none
User based Virtual Application distribution

    Question

  • Hi,

    We are distributing App-V sequenced packages towards our users, based on group memberships in AD. For this purpose collection are have been made with user memberships. Within the virtual application packages (sequenced) the shortcuts are placed in the start menu of the user for that is the one granted the software (not "all users").

    At first distribution (logon or new application) this method works as planned; there is a mandatory assignment which triggers the install for the user and the application is installed and the shortcut is placed in the startmenu. When now this user logs off and a different user logs on with the same group membership on the same machine, the shortcut is not there (obviously) and the application install is not triggered as the mandatory execution of the package has been run for this perticular computer already.

    My questions are:
    Is this behaviour by design, or did I misunderstand "user based virtual application distribution"? How can I trigger an install of this virtual package per user, placing the shortcut in the start menu of all seperate users of the machine? Is there a better "best practise" for user based virtual application distribution through SCCM?.

    Cheers,

    Trumpeteer
    Monday, January 18, 2010 3:59 PM

Answers

  • Hi

    Sorry, long day but I'd like to help.
    When you say "mandatory assignment" ...is it set to run "as soon as possible"  or at "logon" ?
    I'm using "as soon as possible" for user-based APP-V and it runs for every member of the AD user group.

    Also are you running ConfigMgr SP1/R2 or SP2/R2 ?
    Reason I'm asking is becuase MS removed the 2 minute USER policy update delay which makes APP-V much faster :)

    Our computer-based and User-based APP-V applications are sequenced the same way.

    Let me know
    G-Man8
    Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:05 PM

All replies

  • Hi,

    App V applications does not have a program. Did you target the deployment to a collection containing a security group/users or computer objects?
    Kent Agerlund | http://scug.dk/members/Agerlund/default.aspx | The Danish community for System Center products
    Monday, January 18, 2010 4:31 PM
    Moderator
  • I know App-V applications do not have a program. Nevertheless when there is an mandatory advertisement the application gets "installed" when you choose the  "download and install" option. This will make the application available offline immediately, and that is what we aim for.

    We target the deployment to a collection containing users objects. It is a dynamic collection based on a groupmembership query.

    Trumpeteer
    Monday, January 18, 2010 6:05 PM
  • Kent was replying to me about the program not you - I deleted my "oops" post :-)

    How often do your discovery and collection evaluation run?

    Monday, January 18, 2010 9:30 PM
    Moderator
  • Every 4 hours. I think I'm guessing where you are going, but the second user logging on allready is member of the group and member of the collection when he logs on. IMO the application distribution is not triggered a second time as the SCCM client has reporting a succesfull install previously.

    Am I wrong?

    Trumpeteer
    Monday, January 18, 2010 10:53 PM
  • Hi

    Sorry, long day but I'd like to help.
    When you say "mandatory assignment" ...is it set to run "as soon as possible"  or at "logon" ?
    I'm using "as soon as possible" for user-based APP-V and it runs for every member of the AD user group.

    Also are you running ConfigMgr SP1/R2 or SP2/R2 ?
    Reason I'm asking is becuase MS removed the 2 minute USER policy update delay which makes APP-V much faster :)

    Our computer-based and User-based APP-V applications are sequenced the same way.

    Let me know
    G-Man8
    Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:05 PM
  • Trumpeteer - I'm going to mark G-Man8's response as the answer. If the 2nd user is logging on within 2m of the first user logging off, and if you are not running SP2 then this is a known issue that is fixed in SP2.

    Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:47 PM
    Moderator