Don't build "fat" images
"Fat" images that contain not only the operating systems, but also applications can cause an unnecessary proliferation of images that need to be maintained over time. Only include applications in your disk images that will go to every PC. Applications that only go to specific user groups within your organizations should be distributed to PCs after the image has been deployed. Look for deployment tools that support this type of "thin" imaging, or look for a tool to centrally deploy applications after applying your image to PCs.
0 Comments
[ + ] Show comments
Answers (2)
Please log in to answer
Posted by:
elgwhoppo
14 years ago
Well said. I also agree with the methodology that it is easier to update a package than an image, no matter what way you're choosing to deploy. Myself, I'm used to SCCM, which when combined together with MDT and a few freebee third party solutions (thanks myitforum guys) allows for a powerful combination of task sequencing, customization and wonderfully balanced zero touch and light touch deployment solutions.
But yes, to your point, the base image in my opinion should be touched only when the OS is changing or another SP comes out. Once you bring applications into the base image, you're asking for a headache down the road.
But yes, to your point, the base image in my opinion should be touched only when the OS is changing or another SP comes out. Once you bring applications into the base image, you're asking for a headache down the road.
Posted by:
Sierra8
14 years ago
Is there any information from Microsoft or Symantec regarding this type of practice? I use this exact methodology where I'm working currently and there's many that don't agree. I've been looking for some actual documented reasons why this is a "best practice" from MS or Symantec specifically.
It's obvious to me that this keeps a lot of crap out of the image builds, prevents maintaining multiple/unsustainable images, and creates a rather harmonious standardized environment. But not all of our techs where I work see it this way and won't be sold until the world crashes down 1 pc at a time.
It's obvious to me that this keeps a lot of crap out of the image builds, prevents maintaining multiple/unsustainable images, and creates a rather harmonious standardized environment. But not all of our techs where I work see it this way and won't be sold until the world crashes down 1 pc at a time.
Rating comments in this legacy AppDeploy message board thread won't reorder them,so that the conversation will remain readable.
