FWIW, the product team has talked about it and it's beyond unlikely to happen. Enabling a feature does things in the console, database, ect that there is no undo button for. Which isn't to say it's not possible but very unlikely something engineering effort is going to be dedicated to.

  7. 78 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Ideas » Admin Console  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam supported this idea  · 
  8. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam shared this idea  · 
  9. 19 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Application Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Bryan Dam shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base