interslice

I understand the need for administrative access to the service etc. - this would mean tailoring the security policy for the OU that the InVentry devices are a part of - not an issue unless you are planning to get-rid of local AD etc. As you have noted with your previous post, we are committed to being serverless (eventually), so this is at odds with our roadmap, so ultimately, looks like this isn't the solution for us.

Just to add our experience with this: We used to run 2x Server 2019 DCs. In July, I spun up a Server 2025 DC - promotion went fine and all looked good initially however, dcdiag wouldn't pass the DNS server tests at all (basic tests failing). Whilst replication was fine (repadmin tests) and even the DNS side of things looked fine (records etc. matched the others), dcdiag wouldn't pass these tests - this seems to be something to do with DNS cache and how the process runs on the different OSs (WIN32_OWN_PROCESS, expected value WIN32_SHARE_PROCESS was the repeated error) > something to do with how svchost works in Server 2025 to increase stability. In the end, I demoted and removed the Server 2025 DC and we went to Server 2022 for both instead. We have very little need for a domain and are close to serverless (some finance/file share requirements still, but hopefully finance will move to a cloud-first solution soon!). We'll maybe try again with Server 2025 next summer!

@paulkerton Exactly - lots of their methods seem half-baked at best - especially their backup suggestion when I said we weren't happy about potentially having to provision local storage/SMB shares for the screen DB backups! Their idea was to have screen 1 back up it's data to screen 2 and vice-versa (when I chuckled at the USB stick idea!!!) - amazing considering the file sharing limitations of a client OS!

Thank you everybody for your replies and insights so far. I have had a look at Sign In App and it seems just what we are after - it has the majority of the featureset of InVentry (no digital lock/Paxton integration - we don't use these systems anyway!) and is cloud-first! We'll get a demo booked

Thanks @psydii - the idea was that if we are paying for maintenance etc, surely basic security and backup should be handled by them - ideally configure, set and forget? Their network config document states: Remote access is via Teamviewer - and they require unattended access which is still an issue for me - apparently, I am in the minority here and most schools have no issue with this? And yes, we are nearly serverless (lingering file share/finance server) so didn't want to be heading back that way.

We are looking to deploy a sign-in system and the first name that came to mind was InVentry after seeing their flashy displays at BETT etc. Having gone through the sales call and getting to the stage where we are about to pull the trigger, I've been presented with their network configuration/technical requirements and I am concerned to say the least! I'm wondering whether anyone else has had these concerns and discussions lately and whether an alternative provider was sought as a result. I've seen the "Inventry Had its day" thread and am not reassured in the slightest; so am after some feedback or suggestions for an alternative platform. My concerns: InVentry isn't a proper cloud-only/cloud-first solution - it is simply a Windows 11 PC running running their app. We were told that we have to supply our own antivirus and back the system up to an on-site share. Given we are very close to serverless (one finance Sage DB file share left), the last thing we want is to be dropping back to exposing SMB shares for InVentry! When we queried this (we plan to purchase multiple screens as we have a nursery building that is physically separate from the main primary), we were told they could get the screens to back up to one-another - this seems an awful way of doing things! They also suggested plugging a USB stick into each screen to back up to - which doesn't sit right with me!! InVentry don't monitor their supplied hardware - no RMM is used and TeamViewer or LogMeIn are used for remote access and support if needed - again this seems like an awful way of doing things. As an LGfL school, we'll have to consent to 3rd party remote access tools etc. - all do-able, but surprising that this is needed! Am I overreacting here or is this a completely crazy way of "supporting" their hardware? It also seems we will have no admin access to the hardware. InVentry don't supply any endpoint protection solution or monitor their hardware for vulnerabilities - building on the last point; they have said that their solution will come with the free Windows Defender antivirus; but be unmonitored by them - again surely this is a bit of a cop out. We are effectively (if we go ahead) ending up with hardware that is unmonitored, potentially unpatched and that we have no admin access to! Has anyone else run into these issues and what was the outcome. Am I overreacting here? Their call to clarify these issues didn't really present any proper solutions to mitigate my concerns and we were told that practically no other schools have issues with the way they do things! Thanks in advance!

Hi, Does anyone use the SMART OPC Module (specifically the PCM8-i5) with their SMART boards/panels? If so, does this feature an integrated TPM? We are looking at these as a potential solution to reduce cable clutter; though we need to be able to easily enable BitLocker on them (I know this is possible without a TPM, but we don't want to go down this route). Edit: The spec sheet doesn't mention a TPM and customer services only have access to this. It may be one of those "features that is obviously there so is not listed" type items! Thanks

The option to publish only creates an XML for the product drivers installer. With the SLS installer, a transform file is created as expected.

That's unfortunate - I will raise a case with SMART support and see if they can assist (though I'm doubtful!) Thanks for your confirmation!

Thanks for that - we are trying to install 12.13 without Ink and SPU (as these aren't used); but having difficulty with the installer recognising the parameters passed to it (or an adminfile created using the SMART Install Manager). Do you know if it is possible to get/create a *.msi file for the drivers?

Spoke too soon! The INSTALL_INK=0 is ignored - SMART Ink was installed anyway!

Interestingly, smartdrivers.exe /qb INSTALL_BOARD=1 INSTALL_INK=0 works - I will try this with the rest of my options set... I would definitely prefer an *.msi to the above though - a transform keeps things simpler than a mess of parameters!

Hi, How are we deploying SMART Product Drivers 12.13? I have downloaded the installer from the SMART website and used the Install Manager to create an XML file, however, the installer ignores the "--adminfile [xml_File]" switch (installer doesn't launch) - I have tried: Running the installer from the deployment share with the applicable switches --and-- Writing a script to copy the installer and config file to c:\temp before executing: "c:\temp\smartdrivers.exe /qb --adminfile config.xml" "c:\temp\smartdrivers.exe /qb --adminfile c:\temp\config.xml" "c:\temp\smartdrivers.exe /qb --adminfile .\config.xml" I have tried without specifying "/qb" too! I have tried extracting the contents of the *.exe file to get an *.msi, however, there is no *.msi file in here... There used to be an *.msi file for product driver installation - is this no longer the case? Thanks!

Quite possibly - I have just hooked up an old Android tablet and tried to pull from mail via the built in email application - same issue, so looks like IMAP and SMTP access are definitely being blocked.

Strange! I will raise a case with LGfL and ask them what is going on/whether they have predefined rules for this (or whether they can tell me what other schools have used!). Thanks!