Any plans for a per machine client? (Not per machine installer)

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-299874%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EAny%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-299874%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EA%20teams%20client%20that%20installs%20for%20the%20machine%20instead%20of%20the%20user%20has%20been%20a%20frequent%20request%20since%20the%20beginning.%26nbsp%3B%20I%20understand%20that%20the%20logic%20behind%20a%20per%20user%20install%20was%20so%20that%20admin%20privileges%20are%20not%20required%20to%20install%20or%20update%20the%20app%2C%20but%26nbsp%3Bthere%20are%20plenty%20of%20down%20sides%20to%20this%20method%3A%3C%2FP%3E%3CUL%3E%3CLI%3EThe%20client%20takes%20~600MB%20of%20disk%20space%20PER%20USER%20on%20the%20computer%2C%20instead%20of%20600MB%20total.%20%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FLI%3E%3CLI%3EThe%20teams%20client%20is%20downloaded%20for%20each%20user%20who%20logs%20in%20on%20the%20computer%2C%20multiplying%20the%20amount%20of%20internet%20bandwidth%20required.%3C%2FLI%3E%3CLI%3EThe%20teams%20client%20is%20harder%20to%20manage%20in%20an%20enterprise%20environment%3C%2FLI%3E%3C%2FUL%3E%3CP%3EI'm%20sure%20you%20heard%20the%20significant%20backlash%20when%20you%20released%20the%20Teams%20per-machine%20installer%20msi%20package.%26nbsp%3B%20It%20met%20the%20technical%20request%20of%20an%20MSI%20package%20which%20could%20be%20installed%20per%20machine%2C%20while%20completely%20avoiding%20the%20reasons%20people%20were%20asking%20for%20it.%26nbsp%3B%20Once%20it%20became%20clear%20that%20this%20package%20didn't%20really%20meet%20the%20needs%20of%20IT%20admins%2C%20has%20there%20been%20any%20consideration%20to%20making%20an%20actual%20per-machine%20install%20version%20of%20the%20teams%20client%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-LABS%20id%3D%22lingo-labs-299874%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3EInstallation%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3EMicrosoft%20Teams%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3C%2FLINGO-LABS%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-301036%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERE%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-301036%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3Eshared%20computer%20activation%20for%20the%20Teams%20client%20-%20just%20like%20Office%20Pro%20Plus.%20Nice.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-300978%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20RE%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-300978%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3ECan%20you%20comment%20on%20whether%20Teams%20inclusion%20with%20the%20office%20installer%20will%20be%20a%20true%20'per%20machine'%20install%20of%20teams%2C%20or%20just%20another%20per-machine%20installer%20which%20installs%20a%20teams%20instance%20for%20every%20user%20who%20logs%20on%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-300620%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20RE%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-300620%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThat's%20great%20news!%26nbsp%3B%20When%20this%20happens%2C%20will%20it%20be%20a%20true%20'per%20machine%20install'%20of%20teams%3F%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EOr%20is%20the%20Office%20installer%20just%20going%20to%20install%20the%20teams%20installer%2C%20which%20then%20installs%20teams%20for%20each%20user%20who%20logs%20in%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-300486%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20RE%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-300486%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThat%20sounds%20promising.%20Will%20we%20have%20an%20avenue%20to%20clean%20up%20existing%20installs%20to%20keep%20everything%20aligned%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-300471%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20RE%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-300471%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThere%20are%20plans%20for%20Teams%20to%20be%20added%20to%20the%20Office%20installer%20so%20you'd%20be%20able%20to%20manage%20Teams%20the%20same%20way%20you%20manage%20your%20other%20office%20apps.%20This%20should%20roll%20out%20early%20next%20year!%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-300426%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERE%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-300426%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EYes%2C%20this%20is%20problematic%20for%20us%20too%2C%20esp%20for%20our%20desktop%20team%20that%20wants%20to%20manage%20the%20rest%20of%20the%20Office%20Apps.%20T-shooting%20is%20different%20and%20most%20people%20don't%20even%20know%20where%20Teams%20lives.%20They%20expect%20it%20in%20the%20'normal'%20Office%20location%2C%20and%20can't%20use%20their%20normal%20toolset%20to%20resolve%20issues%20with%20it.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-300360%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-300360%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThanks%20for%20your%20feedback%2C%20Steve!%20We'll%20look%20into%20this%20further%20and%20post%20back%20with%20updates%20on%20a%20per%20machine%20client!%20Hang%20tight%20%3A)%3C%2Fimg%3E%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-300244%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-300244%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EI'm%20with%20Steve%20on%20this%20one.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThe%20current%20MSI%20installer%20has%20gotten%20better%20(fixed%20problems%20with%20the%20-noautostart%20flag%20and%20missing%20shortcuts)%20but%20setting%20a%20runonce%20key%20to%20pull%20down%20a%20NuGet%20package%20per%20user%20is%20just%20not%20a%20great%20way%20to%20do%20this.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EWe%20really%20need%20a%20true%20system%20wide%20installer%20in%20an%20enterprise%20environment.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1144254%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20RE%3A%20Any%20plans%20for%20a%20per%20machine%20client%3F%20(Not%20per%20machine%20installer)%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1144254%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F253276%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40AnirudhNarayan%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EAny%20update%20on%20the%20possibility%20of%20having%20a%20single%20machine%20install%20for%20the%20Windows%2010%20Teams%20client%20(possibly%20with%20config%20files%20per%20user)%3F%20The%20install%20footprint%20of%20Teams%20on%20a%20per%20user%20basis%20imposes%20a%20huge%20overhead%20for%20shared%20(e.g.%2C%20school%20lab)%20machines.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
Regular Contributor

A teams client that installs for the machine instead of the user has been a frequent request since the beginning.  I understand that the logic behind a per user install was so that admin privileges are not required to install or update the app, but there are plenty of down sides to this method:

  • The client takes ~600MB of disk space PER USER on the computer, instead of 600MB total.  
  • The teams client is downloaded for each user who logs in on the computer, multiplying the amount of internet bandwidth required.
  • The teams client is harder to manage in an enterprise environment

I'm sure you heard the significant backlash when you released the Teams per-machine installer msi package.  It met the technical request of an MSI package which could be installed per machine, while completely avoiding the reasons people were asking for it.  Once it became clear that this package didn't really meet the needs of IT admins, has there been any consideration to making an actual per-machine install version of the teams client?

9 Replies

I'm with Steve on this one. 

 

The current MSI installer has gotten better (fixed problems with the -noautostart flag and missing shortcuts) but setting a runonce key to pull down a NuGet package per user is just not a great way to do this. 

 

We really need a true system wide installer in an enterprise environment. 

Thanks for your feedback, Steve! We'll look into this further and post back with updates on a per machine client! Hang tight :)

Yes, this is problematic for us too, esp for our desktop team that wants to manage the rest of the Office Apps. T-shooting is different and most people don't even know where Teams lives. They expect it in the 'normal' Office location, and can't use their normal toolset to resolve issues with it.

There are plans for Teams to be added to the Office installer so you'd be able to manage Teams the same way you manage your other office apps. This should roll out early next year!

That sounds promising. Will we have an avenue to clean up existing installs to keep everything aligned?

That's great news!  When this happens, will it be a true 'per machine install' of teams? 

 

Or is the Office installer just going to install the teams installer, which then installs teams for each user who logs in?

Can you comment on whether Teams inclusion with the office installer will be a true 'per machine' install of teams, or just another per-machine installer which installs a teams instance for every user who logs on?

shared computer activation for the Teams client - just like Office Pro Plus. Nice.

@AnirudhNarayan 

 

Any update on the possibility of having a single machine install for the Windows 10 Teams client (possibly with config files per user)? The install footprint of Teams on a per user basis imposes a huge overhead for shared (e.g., school lab) machines.