Hi Even i would like to join the session as even my client is planning to upgrade office 2010......
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Todd Hemsell<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 02-05-2014 20:28 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question let me ask if I can do a demo. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Troy Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Sent from my iPad > >> On May 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, "Matt Wilkinson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Ratliff [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 02 May 2014 13:58 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question >> >> +1. >> >> Daniel Ratliff >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Schwan, Phil >> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:15 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question >> >> Same here...I'd definitely be interested. >> >> -Phil >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Marcum, John >> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 8:02 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question >> >> I'd like to see this too. I'd setup a WebEx if you want to present this to a >> couple of us. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:41 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question >> >> Kim, Jason, and anyone else that is interested I would be glad to explain >> this in depth to you using visio diagrams and internal email threads, but >> only offline. I seem to be incapable of explaining this succinctly. I would >> be glad to explain to you so you guys could explain to others. >> I even have SQL queries you can run to find these issues in your database. >> >> if interested email me at todd-DOT-hemsell-AT-exterran-DOT-com >> >> /Todd >> >>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Todd Hemsell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 sure you do provided the superseded app is deployed simulate and not 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 5:51 PM >>>> To: '[email protected]' >>>> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question >>>> >>>> That's just plain silly. Is this classified as a bug???? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:48 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:31 AM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: 29 April 2014 21:47 >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> 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. >> >> ________________________________ >> >> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. This email and any files transmitted with it >> are privileged and confidential and intended solely for the use of the >> individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this >> email in error please notify the sender. If you are not the named addressee >> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or any of its >> attachments. >> >> >> >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive >> this material/information in error, please contact the sender and delete or >> destroy the material/information. >> >> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> > > ________________________________ > > > DISCLAIMER: This is a PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL message for the ordinary user > of this email address. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete > without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. > NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind 1E to any > order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or > government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. > > > >
