I have not done an Office 2013 deployment yet, and it sounds like you already tried doing the uninstall of 2010 as part of the 2013 install; however, in the past, I use OCT to customize my Office install and set the behavior to uninstall previous Office versions. Can you do the uninstall that way in your environment?
Jeff On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Gerlak, Matthew < matthew.ger...@graftech.com> wrote: > Ok let me clarify my question. As I was being a little sarcastic as I > really didn’t think it would but wanted to check. > So in my case I am doing an office 2013 pro plus upgrade from Office 2010 > Pro plus targeting machines not users. I did not install office 2010 with > this sccm install was mostly done with sccm 2007. > So I just figured out if I run the setup /config path/config.xml > /uninstall from my office 2010 install it removes office fully. > So what I want to do is Advertise office 2013 to a collection and add > machines to that collection to upgrade office. > My main question has to do with uninstall of office 2010 if I have office > 2010 setup as a new application model and I configure the uninstall option. > If I add office 2010 to office 2013 as office 2013 supersedes it and > uninstall is checked. > Will it only uninstall office 2010 from the systems I add to my deployment > collection during deployment. Or will it go out and remove it from all > systems that have office 2010 installed. Knowing I only deploy to > computers right now have not started users. > Also is this the best way to deploy office 2013. The office 2013 upgrade > doesn’t remove all of office 2010 like previous installs did > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Kim Oppalfens > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:34 PM > To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question > > Todd, I am trying to follow what you're saying here, but it's a bit hard. > I am guessing that in your mail below when you're saying simulated you > mean available? > > -----Original Message----- > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:14 PM > To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question > > So when a computer receives the policy for old app, and the the user > receives it for the new app, you don't have supersedence > > sure you do provided the superseded app is deployed simulate and not > mandatory OR if the detection rule on the older version says "this version > or greater" > In either case it will deploy the newer app, but if the older version is > mandatory, it will then remove the newer version and install the older > version (if the install supports it) It will go into a loop. Seen that a > few times. > > We strictly deploy applications to EITHER users OR computers, but never > the same app to both. > > If you deploy an app to a user and deploy the superseded version to the > system as simulated then the app will upgrade. > > All of the scenarios I am listing out I have verified by forcing M$ to > answer the question resulting in them going into the lab and reproducing > the behavior. Only after they reproduce it do I add it to our polies and > procedures. > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Kim Oppalfens <kim.oppalf...@oscc.be> > wrote: > > I'll try to explain what I know in the simplest way possible. > > (although that is hard) > > > > Supersedence in itself only kicks in when a resource receives a policy > for both the old and the new app. > > (There's some exceptions here, that I'll leave out because I am trying > > the simple approach, but a user or computer needs to receive both.) So > when a computer receives the policy for old app, and the the user receives > it for the new app, you don't have supersedence. > > > > On the other hand, if you only receive the new app. Supersedence will > uninstall the old app when detected. Even when not installed by cm. > > I think Todd is referring to the option of making a mandatory deployment > to users that have the available app installed, which is yet another > special case. > > > > Supersedence is actually a breeze, it gets complicated when you > > involve uninstalls :-) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com > > [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marcum, John > > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 5:51 PM > > To: 'mssms@lists.myitforum.com' > > Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question > > > > That's just plain silly. Is this classified as a bug???? > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com > > [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell > > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:48 AM > > To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com > > Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question > > > > no. > > > > Bear in mind my deployments are to users optional as was intended. > > None of this applies if it is to system. Or some of it might apply, but > I do not do deployments to systems except our 60 core apps. > > The other 1,100 apps are user optional via the software center > > > > So for user deployments the policy comes down to the users. So for the > case of superseded apps SCCM only sends the policy down to a USER + > COMPUTER combination that it knows has the application. > > > > Interestingly enough it actually does send all supersedance rules to all > users, but those are discarded by the client and never processed. > > There is a different flag on the ones where it knows the user + computer > has the app. > > > > Yes, incredibly complicated. This is the result of a 4 month case with > MS. It is difficult to even explain to people. > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Marcum, John <jmar...@babc.com> wrote: > >> This part makes no sense to me. I'm not saying you are wrong but is > this "by design" because it sounds counter intuitive. " BUT only if CM12 > deployed it and "knows" it is installed." Shouldn't that be evaluated at > run time and not retrieved from some stored location? In other words if the > product code is present on the machine at run time it would be removed. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com > >> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:31 AM > >> To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com > >> Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question > >> > >> The question does not make sense to me. > >> > >> Options: > >> > >> Supersede an application: > >> This makes the older version no longer visible in the software center. > >> UNLESS you click the check box to make both version visible This will > >> make it to it removes the previous version before the new version > >> > >> When you do that without a deployment you have just removed the > >> application from the software center, nothing else > >> > >> Then you do a deployment. You can either select to upgrade previous > versions or not. If you select not to then when someone gets the app it > will remove the previous version If you select to do it then you can set a > deadline. > >> With a deadline CM12 will actively upgrade previous versions, BUT only > if CM12 deployed it and "knows" it is installed. > >> > >> If you want to make sure it "knows about" all installed previous > >> version regardless of who or what installed it you need to do a > >> simulated deployment if the SUPERCEDED application to all SYSTEMS > >> (not > >> users) > >> > >> If you do that make sure of the following: > >> The superseded version cannot have any dependencies The deployed > version cannot have and CHAINED dependencies. > >> > >> If either of the above 2 are true, it will force install on all systems > regardless of whether the previous version is installed or not. > >> > >> A bit complicated, read it a few times before asking questions :-) > >> > >> The bugs are filed or being reproduced and filed today. > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Matt Wilkinson <mwilkin...@lcb.ac.uk> > wrote: > >>> I’m curious about this too. Do you delete the existing deployment > >>> for the old application or just leave it? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Gerlak, Matthew [mailto:matthew.ger...@graftech.com] > >>> Sent: 29 April 2014 21:47 > >>> To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com > >>> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> SO if I add a supersedence to my Office 2013 package to remove > >>> Office > >>> 2010 package and click the uninstall check box. I just want to make > >>> sure I still need a deployment for the upgraded to happen. I want to > >>> make sure I don’t upgrade everyone’s office overnight > >>> > >>> Like SMS or SCCM would do that. J > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________________ > >>> _ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security > >>> System on behalf of Leeds College of Building. > >>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > >>> ____________________________________________________________________ > >>> _ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________________ > >>> _ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security > >>> System on behalf of Leeds College of Building. > >>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > >>> ____________________________________________________________________ > >>> _ > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be > protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to > this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be > protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to > this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be > protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to > this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be > protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to > this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. > > > > > > > > > > >
