InstantForum.NET v4.1.3New Boundary Support Forumhttp://www.nbtnet.newboundary.com/forum/support@newboundary.comTue, 09 Mar 2010 17:08:34 GMT20http://www.nbtnet.newboundary.com/forum/Topic1779-12-1.aspxStarting from the top:</P><P>1) It would be nice if, when installing the PPM client manually, the installation program gave feed back about whether or not it managed to connect to the server and if not possible answers of why.</P><P>2) A way from the 'Devices' tab to select a few systems, click deploy, and have the option to automatically select only the enabled/required patches for those boxes without having to go through the list.</P><P>3) A setting that allows a box to be seen as active but prevents any patches from being pushed out to it. That way a box can still be seen and monitored regularly, but there is no risk of updating it.</P><P>4) An aging status: color coded pc icons that reflect how long it has been offline. It would be nice to have these times user configurable. That way at a glance you can see systems that might be having a problem.</P><P>5) The ability to define network locations of installs that need the original installation media to complete their update. For example, When installing an Office 2000 Professional update they sometimes require the original installation files, these may be located on a networked drive. If PM new where it was it could auto complete the request and the patch could continue without user interaction. Something that would be useful when systems are spread out or you have a large number of them to patch.</P><P>6) Ability to select only those OS's that you have so you can still select a vulnerability to patch for, but the system won't download patch files that you don't require. (ex., We have W2k and XP systems, but not NT,98,ME,Vista,x64 systems why should the patches be downloaded? It just eats up bandwidth and server space.)</P><P>I think that covers what I've come up with so far.Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:45:20 GMTebruskyhttp://www.nbtnet.newboundary.com/forum/Topic1412-12-1.aspxSince the Patch Manager does not indicate new patches need to be install unless a query is performed, and the process of querying all the computers on the network is very time consuming. Also a second query is necessary to confirm that the patches have installed. A big improvement would be to be able to schedule system queries to run at later times. I have been running the patch manager since August and have found that at most 5 computers can be handled at one time and when managing 200 + systems any thing that can be done to shorten the process is a huge benefit.Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:20:58 GMTConstance