Michael

My feedback

  1. 630 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    45 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Agent  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    under review  ·  Ken Galvin responded

    Thank you for your input. Offering both 32 and 64 bit clients would double our Windows agent QA testing time and we are sensitive to the impact of extending test times as it impacts our ability to release full-featured updates at our desired pace. A surprisingly large amount of our customers still need 32bit support today. We are going to continue monitoring this closely to determine the best time to drop 32 bit support (of course older versions of the agent would still be available once we moved to 64 bit). In the meantime, it would be helpful to know specifically what difficulties a 32bit client is causing so we might consider work-arounds in parallel with the 64bit only decision.

    Michael commented  · 

    I also have to say that the 32Bit client OS area is gone. All machines we install since years are 64bit machines..really rarely 32bit for special environments like R&D or quality control.So 95% of all systems are running 64Bit, why we still need to suffer with a 32bit client as a default. should be wise versa. I would like to have full 64bit support and I can also accept a functionality reduced 32bit client version.

    Michael supported this idea  · 
    Michael commented  · 

    Don´t forget to implement natove IPV6 support.. its already a shame to not have 64Bit nor IPV6 support.. we have 2017!!!!

  2. 41 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » Patch Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
  3. 53 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Patch Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    under review  ·  Ken Galvin responded

    Thank you for your input. This is under review and will be prioritized higher as more votes accumulate – so, we encourage you to vote if this interests you.

    Michael supported this idea  · 
  4. 821 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    17 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Patch Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
  5. 106 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    6 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
  6. 370 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    22 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    under review  ·  Dean Wade responded

    Over the coming releases, we will be revamping our targeting and scheduling pages. This a great example of where we will extend your ability to control what you are targeting and when it should be delivered.

    Michael commented  · 

    Am I misunderstanding or can´t you add "labelname" -> "!=" -> "YourLabelYouWantToExclude"

    I´m using that and it does what we need. A more usefull feature would be to exclude a label in general for everything without a need to exclude it in every single smartlabel. For example We would like to exclude "lab long time testing machines" from any software patching cycle, but we still need the inventory data, thats not doable except add the exclusion in every single fu.. smart label. Sometimes I wish we could have back a few of the SCCM features.

  7. 456 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    18 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Patch Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
  8. 616 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  14 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Software Compliance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
  9. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » New Features  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael shared this idea  · 
  10. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » New Features  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael shared this idea  · 
  11. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » New Features  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael shared this idea  · 
  12. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » Feature Enhancements  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael shared this idea  · 
  13. 11 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SDA (K2000) » New Features  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    under review  ·  Alex Au Yeung responded

    We’re looking into extending the linking and integration abilities between a K1 and K2 and this would be one of the features we’d implement when that time comes.

    Michael supported this idea  · 
  14. 260 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    started  ·  13 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » Feature Enhancements  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
  15. 10 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SDA (K2000) » Feature Enhancements  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
  16. 138 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    10 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » New Features  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    planned  ·  RogerL responded

    We have some new features planned that include parts of this suggestion. Stay tuned!

    Michael supported this idea  · 
  17. 2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael supported this idea  · 
    Michael commented  · 

    I agree this is completely horsesh.. and we haev 2017 now and its still the same..grrrrr

Feedback and Knowledge Base