Page 1 of 1

Re: groups of workstations instead of individual ones

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:49 pm
by Gerald
How strange. I applied the agent to a suite of 18 machines, and I got a group of 3, a group of 8, and the rest were single units.

I tried to cut one out of a group and paste it into the room, but it just went back into the same group. Grrr :(

Re: groups of workstations instead of individual ones

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:00 pm
by Nick
Gerald wrote:How strange. I applied the agent to a suite of 18 machines, and I got a group of 3, a group of 8, and the rest were single units.

I tried to cutr one out of a group and paste it into the room, but it just went back into the same group.


The system automatically identifies identical machines and groups them. The grouping is based upon everything within the machine including software which means even if one machine is only slightly different then they will not appear in the same group.

We are adding the ability to specify in your preferences how you would like things grouped if at all. (The most obvious being removal of software as this would give you groups of similar specced machines from only a hardware point of view.)

But we are still open to further comments on what people would like to see changed on this front.

Re: groups of workstations instead of individual ones

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:02 pm
by Gerald
Nick wrote:We are adding the ability to specify in your preferences how you would like things grouped if at all.

Yeah, the ability to ungroup would be great. Now would be good :wink:

Re: groups of workstations instead of individual ones

Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:34 pm
by Neil
The new update includes the ability to turn off grouping. Go to the asset manager main menu and click on the "your preferences" button. In the interface tab you can turn grouping on or off. While you are there have a look at some of the other options added in this update.

Re: groups of workstations instead of individual ones

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:32 am
by Gerald
It's good, Neil. Thanks for this :)