johnson

My feedback

  1. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  General Feedback » Bug  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson supported this idea  · 
  2. 59 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  General Feedback » Misc  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson commented  · 

    I fully agree. The nightmare starts with the settings that makes a Windows server to automatically download and install updates and perform a reboot without possible to interrupt.

    Then it is a nightmare that there is no information about specific updates available. We need to know the size and we need to know if a specific update requires a reboot. And we need an option to exclude updates that require a reboot but install those that doesn't like Defender signature updates.

    For better reliability there is an interesting suggestion here: https://windowsserver.uservoice.com/forums/295047-general-feedback/suggestions/38553823-suggestion-improve-windows-server-update-process

    Basically it suggests that update makes a snapshot and installs the update on that snapshot without interfering with the running system and on next boot the system simply switches over to start from the. Downtime would be next to zero. Rollback would be easily possible if an update creates problems. And I think this is a very interesting idea.

    johnson supported this idea  · 
  3. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  General Feedback » Configuration  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson shared this idea  · 
  4. 24 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Virtualization » Storage  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson commented  · 

    @jeff.woolsey: Well this is old but still relevant.
    You are suggesting to use the RDP USB passthrough feature. However Microsoft decided not to make it work if you use Windows 8.1 pro.
    I have tested Windows 8.1 Enterprise my needed USB devices are showing up in the guest.
    I have tested Windows 10 Pro and my needed USB devices (headset, telephone etc.) show up in the gues.
    But with my Windows 8.1 Pro guest, the devices do not show up. So it seems that Microsoft intentionally does not offer this function for Windows 8.1 Pro which is totally not understandable.
    It has also been reported already here: https://remotedesktop.uservoice.com/forums/266795-remote-desktop-services/suggestions/38363215-add-remotefx-usb-redirection-to-windows-8-1-pro
    All it seems is a missing driver tsusbhub.sys in Windows 8.1 Pro.

  5. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  General Feedback » Configuration  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson supported this idea  · 
    johnson commented  · 

    I think this is an interesting idea. It is a bit like what Windows already does when rolling back where the old Windows gets copied back into place and can be used again. Something like this could be done for updates.
    That is also an interesing idea for virtual machines: Clone it, update the clone and boot from the updated disk on next restart. However this must affect only os data and no user data.

  6. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  General Feedback » Shell, GUI, & Explorer  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson supported this idea  · 
  7. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  General Feedback » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson supported this idea  · 
  8. 9 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Virtualization » Hypervisor  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson commented  · 

    I totally agree. It seems it is not possible to passthrough a USB device to guest running on the host.
    I had to look for a software tool that will accomplish this and found: https://www.virtualhere.com/

    It is a shame to require external software for such a basic requirement. This should be implemented into Hyper-V. If Microsoft does not want to develop something like that on their own, they should buy the company or license their solution which seem to work very well.

    johnson supported this idea  · 
  9. 89 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Virtualization » Storage  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson commented  · 

    I totally agree. It seems it is not possible to passthrough a USB device to guest running on the host.
    I had to look for a software tool that will accomplish this and found: https://www.virtualhere.com/

    It is a shame to require external software for such a basic requirement. This should be implemented into Hyper-V. If Microsoft does not want to develop something like that on their own, they should buy the company or license their solution which seem to work very well.

    johnson supported this idea  · 
  10. 36 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  General Feedback » Configuration  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson supported this idea  · 
    johnson commented  · 

    I totally agree with this. It is pure having to manually install the Defener definitions.
    This is only to Prevent the Server from unexpected reboot when automatic Installation is turned on.
    So there should be different categories to choose from:
    1. Non-invasive updates like Defender definitions that can Always install automatically.
    2. Other non invasive updates that do not require a reboot. This should be an Option to automatically install or not
    3. Other updates that require a reboot. These should be optional to either notify, only download or download and install automatically.
    The way it is now it is ridicolus for a server operation.

  11. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtualization » Graphics  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson shared this idea  · 
  12. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtualization » Graphics  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson shared this idea  · 
  13. 16 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Virtualization » Graphics  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson supported this idea  · 
  14. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtualization » Management tools  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson shared this idea  · 
  15. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    johnson shared this idea  · 
  16. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtualization » Management tools  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson shared this idea  · 
  17. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtualization » Hypervisor  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson shared this idea  · 
  18. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtualization » VMConnection & remoting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson shared this idea  · 
  19. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  General Feedback » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson commented  · 

    We need a way to easily grant access specific users to specific vms. Which means only those users can connect to vms assigned to them and only they can manage them via Hyper-V manager. This means basically they should not be visible to other users at all.

    johnson supported this idea  · 
  20. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Virtualization » Hypervisor  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    johnson supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base