Imaging Rights - Windows - Looking for clarification
-
@DustinB3403 said:
My definition of Imaging is the act of restoring a computer through any automated method.
Out of curiosity, where did that come from? The generic term for imaging refers to making an image of a system and deploying back as an image (as opposed to installing normally via files.) Even generically it has always been a specific term meaning a block level writing of data which has nothing to do with automation.
In the Windows world there is a stricter definition used to ensure that licensing is clear that goes even further to define what it is.
But no matter what, the idea of automation was never associated with imaging. Many imaging systems are automated in the enterprise space, but the bulk of them in the SMB, I think, are not.
The most common imaging use case is to make a single master image and install it manually on each machine. Might not be recommended, but this is an extremely common imaging use case and what the majority of small businesses that I know of decide to do as the effort is so low and the payoff so high.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
But building an image seems to be a completely separate process, albeit the act of installing it is where I've had contentions.
Taking an image, modifying an image and imaging a system would be three distinct tasks. But all related to imaging. There is also the confusing use of the term "image" to refer to the ISO which is, in fact, an image of a DVD however the standard Windows ISO image does not image the OS onto the system but installs it through a file method.
Not all images image things.
-
My guess is that it is the DVD image that is causing the terminology confusion. The DVD image gets updated, but it isn't used to image the system. Not entirely, anyway. It used to have no imaging at all. Microsoft actually does some imaging under the hood but it is complex and would add to the confusion if we discuss it here. For all intents and purposes, Windows ISOs do not image systems.
-
@scottalanmiller To th eprevious quote,
The idea of imaging (even though I know what it expressly means) is just the term as a verb.
Its an act of performing a system restoration to a "workable state".
VL is very cheap, and totally worth it in my opinion as well.
Just my mindset of the definition, maybe I'm stubborn.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller To th eprevious quote,
The idea of imaging (even though I know what it expressly means) is just the term as a verb.
Its an act of performing a system restoration to a "workable state".
I'm wondering the source of that, though. Imaging is such an important technical term in IT, I'm surprised it has not caused a lot of other problems using imaging to mean restoring and/or installing. Have you heard other people in IT use it to mean something like that? Maybe this is common, but this is the first I've ever heard of it to mean something other than imaging
-
As on SW it has always been a variable definition because of the confusion of the term "imaging".
Only an assumption at this point, as I don't really care to think to heavily about it, but I probably settled on this definition when I was first starting out in IT, young and impressionable.
And having an incorrect definition simply set it.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
As on SW it has always been a variable definition because of the confusion of the term "imaging".
I've never seen that used that way there. If you see it happen, let me know. I would have definitely said something if I saw that. I see imaging used all the time there, but never to mean something else.
-
@scottalanmiller My laptop came with a DVD that doesn't just "install windows"... It takes the manufacturer's OEM image (all of the software, etc, etc) and wipes my hard drive and loads that image onto my hard drive, deleting all of my current information and putting it back juts like it came from the factory. That is restoring an image to my computer.
Now If I just take a Windows 8 retail DVD and plop it into my laptop's DVD drive, then , yeah, that is installing Windows...
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller My laptop came with a DVD that doesn't just "install windows"... It takes the manufacturer's OEM image (all of the software, etc, etc) and wipes my hard drive and loads that image onto my hard drive, deleting all of my current information and putting it back juts like it came from the factory. That is restoring an image to my computer.
It can do that with or without an image. It just means it does not save anything that was there (and that your OEM hates you.) They do use some imaging under the hood, but it is generally not a full image either. But it can be, depends what the OEM does.
-
My previous laptop used PartitionMagic to do its thing. 8-)
If my laptop is broken so badly that I need to re-image... I deserve to lose all my files, lol. (Fortunately, I'm familiar enough with Linux that this hasn't happened to me recently)
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller To th eprevious quote,
The idea of imaging (even though I know what it expressly means) is just the term as a verb.
Its an act of performing a system restoration to a "workable state".
No, that's not right at all - I know I'm jumping in after this conversation is probably over, but restoring to a workable state is just that a restore - it has nothing to do with imaging.
As Scott is saying - Imaging is the act of copying byte for byte a duplicate system from one drive to another. Using a DVD to install (or reinstall Windows) is just that installing windows, not imaging windows.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller My laptop came with a DVD that doesn't just "install windows"... It takes the manufacturer's OEM image (all of the software, etc, etc) and wipes my hard drive and loads that image onto my hard drive, deleting all of my current information and putting it back juts like it came from the factory. That is restoring an image to my computer.
Now If I just take a Windows 8 retail DVD and plop it into my laptop's DVD drive, then , yeah, that is installing Windows...
Yep, your example is an example of Imaging - and sadly many OEM's do exactly this today - they offer a recovery image, not a recovery install.
-
Dustin asked about adding security drivers to an OEM install.
That's a great question. I kinda have to figure the OEMs themselves have a method for updating their OEM image that they deploy to machines (yes they deploy an image, they don't install Windows), so I'd be surprised that you couldn't update the OEM media (assuming you have the MS OEM media, not a co-branded OEM media/image recovery).
Think slipstreaming updates/drivers. -
@Dashrender said:
Dustin asked about adding security drivers to an OEM install.
That's a great question. I kinda have to figure the OEMs themselves have a method for updating their OEM image that they deploy to machines (yes they deploy an image, they don't install Windows), so I'd be surprised that you couldn't update the OEM media (assuming you have the MS OEM media, not a co-branded OEM media/image recovery).
Think slipstreaming updates/drivers.You might be able to, but the cost and complexity of doing this would be silly as you could move to reimaging rights for so cheap and get so much more benefit from this. Doing it to OEM installation media would be cumberson, non-repeatable and still leaving you needing to do one to one installs. The effort of doing that once would justify going to reimaging rights.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Dustin asked about adding security drivers to an OEM install.
That's a great question. I kinda have to figure the OEMs themselves have a method for updating their OEM image that they deploy to machines (yes they deploy an image, they don't install Windows), so I'd be surprised that you couldn't update the OEM media (assuming you have the MS OEM media, not a co-branded OEM media/image recovery).
Think slipstreaming updates/drivers.You might be able to, but the cost and complexity of doing this would be silly as you could move to reimaging rights for so cheap and get so much more benefit from this. Doing it to OEM installation media would be cumberson, non-repeatable and still leaving you needing to do one to one installs. The effort of doing that once would justify going to reimaging rights.
Absolutely - for a business, maybe not for a poor college student. But perhaps even then it would be worth buying a VL (though they have to buy 5 licenses to get started... so maybe not).
-
@Dashrender said:
Absolutely - for a business, maybe not for a poor college student. But perhaps even then it would be worth buying a VL (though they have to buy 5 licenses to get started... so maybe not).
Why would a college student be taking the time to slipstream drivers? That makes no sense outside of a business unless there is a use case I can't imagine. Where is the value in this to anyone? Remember you can just throw drivers and updates on a USB stick if you want.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Absolutely - for a business, maybe not for a poor college student. But perhaps even then it would be worth buying a VL (though they have to buy 5 licenses to get started... so maybe not).
Why would a college student be taking the time to slipstream drivers? That makes no sense outside of a business unless there is a use case I can't imagine. Where is the value in this to anyone? Remember you can just throw drivers and updates on a USB stick if you want.
When I was messing around at home many moons ago, I did exactly this. Putting drivers an update on a memory stick simply meant skipping the download process, but I still have to deal with the update process and that's still many hours. If I can just pop in a disk and basically click install, and when it's down there are few or no updates to install - that's nice!
But as you said, that's an extreme edge case, and completely moot point for business - who should be purchasing VL if for no other reason that imaging rights alone!
-
@Dashrender said:
When I was messing around at home many moons ago, I did exactly this. Putting drivers an update on a memory stick simply meant skipping the download process, but I still have to deal with the update process and that's still many hours. If I can just pop in a disk and basically click install, and when it's down there are few or no updates to install - that's nice!
But it is all automated. You just say "update" and let it do its thing. Yeah, it is a little time, but is it nearly as much time as downloading the updates regularly and building a new build DVD "just in case"? It isn't like you get to skip the update step you just, maybe, shorten it. But there is so much effort involved. Is investing tons of your time up front better than letting the computer invest a little of its time later, maybe?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But it is all automated. You just say "update" and let it do its thing. Yeah, it is a little time, but is it nearly as much time as downloading the updates regularly and building a new build DVD "just in case"? It isn't like you get to skip the update step you just, maybe, shorten it. But there is so much effort involved. Is investing tons of your time up front better than letting the computer invest a little of its time later, maybe?
This is the reason I do not bother with it. If a client has a machine infested, i blow it out , reinstall from the original recovery and let it update. My time is less than an hour for the entire process. The computer's time is tons.
-
It would be an odd case where there is no business value to be had in the VL, the user's time is worth basically zero, the computer's time is somehow very valuable but backups aren't worth the effort. There might be a case in there somewhere, but I'm not sure anyone could come up with the unique set of circumstances to make those factors come true.
