Peter van der Woude

Have a look here for some side-notes about Windows XP Embedded: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg682077.aspx#BKMK_SupConfigClientOS

Correct!

Nice! Not sure, yet, will let you know.

Not true... This solution of Niall directly queries the Active Directory group via LDAP, so it does nothing with (direct) collection membership. Also it should be noted that Niall is giving a lot of examples and ideas of how things COULD be done. While we're spamming ideas now anyway, in case someone wants to do this with Orchestrator and users, then have a look here: http://www.petervanderwoude.nl/post/new-and-improved-pre-provision-user-applications-during-os-deployment-via-orchestrator-and-configmgr-2012/

Why not using a deployment.properties file for configuring your JAVA deployment?

It at least has to be a WIM file. Why not edit an existing boot image (via DISM) and add the tools.

Thanks! I will put that on my to-do list

============================================================================================================================== To reach an even wider audience. This is what I posted on my blog this Saturday. ============================================================================================================================== Today I released a public version of my Approval Manager, which I mentioned a few weeks ago in my post about Managing Approval Request in ConfigMgr 2012. The biggest difference, and maybe even a contradiction with what I mentioned in that post, is that I did NOT use the PowerShell Cmdlets for ConfigMgr 2012 in this release. The main reason for that is that using WMI, via PowerShell, is much friendlier for remote usage. Approval Manager This public version gives the user the possibility to perform the following actions, without the need of access to and/ or a locally installed ConfigMgr console: Select a User from the specified Collection. Show only Approval Request, for the selected User, that are Pending Approval. Approve, the selected, Approval Request. Deny, the selected, Approval Request. Close the form. Security Role In case the user, that is going to use the Approval Manager, only needs to approve, or deny, Approval Request, I would suggest to create a new Security Role. As the user that uses the Approval Manager only needs to have the following rights: Application – Read; Approve. Collection – Read; Read Resource. Public Available As of today my Approval Manager is publicly available via the TechNet Galleries. Please let me know what you think of the tool.

Take a look here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/configmgrgeneral/thread/9aa0b0ff-059d-4b32-aa83-3867f1924b12/

With custom scripting it should be possible, but why would you want that? When you use the buildin functionality to deploy updates, you've got lot's of out-of-the-box reports that will give you exactly that information.

Why using that custom unattend? There is no information in it, that you can't specify in a task sequence step. It will probably also solve your computername issue.

It's not possible to say which drivers you exactly need. The reason for that is pretty simple, as it totally depends on the hardware you are using...

You can use a Configuration Item/ Baseline for that. I did a post about configuring a Global Condition to check for a service state and you could use that for a start, as the configuration is the same (http://www.petervanderwoude.nl/post/using-global-conditions-to-check-the-state-of-a-service-with-configmgr-2012/).

That time comes from the configured deadline for the software updates.

The new MBAM 2.0, which is part of MDOP 2013, contains an integration with ConfigMgr 2012. One of the things that gets installed are Configuration Baselines for Bitlocker.

Problem here is that a user doesn't have software installed.... a device has the software installed.... The only option might be to link it with the primary user of the device, or with the last logged on user.

I would start by looking at the client log files (for example, AppEnforce.log and execmgr.log).

Just deploy the Application/ Package to a collection with the computer object(s) in it.

Nope, it's also not about the computer being in the System Management container. What Niall was trying to say, is that you can remove the security permissions of the computer account from the System Management container. This way it just doesn't have any rights anymore to write information in that container.

When both of the DPs are protected with the same boundary, then yes, the client will prefer the DP with BITS enabled. The only thing you can (and maybe should) do, is cut the boundary in pieces, so you can separate the two DPs.

Are you able to connect to the admin$ of the machine?

You might want to take a look at your distmgr.log, because you Distribution Point is generating a lot of errors.

Take a look at the AppEnforce.log.

It will indeed start downloading, in the back, from the moment the client knows about the deployment.

Configure your SUP to synchronize every 4 hours and then create an ADR which reacts on every sync.