Should We Remove Bloatware on Office PCs
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's part of the discussion in this one:
Ok, I'll have to check it out at some point.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Only because you are willing to give your users something we would classify as "not ready for use." I'd call it "not prepped yet." You have to have a different standard for what you hand to them than we would accept. Mostly in terms of unknowns (you haven't had time to investigate what that machine is like) and inconsistencies (can you make sure everyone is getting the same thing.)
I'm not following you. What do you mean "what the machine is like"? Why can't I be sure everyone is getting the same thing? What is unacceptable to you?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Only because you are willing to give your users something we would classify as "not ready for use." I'd call it "not prepped yet." You have to have a different standard for what you hand to them than we would accept. Mostly in terms of unknowns (you haven't had time to investigate what that machine is like) and inconsistencies (can you make sure everyone is getting the same thing.)
I'm not following you. What do you mean "what the machine is like"? Why can't I be sure everyone is getting the same thing? What is unacceptable to you?
Things that I would not find acceptable (I'm not saying it is dramatic, only given the cost trade offs I'd not accept it):
- The machine is in an unknown state, the OEM can vary what is being delivered at any time and does. Different users get different things as delivered and you may not know what they are.
- Consistency of image between models or versions cannot be maintained. Users get different experiences, even if only slightly.
- Cost of delivering future rebuilds is higher.
- The machine is not validated as it is an "unknown state" prior to delivery.
Basically you can't be sure that the machine is the same (or similar) because you had someone else put something unknown onto it. You can guess or assume that it will be like others you have received recently but there is no guarantee. It might have a new version of the software, it might have gotten installed differently (it happens), it might have a problem. It's not a consistent image being applies it's just "whatever arrived."
The effort to be consistent is so trivial up front (so trivial I do it for home) and pays off in the long term on the IT side alone (less to support) that it just makes it worth it, IMHO, in every situation.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Only because you are willing to give your users something we would classify as "not ready for use." I'd call it "not prepped yet." You have to have a different standard for what you hand to them than we would accept. Mostly in terms of unknowns (you haven't had time to investigate what that machine is like) and inconsistencies (can you make sure everyone is getting the same thing.)
I'm not following you. What do you mean "what the machine is like"? Why can't I be sure everyone is getting the same thing? What is unacceptable to you?
Things that I would not find acceptable (I'm not saying it is dramatic, only given the cost trade offs I'd not accept it):
- The machine is in an unknown state, the OEM can vary what is being delivered at any time and does. Different users get different things as delivered and you may not know what they are.
- Consistency of image between models or versions cannot be maintained. Users get different experiences, even if only slightly.
- Cost of delivering future rebuilds is higher.
- The machine is not validated as it is an "unknown state" prior to delivery.
Basically you can't be sure that the machine is the same (or similar) because you had someone else put something unknown onto it. You can guess or assume that it will be like others you have received recently but there is no guarantee. It might have a new version of the software, it might have gotten installed differently (it happens), it might have a problem. It's not a consistent image being applies it's just "whatever arrived."
The effort to be consistent is so trivial up front (so trivial I do it for home) and pays off in the long term on the IT side alone (less to support) that it just makes it worth it, IMHO, in every situation.
I agree. Consistency is key. And I know exactly what Scott is talking about. I've ordered the same computer that we ordered a month before, and it's come with some software that was installed not installed, new software not there before, different versions of the same software, different trials of AVs, Office, etc, and much more.
-
Yes, but you can uninstall all of that. So where is the inconsistency?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Yes, but you can uninstall all of that. So where is the inconsistency?
You can. But one of the original questions that led us to this thread and the topic of this thread was should it be removed at all.
But even if you are removing it, you don't have a consistent process for getting things in place. Is it consistent? Maybe. Bottom line is, you don't know. On servers, we know it is consistently variable.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Yes, but you can uninstall all of that. So where is the inconsistency?
You can. But one of the original questions that led us to this thread and the topic of this thread was should it be removed at all.
But even if you are removing it, you don't have a consistent process for getting things in place. Is it consistent? Maybe. Bottom line is, you don't know. On servers, we know it is consistently variable.
I'm a huge fan of imaging. Also, creating an SOP for new deployments, even including links to files, etc. Makes life easy.
-
I was a small enough shop to get away with it, but my personal answer is yes always. I would always do a reformat and install of the OS from a MSDN copy and use the OEM key from the device. It was extra work, but I was sure when it went out in the field there was nothing I wasn't aware off on the system, it was fresh, clean, and happy. Then I would then add it to the domain, and have all my other setup done by GPO. Yes I have mild OCD, but I didn't have to sorry about troubleshooting odd issues, and extra exposure from bloatware, and less 1 off "snow flake" issues because we didn't have a unified hardware spec.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I'm a huge fan of imaging. Also, creating an SOP for new deployments, even including links to files, etc. Makes life easy.
I am a fan of imaging - but for just myself (my household) it's not all ways the easiest thing to accomplish.
Years ago mind you,.. but I could build and image system and drop it on a single CD,.. then a DVD,.. now not so much... And this has been more years ago still,.. I built a auto install CD using GHOST.
Can I still manage to image one of my systems if I wanted to? Yes, I have managed to accumulate just a few TB of disk space.. But there comes a time of the hassle... and the time... which mind you I have plenty of in the evenings...
It would be rather nice to have a deployment server here at home... but I just don't see the need...
-
@gjacobse said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I'm a huge fan of imaging. Also, creating an SOP for new deployments, even including links to files, etc. Makes life easy.
I am a fan of imaging - but for just myself (my household) it's not all ways the easiest thing to accomplish.
Years ago mind you,.. but I could build and image system and drop it on a single CD,.. then a DVD,.. now not so much... And this has been more years ago still,.. I built a auto install CD using GHOST.
Can I still manage to image one of my systems if I wanted to? Yes, I have managed to accumulate just a few TB of disk space.. But there comes a time of the hassle... and the time... which mind you I have plenty of in the evenings...
It would be rather nice to have a deployment server here at home... but I just don't see the need...
Home users using a standard image isn't easy. I usually just take the computer and reload a generic Windows install and go from there.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Is it consistent? Maybe. Bottom line is, you don't know.
Like what? Can you give an example of how it might be inconsistent? Do you mean different driver versions? I find it unlikely that two different users running slightly different drivers will have any impact at all. I just haven't experienced those kinds of support calls.
I think you're over-egging this consistency argument. I'm not against clean installs / imaging at all. I just don't think it really makes any difference either way.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Is it consistent? Maybe. Bottom line is, you don't know.
Like what? Can you give an example of how it might be inconsistent? Do you mean different driver versions? I find it unlikely that two different users running slightly different drivers will have any impact at all. I just haven't experienced those kinds of support calls.
I think you're over-egging this consistency argument. I'm not against clean installs / imaging at all. I just don't think it really makes any difference either way.
HP, Dell, etc all change their images based on sponsors. Granted, Dell has been in bed with McAfee for decades, (excuse me, Intel Security) but many companies load different AVs, different packaged solutions, etc, based on who's paying them at the time. And ordering the exact same computer two months apart can yield very different pre-loaded images. Not so much in terms of driver versions, but how will the pre-installed software, or what's left of it after it's uninstalled, affect what you install? Will it screw everything up on one but not another? Probably unlikely, but it's possible. At that point, how much time do you spend troubleshooting each "snowflake"?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
At that point, how much time do you spend troubleshooting each "snowflake"?
I don't know what you mean by snowflake, but I estimate that in the last 10 years I have spent around zero minutes troubleshooting issues resulting from inconsistent installs. Like I said, I think the only "sponsor" HP currently use is Norton. Granted, I'm working on the presumption that the Norton uninstaller is clean and doesn't leave anything behind. Maybe it isn't?
I also can't recall ordering the same computer 2 months apart and find different pre-loaded images. But maybe that's happened and I haven't noticed.
-
Even in my loosest approach to PC builds, I am looking at a standard, known copy of the OS that is exactly the same each and every time. I know that I am getting a look at the disk layout and making it consistent and efficient, every time. I am overwriting the whole disk to make sure the vendor or someone along the supply chain has not interjected something there. It is a clean, known, identical build time after time across makers, models, revisions, etc.
Sorry for the delay in posting, I wrote this but then was on a call and did not post it.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I don't know what you mean by snowflake,
Term for each individual being managed as an individual, unique instance.
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2015/01/on-devops-and-snowflakes/
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Like I said, I think the only "sponsor" HP currently use is Norton. Granted, I'm working on the presumption that the Norton uninstaller is clean and doesn't leave anything behind. Maybe it isn't?
That one, specifically, is known for being unclean and problematic. I've had many an hour spent fixing machines that "had Norton removed."
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I also can't recall ordering the same computer 2 months apart and find different pre-loaded images. But maybe that's happened and I haven't noticed.
If a change were to happen it would be at any time. Could be years ago, days apart, two shipped at the same time. If a change is made in the run, there would just be one box made one way and all others after that made another. Not sure how common it is with software, with hardware it is more obvious (since most companies image and would never know or care if the software changed there is almost no one to take note) since the hardware affects everyone.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Like I said, I think the only "sponsor" HP currently use is Norton. Granted, I'm working on the presumption that the Norton uninstaller is clean and doesn't leave anything behind. Maybe it isn't?
That one, specifically, is known for being unclean and problematic. I've had many an hour spent fixing machines that "had Norton removed."
The NTG team once spent FOUR DAYS doing a combination of trying to restore, then rebuild, and finally migrate a server...all because of a SEP uninstall.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Like I said, I think the only "sponsor" HP currently use is Norton. Granted, I'm working on the presumption that the Norton uninstaller is clean and doesn't leave anything behind. Maybe it isn't?
That one, specifically, is known for being unclean and problematic. I've had many an hour spent fixing machines that "had Norton removed."
The NTG team once spent FOUR DAYS doing a combination of trying to restore, then rebuild, and finally migrate a server...all because of a SEP uninstall.
Needless to say, it was a nightmare, and not our fault...
-
@angrydok said:
I find annoying anything that was not installed by me (probably except free MS Office on windows machines).
The free MS Office is a pain in the ass if you have your own version of office to install.
If you leave that installed and your user clicks on an access document, it will f'n install it.
Then when you uninstall, it breaks your installed version and you have to then perform a repair.
