*Advice* SCCM 2012

[Guest]

I'm wanting some advice guys.

 

Currently setting up a deployment share / server for our school so that i am able to deploy O/S and Applications centrally from my deployment server.

in the past I just installed all applications and updates into an image file and deployed that through out school using WDS. as you know this isn't manageable /scalable as well as the image being huge!

 

now want to move away from this and keep everything separate so its more manageable.

 

My main goal here is to deploy software around school after the O/S deployment

Currently using WDS (as mentioned) and MDT 2013 (only just started using this)

most of out software is in exe format, some allow quiet switches and some don't want to know any switches!

I have enquired about a software deployment tool that will install the software after the O/S deployment, and have been advised on SCCM 2012

 

I have no experience on SCCM and have had a look on a few YouTube videos and looks mind blowing.

 

any advice. am I looking in the right area. would SCCM do the job for me?

 

I want to get this right.

 

Thanks

[Ralph1337]

ZAP POW POW! .ZAP - Not a long term solution like SCCM, but it can be sufficient for one or 2 applications missing from a specific image.

[Norphy]

MDT on its own will allow you to deploy an image and run some post-installation tasks in a task sequence on that image. You can use a fat image like you are at the moment, use a thin image like you're talking about or take a hybrid approach like I do where big packages like Office and Adobe CC are in the image and smaller parts are pushed out afterwards. MDT will do that for you.

 

SCCM however can do a whole lot more. It can do everything MDT can do for OSD. You can integrate MDT into it if you want to. You can use it to install software outside of the OSD sequence. You can use it to inventory your machines, to configure them using Desired Configuration Management, to manage Windows and Office updates, to manage updates for other packages such as Flash by integrating SCUP into it, to manage antivirus using SCEP and more besides. It is an incredibly complex and thorough product and it's worth doing some formal training on it if you can persuade your management to stump up for it.

 

Don't go into the project thinking it will be easy, take your time with it and it will be one of the most useful products you have ever used.

[Oaktech]

SCCM will, under protest, deploy EXE files, so it will probably do what you want it to do...

 

https://sccmentor.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/deploying-exe-files-via-sccm-2012/

[Guest]

@Norphy thank you for your advice! it does look a little bit daunting from what i can see on a few YouTube videos. think I may just implement it any ways as I can see the inventory system and update system will become of use for my network.

may just find a application wrapper for my troublesome exe's

 

any heads up on a decent wrapper in this case?

[Norphy]

Seriously, get training. It's worth it. Youtube videos and the guide on Windows Noob are all very good but for something like SCCM, the classroom based approach is worth the time.

[pirran]

Yep, I couldn't imagine things without SCCM. My advice would be to get training, but also to try and get someone more experienced to carry out the installation and run through some basics on site. Perhaps try and get a support company in just to do the install.

Not only does the installation and it's prerequisites take some time, it's important to get it right. Also if you're on SWGFL or equivalent you might have some problems auto-downloading the prerequisites during installation.

[Leeoakley]

If you are going to get some training make sure you use the grant that's available at the moment. You should be able to get a full 5 day SCCM Config course for about £500.

[pantscat]

What grant is this? Sounds intriguing...

[sonofsanta]

SCCM will, under protest, deploy EXE files, so it will probably do what you want it to do...

 

https://sccmentor.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/deploying-exe-files-via-sccm-2012/

 

I wouldn't say it protests - Packages exists entirely to deploy them - it's just not as elegant as MSIs through the Applications mechanism. EXEs-with-SCCM is infinitely better than EXEs-with-AD-only.

[Leeoakley]

The government released a pot of money (12 million) to subsidise training for IT Technical skills in England.

 

So in the case above (and I can only go on what we would charge for training) - A 5 day SCCM course (Schools Price £1000 + Vat), could be applied for and the school would receive £500 back on completion of the training.

 

I know its sounds like a "you cant get something for nothing" scenario, but if you search my posts you will see a few edugeekers that have applied for it successfully.

 

The other good thing, unlike a lot of grants I have seen, is that you aren't limited to one application. This lets you apply for multiple courses across multiple technicians at the school and each course will get part matched funding.

 

You apply prior to delivery so you know you have the grant before booking the courses.

 

If you want me to send you over the link to the grant just drop me a PM.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Leeoakley

[Norphy]

I wouldn't say it protests - Packages exists entirely to deploy them - it's just not as elegant as MSIs through the Applications mechanism. EXEs-with-SCCM is infinitely better than EXEs-with-AD-only.

 

You don't need to use packages to deploy EXEs, the mechanism exists inside Applications as well by using a custom script installer. You have to work a bit harder with detection rules but it's all there. Like you though, I wouldn't say that it's "under protest" either.

[Oaktech]

I wouldn't say it protests - Packages exists entirely to deploy them - it's just not as elegant as MSIs through the Applications mechanism. EXEs-with-SCCM is infinitely better than EXEs-with-AD-only.

 

 

I only say 'protest', because if you run through the wizard and create an EXE based package that works, it still says type of deployment: MSI. It's as if the fact it's actually an EXE is a bit of a dirty little secret.