Rapid Desktop Replacement
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You don't do imaging for restores, or you don't have a standard deployment image?
I don't have a standard deployment image. And I don't do fresh installs, I'm happy with the HP image and uninstalling any bloatware (which isn't much, just a few HP utilities, there isn't generally any 3rd party crap anymore)
Even at five minutes, seems like at that size it would justify a standard image. We use HP and to avoid the bloatware on ten machines we found the VL to be well worth it. Makes for a more stable system too, slightly.
-
@Dashrender is correct. Typical home users need Chromebooks.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You don't do imaging for restores, or you don't have a standard deployment image?
I don't have a standard deployment image. And I don't do fresh installs, I'm happy with the HP image and uninstalling any bloatware (which isn't much, just a few HP utilities, there isn't generally any 3rd party crap anymore)
You never know for sure what could be hidden in a factory install.
-
@Jason said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You don't do imaging for restores, or you don't have a standard deployment image?
I don't have a standard deployment image. And I don't do fresh installs, I'm happy with the HP image and uninstalling any bloatware (which isn't much, just a few HP utilities, there isn't generally any 3rd party crap anymore)
You never know for sure what could be hidden in a factory install.
- cough * Lenovo * cough *
-
If I was doing 10 at a time I'd probably image, but I tend to do less than that to spread the workload a bit.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
If I was doing 10 at a time I'd probably image, but I tend to do less than that to spread the workload a bit.
that's not really the point - unless your point is to waste your company's resources, namely your time.
-
How rude! I believe imaging would take me longer - obviously.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The answer here should be to move those critical data-storing apps elsewhere. To a server, to a hosted site... whatever. A high quality VPS starts at $5/mo. If the system isn't worth $5, it's not critical in the least.
Recommendation, for future storage ... in my brain?
I think this may have been missed in all the back and forth.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
How rude! I believe imaging would take me longer - obviously.
Break even for imaging is around the 20-30 units deployed mark. It's not a big deal once you've got it up and running.
-
We have 15 here, and buy about .3 every year.
No imaging for me!
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
How rude! I believe imaging would take me longer - obviously.
What causing doing an image to take longer? I find an image faster for even one, let alone two. I'm confused where the extra time is coming from. What makes it so dramatically faster for me and slower for you? I can't think of any factor that is faster not imaging unless you are considering the time to download the initial clean image from Microsoft, but you do that with one click and it does it in the background. Done. Saves time on the first deployment.
-
@BRRABill said:
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The answer here should be to move those critical data-storing apps elsewhere. To a server, to a hosted site... whatever. A high quality VPS starts at $5/mo. If the system isn't worth $5, it's not critical in the least.
Recommendation, for future storage ... in my brain?
I think this may have been missed in all the back and forth.
What's the question?
-
@BRRABill said:
We have 15 here, and buy about .3 every year.
No imaging for me!
You are 14 machines past the point where imaging would make things easier
-
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
How rude! I believe imaging would take me longer - obviously.
Break even for imaging is around the 20-30 units deployed mark. It's not a big deal once you've got it up and running.
Why so high? I find that it saves most of the deployment time of the very first one. Since there is zero overhead to basic image deployments, what causes there to be a need for a "break even" point.
It's like "how many cars do you need before Ferraris are faster than a Prius?" The answer is any... all Ferraris are faster than any Prius. Quantity isn't a factor.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You are 14 machines past the point where imaging would make things easier
I'll put it on my todo list. (Seriously!)
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Saves time on the first deployment.
BS
Getting an imaging system setup and running nicely is not a 2 hour job. It needs thought, research and planning like any other project.
It's totally worth doing and I'd encourage anyone to do it though.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Saves time on the first deployment.
BS
Getting an imaging system setup and running nicely is not a 2 hour job. It needs thought, research and planning like any other project.
It's totally worth doing and I'd encourage anyone to do it though.
But you don't need ANY Of that. You can image from a standard VL download DVD. No one suggested an image deployment system, just moving to VL imaging rights so that you can deploy from a stock image rather than a full OEM install and remove the software.
I can do it with zero setup. Zero, literally. And I do. Having a deployment system is for large, central offices. Using standard image installs that VL allows takes so little effort that you can't possibly do it more easily without it.
-
You can figure out when you are justified in moving from super basic DVD images run locally on each machine instead of an imaging server. There is a crossover point. But what we are talking about, using a central image rather then doing a full install is literally easier at your first machine. What @Carnival-Boy is doing I can't figure out how it could be more efficient at any scale, even a single machine. I could see it being cheaper, but as imaging rights for a full company are only about $120, it doesn't take much IT time saving to justify.
