Let me first of all say I firmly believe in doing windows installs the "unattended" way, BUT some of the colleagues I am working with in other branches in my organization in other countries are, very recent, but nevertheless "supporters" of doing the "same" thing the M$ sysprep way.
I hope you will allow for this somewhat "off topic" discussion or feedback to happen on this list as I need your feedback in order to save us from the pitfalls off going the "sysprep" way and using "unattended" instead.
Now to the question, I could do with some arguments/facts/feedback or shared experiences about some of you who have in the past undoubtedly done it the "sysprep" way. Under win9x I had used "ghost" type imaging very successfully and had no real issues, but "ghosting" w2k or higher didn't work as flawlessly anymore.
So my question is twofold. First how frequent of an issue is it to have to have two or three "perfect" images for the different HAL types? (assuming that the MS documentation is right and one really does have to have different images to be able to copy it to machines using different HALs)
And secondly is there an "easy" way to establish what HAL type a machine would be while it is running win9x? I could then ask my colleagues to "survey" their current machines and it may or may not help them decide whether they should even consider doing "sysprep" images.
What other things would you want to tell anybody considering going donw the road of using "sysprep".
Many thanks for any feedback on this.
Urs Rau Head of IT OM UK National Office
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ unattended-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unattended-info
