JRowley

Weird, it works fine here, I have SCCM deploy it during the installation. We don't use roaming profiles to be clear.

I'm sure it is, that doesn't mean Microsoft decided to make it official or public however, the wording off it shows that it's not intended to be public yet in my view.

The OSX model is a good example of this.

The supplier appears to have received and sent on an internal notice by the looks of things, it probably wont be made public or official until that date and time.

It does work in the same way but you probably need to extra a new xml file from a windows 10 pc to get it working. It also depends on the type of profile you are using, local profiles seem to work fine, roaming has mixed results to say the least.

Alarms has a timer and a stopwatch feature in it, so would be useful for staff.

I used the PowerShell commands to achieve this on a test machine, it works really well.

It's not exactly annoying, but there's very little manageability associated with it as it doesn't integrate with either the sharepoint or exchange side of O365. So you can't for example allow only a select group of people access to Yammar, it's all or nothing. Unless you use the workaround of bulk creating user accounts and suspending those you don't want access, but that's extremely rigid or perhaps Dir Sync, but given we use ADFS that's not something we particularly want to use.

Sadly there is no way of getting rid of it, extremely frustrating for those of us who want nothing to do with it.

This is obviously the case.

Unifi here, 21APs (looking to increase to 30/35 in the near future), it's more than suitable for our needs really and does everything we could possibly need.

For racial discrimination of all things.

We have it set up like this: Home Drives --- Year 7 ------- ExampleUser1 -------------- Downloads ------- ExampleUser2 -------------- Downloads ExampleUser1 is shared and mapped to H, Documents is redirect to H, within ExamplerUser1 is a folder for Downloads, so Chrome saves downloads in H:\Downloads. I'll note we don't do roaming profiles so that makes things less complicated in that regard, the share is purely for data storage. I think that solution is the most suitable in your case (unless you move Downloads into Documents), it's a bit hacky but unless Chrome change things back there isn't much else you can do.

Same as the above, the OP however seems to have Downloads and Documents side by side in a root folder, and maps H to Documents, Downloads is accessed via a UNC path rather than a drive mapping. Honestly the best bet would be to map Downloads to hidden mapped drive, functionality wouldn't really change, then change Chrome to save to that mapped drive instead.

We map to a root folder and then have a subfolder for Downloads, Documents maps to the root so in effect Downloads appears in their Documents folder. Honestly, I doubt it's a bug. Google have been making a lot of design changes to Chrome lately, this is probably just another one of those. So it's not really about a fix/workaround sadly, they are the same in this case, you need a solution.

Education here probably, that's what we are working with currently. You can delay feature updates by up to a year so there's no concerns about things breaking in my mind. At the end of the day they are going to be adding new features, not fundamentally changing the OS.

I don't have roaming/mandatory profiles set up but apparently this can be caused by the "delete cached roaming profiles" option being enabled.

Well.... they did showcase it at the education show they did in reading, so it's clearly they see it in classrooms, it will be costly though, almost certainly.

Sorry perhaps what I said wasn't clear, we aren't on a knife edge for bandwidth by any means, but I wouldn't be comfortable moving because the bandwidth demands would almost certainly go up. You said yourself you peak at 120Mbps with a consistent 75-95Mbps, that's quite a wide range so obviously we need to cover a similar range and to do that would mean a bigger line. Also I said we would need to bring a second line up to the same speed for redundancy, we already have a second line but it doesn't match our current line because we don't have online storage. We have a need to keep the school running on the rare occasions that our main line goes down, not provide access to every single file available on our cloud storage. Also, I'm not sure why what I'm saying sounds like we are on a knife edge in terms of budgeting, to do what you are suggesting is costly, that's not to say it's unaffordable. It would be a completely different way of doing things, and for what benefits that would justify that cost and change? That's what it comes down to, value for money, and currently cloud storage solutions with two expensive dedicated lines does not offer value for money vs onsite storage, not around here anyway.

Sorry yes, I just reread your post and noticed it wasn't a comparison, still only on my second cup of coffee! Still, I don't really think it's an overestimation, for us we would need to increase the speed of our line at additional cost, and bring a second line up to the same speed for redundancy, more additional cost. While as you say a fraction of the overall value of the IT in the school, it's a large increase to our rolling budget and brings about no cost saving vs what we are doing currently. It certainly has advantages, but none that I can think of outweigh the cost at this stage, maybe in a few years when the cost of high bandwidth lines has come down, but not before then. Perhaps in some areas it's already cheap enough, but not where we are.

Now you are mixing up the discussion, you can get cheap desktops and laptops which aren't online only, so really comparing 20k/year for online file storage vs half a million for 1500 computers isn't fair or relevant. It's fairer to compare 20k/year vs the cost of running and maintaining file servers internally. What clients access it shouldn't impact that cost.

The problem however is not how much bandwidth it takes, but the cost of that bandwidth when compared to housing the data internally.

Some good changes, I'm disappointed that you still can't set your physical location manually, mine is auto detected as being in Crewe, I live like 20 miles from Crewe.

This is pretty much as perfect a loop as you will find, great job by whoever made it.

Big ol' tower!