Ghost or Windows Deployment Services for imaging

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian
  • Start date Start date
B

Brian

What do you think is better/quicker/easier?

For XP Ghost is the way to go for us. It was easy to configure out image and
then use ghost to create an image. With Vista we are running into a few
problems.

Thanks for the comments.

Brian
 
TeraByte Unlimited's Image for DOS/Image for Windows works fine with Vista.
I believe they are about to release Version 2.

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/

--

_____________________________________

Walter B
waltblanch[at]tampabay[dot]rr[dot]com
_____________________________________
 
Brian said:
What do you think is better/quicker/easier?

For XP Ghost is the way to go for us. It was easy to configure out image and
then use ghost to create an image. With Vista we are running into a few
problems.

Thanks for the comments.

Brian
Click to expand...

What are the problem? We create our images by booting a diskette. Why
would Vista have a problem?

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services
 
Brian said:
What do you think is better/quicker/easier?

For XP Ghost is the way to go for us. It was easy to configure out image
and
then use ghost to create an image. With Vista we are running into a few
problems.
Click to expand...


I prefer ImageX.EXE (supplied with Vista). Especially if you are going to
manage multiple images. It allows multiple images to be contained in the
same WIM file without duplicating individual files. So if you have a "base"
image that is 1.5gb. And a "loaded" image that is 2.2gb. Rather than 2
images talking up 3.7gb you can have a single image that is 2.3gb. Less to
store and less to distribute to remote servers.
 
Seth said:
I prefer ImageX.EXE (supplied with Vista). Especially if you are going to
manage multiple images. It allows multiple images to be contained in the
same WIM file without duplicating individual files. So if you have a
"base" image that is 1.5gb. And a "loaded" image that is 2.2gb. Rather
than 2 images talking up 3.7gb you can have a single image that is 2.3gb.
Less to store and less to distribute to remote servers.
Click to expand...

If you are using ImageX try GimageX. Its a GUI version of imagex developed
by the chap who developed AutoIT.

http://www.autoitscript.com/gimagex/
 
Back
Top