Should We Remove Bloatware on Office PCs
-
@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.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@Jason said:
Not really, It takes maybe 30min (complete, until it's ready for the user) for our guys to image a computer from WDS.
It takes me about 20 minutes to prepare a computer from unboxing it to giving it to the user. So that proves my point - imaging IS slower
20 Min without an image? Do you not get windows updates caught of before giving to a user? Do you not install any additional software and test it?
-
Twenty minutes is very fast, I could not possibly get updates run, drivers install and apps installed that quickly. Even with a script.
-
@Jason said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@Jason said:
Not really, It takes maybe 30min (complete, until it's ready for the user) for our guys to image a computer from WDS.
It takes me about 20 minutes to prepare a computer from unboxing it to giving it to the user. So that proves my point - imaging IS slower
20 Min without an image? Do you not get windows updates caught of before giving to a user? Do you not install any additional software and test it?
20 mins is plenty of time to hand out an unpatched, vulnerable system... if that is how you like to do things.
-
I'll time it next time I do one and post the exact timings. Windows updates get installed when the PC is shut down, and possibly that adds a few minutes, I don't generally monitor that.
But even with an image, you still need to install all the updates since you took the image, so it's no quicker right?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'll time it next time I do one and post the exact timings. Windows updates get installed when the PC is shut down, and possibly that adds a few minutes, I don't generally monitor that.
But even with an image, you still need to install all the updates since you took the image, so it's no quicker right?
You can also work to maintain an image.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'll time it next time I do one and post the exact timings. Windows updates get installed when the PC is shut down, and possibly that adds a few minutes, I don't generally monitor that.
But even with an image, you still need to install all the updates since you took the image, so it's no quicker right?
Images are updated regularly so there are very few new ones. We don't won't technicians deploying in patched systems so we handle that.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
But even with an image, you still need to install all the updates since you took the image, so it's no quicker right?
Correct, that should be a break even in general. Unless you are doing a "build your own image" then you can build in some or all of the patches (at least up to the image build time.) So if we leave the "low effort" realm you can do things to speed that up a lot. But when comparing vanilla OEM disc to vanilla MS VL OS disc the patching and updates should be a break even.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
But even with an image, you still need to install all the updates since you took the image, so it's no quicker right?
Correct, that should be a break even in general. Unless you are doing a "build your own image" then you can build in some or all of the patches (at least up to the image build time.) So if we leave the "low effort" realm you can do things to speed that up a lot. But when comparing vanilla OEM disc to vanilla MS VL OS disc the patching and updates should be a break even.
Wouldn't call it a break even. If you do it on the image you spend the time on a VM doing it once for them. If you do it yourself without an image you have to do it on all of them after you get the computers.
