Microsoft

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager Feedback

Suggestion box powered by UserVoice - Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more

bdam

My feedback

  1. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Collections  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    As far as I'm aware, there's no dependency on the endpoint being an actual server OS let alone one in a cluster. You can treat any device as if it was a group or cluster. Unfortunately, the feature is just straight-up broken.

  2. 485 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  24 comments  ·  Ideas » Client Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    Hmm, interesting points brought up below. If this is done during a MW that might interfere with ongoing updates/installations. So maybe we need another MW type or an option to only update a client outside of a MW? Or just internal logic that verifies that none of those activities are going on before initiating the update (maybe that's already a thing?)

  3. 55 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Ideas » Software Center  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    This applies to package deployments (advertisements) as well. Log the other user out and the package deployment shows up.

  4. 11 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Operating System Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    This is already possibly using Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (DaRT).

  5. 1,988 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    35 comments  ·  Ideas » Tools  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    As Tony Peters calls out, the 'Show Collections - Advanced' is basically a killer feature. No ConfigMgr admin should be without it.

    Beyond that, I would love to see some content routines. For example: redistribute content to failed DPs for either a specific piece of content or globally.

  6. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Client Settings  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    I think this would need to be a client settings. I know that more than a few organizations intentionally leave this enabled so that users can directly scan and updated against Windows Updates. One of the more rational reasons is to allow security to be at the bleeding edge and to manage themselves that way yet still managing to make sure updates are applied and reported.

  7. 1,045 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    43 comments  ·  Ideas » Application Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    Not quite sure TP ability lines up with this UV item. The UV is asking to uninstall when no longer targeted by a deployment. The TP uninstalled when an approval is denied/revoked. Those strike me as totally separate.

  8. 54 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  Ideas » Deployment Monitoring  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
  9. 320 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    14 comments  ·  Ideas » Compliance Settings  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    Related, allow remediation if and only if a key/value exists. I'm using a CI to configure Office Channel because we see clients where the GPO doesn't seem to work. In this use case I just want to make sure the value is set to a particular string if it exists. I don't want it creating that value where Office 365 isn't installed nor do I want it to install Office 365 where it's not installed.

  10. 95 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Ideas » Tools  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    bdam shared this idea  · 
  11. 39 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Ideas » Client Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    Yes please, doubly so on servers that just don't reboot for weeks at a time by their very design. The agent will have the lights on (service shows running) but clearly no one's home (no log action, none of the scheduled actions kick off).

  12. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 
  13. 480 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    46 comments  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    FWIW, you can achieve the same result using maintenance windows. Create a non-repeating MW that occurs in the past and apply it to the servers you wish to manually patch. Deploy updates to them and watch them never install until someone manually does so.

  14. 15 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  3 comments  ·  Ideas » Application Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    Yes please! It just seems incongruent with the app model to just pick the first deployment type.

    bdam supported this idea  · 
  15. 2 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  2 comments  ·  Ideas » PowerShell  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    One other addition. It would appear that while you can set the software update deployment package when you create an ADR with New-CMSoftwareUpdateAutoDeploymentRule you don't get it as a property when you use Get-CMSoftwareUpdateAutoDeploymentRule (the package ID is buried in the ContentTemplate) nor can you change it with Set-CMSoftwareUpdateAutoDeploymentRule.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    Hmm, so just tonight I found that Set-CMSoftwareUpdateGroup seemingly got updated with some undocumented switches that look mighty interesting: ClearExpiredSoftwareUpdate, ClearSoftwareUpdate, ClearSupersededSoftwareUpdate. If those do what I hope they do that's great. Since there's no documentation I can't tell but if ClearSupersededSoftwareUpdate removes superseded updates it would be great if that was either configurable to only clear/remove updates older than X months. Bonus points for defaulting to whatever is configured for the software update component.

    bdam shared this idea  · 
  16. 25 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    What's odd to me is that the software updates nodes allow you to select 'Content Size (KB)' but that data isn't populated.

  17. 11 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Ideas » Reporting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    bdam shared this idea  · 
  18. 73 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Content  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    bdam commented  · 

    This can also be caused by A/V that has the files locked. In such cases it would be ideal that SCCM retries the hash attempt a few times with a small delay.

2 Next →

Feedback and Knowledge Base