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

Nicke

My feedback

  1. 14 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 » Content  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  2. 1,542 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    27 comments  ·  Ideas » Admin Console  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  3. 11 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Ideas » Content  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke shared this idea  · 
  4. 921 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  18 comments  ·  Ideas » Operating System Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  5. 24 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 » Operating System Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Noted  ·  sangeev responded

    Thanks for the feedback. We have made some improvements to the task sequence monitoring – adding columns for Exit Code and Action Output to the status view.

    We’ve more work to do replacing use of Generic E_FAIL with more meaningful error codes.

    Updated by bobmn for sangeev/OSD

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Nicke commented  · 

    Spit out the packageid or even better - the friendly name when a content chevk fails...

    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  6. 362 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  14 comments  ·  Ideas » Compliance Settings  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  7. 150 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  5 comments  ·  Ideas » Setup and Server Infrastructure  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  8. 40 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 » Application Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
    Nicke shared this idea  · 
  9. 27 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

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

    Forgot to mention:
    Main concern with using the PATCH-property today is that the recommended method is either to perform a pre-copy operation to local disk or referencing a UNC-path.
    With the pre-copy you obviously need the usage of additional patch files and the copy might not be as effecient as using the download from a local DP (again - copying from a UNC-path) and using the reference to a file-share might not be as effecient as using the download from a local DP.
    And since the UNC-path might be in a high-latency / low-bandwidth scenario (VPN through a coffee-shop, the remote office which has no local infrastructure etc etc) a triggered repair would of course try to use this remote patch-file. In such a scenario this is a very common failure:
    MSI: Action 1:44:18: InstallFiles. Copying new files ccmsetup 2015-08-02 01:44:18 8560 (0x2170)
    MSI: Internal Error 2902. ixfAssemblyCopy ccmsetup 2015-08-02 01:44:20 8560 (0x2170)
    MSI: Action 1:44:21: Rollback. Rolling back action: ccmsetup 2015-08-02 01:44:21 8560 (0x2170)

    Nicke shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base