We know you are patiently waiting for this feature. This feature is being implemented in stages. Fast tenant switching is currently in testing both internally and with early customers. We expect to release to the public in the Fall. I’ll post an update once it’s rolling out.
Full multi-tenant, multi-user support will be added after fast tenant switching.
>is there a way (even if it's a bunch of clicks) to 'easily' switch tenants: only workarounds I can think of are multiple "People" in Chrome, each profile logged into a separate account. Limited to using the web interface and therefore easy to miss notifications if you don't keep the browser sessions one. Or multiple virtual machines but that's not ideal either...
>Microsoft must be losing market share on this issue: unlikely as the majority of users are single tenant. It's only IT support and 3rd parties who struggle. But I also struggle with lots of other packages. Hence the reason I have lots of virtual machines...
>Why, because SharePoint includes the name of your business in its URL: there was a cheer at some recent SP conference where they announced URLs could be changed. But I suspect that the URL of an Office 365 group, not the tenant...
Big thumbs up for this across the board. I end up having to use multiple browsers (like ALL of them) and virtual machines to allow me to be logged into multiple tenants. Sure, it's not usual for normal users to have to do this but for 3rd party IT support companies, it's a real faff.
>The current method makes absolutely no sense: whilst I'd like this feature too, there is sense behind it. Most users of Teams are in open plan offices and the ringing phone is a disruption (see being knocked out of the zone). Not a huge problem for me as I also have Teams on my mobile.
On other UserVoice channels, Microsoft add "Working on this" updates. Why not on this UserVoice? Or do we assume it's not going to be implemented?
Quite esp. when I'm sure they announced recently that Teams was now functionally equal or higher than SfB...
>Like everyone else, the lack of this feature is what is keeping me from moving from SFB to Teams: Microsoft is forcing us to move to Teams next month so not pleased about loosing this useful feature in SfB.
Glad to hear this is on the road map as I'm missing important calls since switching to teams. Like many, I have a USB headset plugged in for use. However, if I'm away from my desk or not looking at the screen, I can't hear it ringing. I'm sure I read they claimed Teams was now feature matching SfB. Don't think so :-)
Ended up here for the same reason as Ian below - company is switching to Zoom because of the break-out room functionality. Come on Microsoft, you need to keep agile if you want to drive Teams adoption :-) Is it on the radar??
This is in the works! Fill out this survey if you want to influence the feature: https://microsoft.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_esTxHdABLQxKLvn
But yes, vote for this feature. Conversations often break out in an existing team/channel which triggers the creation of a new channel or team/channel.
Can you update the link above please as the survey is no longer active.
We’re currently working on defining a compact mode experience. I will post more details when we have more to share.
>Uservoice is becoming more and more meaningless over time - MS please put some urgency behind this
Hmm, I know what you mean. Biggest problem, aside from Microsoft taking way to long to implement to features, is the fragmentation of individual posts. I recently had an idea/wish and when I searched it, I found that at least 30 other people had the same idea, worded slightly differently, but spread across separate ideas each with 10 or so likes. If they had been merged together, they would have had more clout. So somebody (Microsoft) needs to actively merge duplicates together.
As for this particular idea, I'm okay with the current implementation. It goes reasonable compact: https://i.imgur.com/li6tAgE.png - and the mobile version is very compact. Maybe just do the mobile view on PC as an option?
Performance has been and continues to be a big focus area for Teams. One main area we have made improvements in is responsiveness for the most frequent user actions of switching between Chat, Channel, and Activity. We are also focused on reducing resource consumption and application load time. More improvements are on the way.
Just ended up here after searching for problems with teams.exe taking up a lot of resources. My desktop fan was running loud which is always a signal that the CPU is running hot. Sure enough all four threads running at 100%. VMware Workstation was #1 (not surprised) but teams.exe was a close second. Quit teams and CPU usage dropped to 30%. Something is not right here for a chat app!
Due to prioritization of other work-items this has been moved to the backlog. We will update when it is being actively worked on again.
The suggestion below "Slack has an @here and @channel notification system that works incredibly well" sounds interesting. My clients are always looking for ways to cut down email overload and splitting discussion within a project team into channels looks like it might help but not if you get a notification for every channel by default. So team notifications are important but one also needs a way to turn them off for a team/channel that you're interested in but don't need to be notified about. It's also critical that we still keep the Instant Message concept so that they always get through.
Slightly different wish but in the same ballpark. It's good that the Teams client doesn't need admin rights to install but if the user doesn't have admin rights, would it be possible to not do whatever triggers the firewall prompt (https://i.imgur.com/Bt0qpip.png) because the user then gets https://i.imgur.com/UpaFp9y.png is they click "Allow access"
>The underlying problem is that Teams is getting installed in the users profile. Why are you doing this Microsoft: simple so that users can install the full client without requiring admin rights. Many companies block admin rights locally for security reasons, e.g. nearly every pharma client we work with. At least with installing in the user's profile, they can have the rich client. Although I would imagine many a sysadmin doesn't like this - Chrome does the same.
And it took several hours to twig what they were trying to achieve. There is possibly too much documentation on this and I just wanted somebody to tell me succinctly what it was all about. You're right though, it's too complicated. All my client really want is SharePoint document libraries and a mailbox... you know, like that old site mailbox that worked just like email and not the cut-down conversation view in Office 365 groups
I raised a ticket to look at Teams because over the concern of SFB EOL which my main Office 365 client has just about got their head around. I've worked in computers for more years than I want to recall but I just didn't get Teams. Okay, I get the idea of persistent chat and trying to bring everything into one place, but email is still critical for my clients - it's their primary tool for communication with pharma clients. These clients are NOT going to adopt instant messaging or persistent chat anytime soon so the only chance that teams will be adopted is by brining email into the Teams interface. So no, they didn't focus group it with the right people and just saw Slack and went "we need that". I'm not going to even mention it to my client for now :-(
This feature request is still on in the backlog. No new updates available at this time.
I've just tasked myself with looking at teams because you still can't drag&drop or move emails into an Office 365 group conversation in Outlook desktop. You can on the web but my clients are still wed 100% to the desktop app. Doesn't look like Teams is much better :-(