So I'm kind of in a bit of a pickle, as they say, and I have a question for you IT guys who make/deploy computer images using software like Ghost (but not limited to that).
Hypothetically speaking, say you had a project come at you and you (now) need to install a piece of software on 46 lab computers, and with a rather tight deadline, like say a week. And you are down to 2 options of doing this - manual install via the install cd on each machine, or update your "backup image" for those computers and deploy the new "image".
Now for the really silly question, but are there any experts here in that area? Yeah I work with Ghost and have for upwards to 10 years, but I don't know that I'd call myself an expert. But anyway.
Other items to consider:
said software clocks in at about 15 mins/per machine on the install
said software was too complex for something like SCCM to be used
multiple simultaneous (separate) installs could be run from a network location
existing OS on this hardware, before and after this update, is XP, but is slated to get bumped up to Win7 this summer
the existing hardware is aging and may be replaced this upcoming summer (by then it will be 4 years old)
If you were the tech faced with that scenario, what would you do? Update your image and deploy, and if so, how long do you think that would take versus hitting each machine and running the setup.exe Which do you think might get the job done quicker?
What I'm trying to gather really is time lines kind of information. How long would it take to update an image and deploy (to machines on AD) versus hitting each machine.
So in essence, I'm trying to prove my boss wrong on something