imaging

[marjorieproops]

I suppose the other thing I don't understand, is what is preferable about an unattended installation vs. an imaged approach? Surely if I created my dream system and then imaged it wih True Image, the end result would be faster but otherwise the same?

Many thanks for helping an old lady, chaps!

Edited April 20, 2006 by marjorieproops

[marjorieproops]

Comments, anyone?

[IcemanND]

It depends upon what you want and are doing. If when you decided to reload you machine again with your image a year after creating it you are ok with having to install all of the updates then by all means create and image. Or if you are doing multiple machines the same way, then do one and image to the others.

But if when you reload you are going to want all of the updates and updated software then an UACD is the way to go.

It all depends upon personal preference. I do both depending upon the circumstances.

[mmarable]

Well, the problem with an image based method is the difficulty in updating it.

For example, you want to replace the OfficeXP with Office2003, you have to bring the image down, strip out OfficeXP and install Office2003. Then, upload the image all over again.

Or, if you change hardware like a new video card. Again, you have to bring the image down, strip out let's say the ATI Catalyst software, load up the NVidia apps, then reimage the box.

Also, you're image is tied to your machine. Granted you could sysprep your system before creating the image and you could install it on other machines. But if you need the flexability to install your setup on multiple machines, an image is more difficult to work with.