Sysprep debate

[Doug Allen [MSFT]]

Using Sysprep in conjunction with a 3rd-party imaging software is currently
the only supported method of cloning an MS operating system. So
technically, using Ghost alone will work but is not supported by Microsoft.

You do not need a different image for every model of PC, only a different
image for machines that have different HALs. To determine this, go into
Device Manager and look under the Computer category. If they are different
between computers, you will need to create an additional image for those
machines. But that is the only stipulation forcing an additional image.

No software is perfect and all are "plagued" with problems in some form or
fashion. You also must realize that whenever it is time for your company to
upgrade to the XP platform, there will not be a choice. There is not any
cloning software that will work on its own because of Windows Product
Activation, and we require that you use Sysprep.

 

[teddro]

I am familar with the use of Sysprep. I am embroiled in a debate at wor
over whether it is proper to use Sysprep and an imaging tool like Ghos
to move a Windows 2000 installation from a machine that is bein
replaced to the new machine that is replacing it (a common P
upgrade).

I have used the method dozens of times with absolutely no problem
(after learning how) and contend that this is one of the purposes o
Sysprep.

My opponent in the debate insists this method is trouble plagued an
always leads to problems. However, he is also the person who gets t
sit on his rear end all day being the keeper of the 70 Ghost images w
have, so he obviously has a selfish motive for his opinion. He als
claims we must have a seperate image for each PC model.

My problem is that he has more political influence here than I do
There are managers (non-technical) who will correct this situation if
can produce statements from other knowledgable people that I a
correct.

Please do not reply with an opinion. Please have technical expertise i
the use of Sysprep. Also remember that non-technical people mus
understand what you are saying so leave off technical details. Jus
indicate if I am correct or not in this debate.

Thanks a million


-
teddr

 

[Scott Harding - MS MVP]

I have been using Sysprep and Ghost for several years for our training
department as we have to reload machines on a weekly basis for the classes.
It works great! Issues do arise between different hardware but many times I
have been able to use Ghost/Sysprep on different hardware and during the
loading of Windows it will detect the changes. Of course this is different
for every machine so you must test to be sure it will work between hardware
but it certainly is one of the best methods we have used and we have tried
several. And yes this is THE purpose of Sysprep so you can actually ghost
images( Ghosting was not supported at all by MS under NT4 until they came
out with Sysprep). Without Sysprep you would have to use other tools like
NewSid or something to that effect. I can't really see any other reason to
use Sysprep as it was developed just for this purpose. And once you get the
images the way you want for the hardware it almost always works without
problems. Believe me I have done this several thousand times and it ROCKS!!
I am not sure what problems this person is referring to and what method do
they suggest?

 

[Jetro]

Theoretically, you should have a separate image for every HAL general
family. On practice, it could be an image with ACPI HAL and, just to be
safe, an additional image with Standard HAL, i.e. 2 (two) in total. Since
sysprep 1.1 it's possible to get around the requirement of the mass storage
controllers similarity and add OEM PnP drivers, so it still could be two
images only which you upgrade from time to time, indeed.
Sysprep is an amazing tool for the computer manufacturers, who preinstalls
OS on the dozens of thousands boxes during pre-sale preparation, but this is
not the case here. Sysprep as well as 70 different images is not in big
demand in the real life of average W2k admin, unless the hardware is
extremely dissimilar.

 

[SaltPeter]

I have been using Sysprep and Ghost for several years for our training
department as we have to reload machines on a weekly basis for the classes.
It works great! Issues do arise between different hardware but many times I
have been able to use Ghost/Sysprep on different hardware and during the
loading of Windows it will detect the changes. Of course this is different
for every machine so you must test to be sure it will work between hardware
but it certainly is one of the best methods we have used and we have tried
several. And yes this is THE purpose of Sysprep so you can actually ghost
images( Ghosting was not supported at all by MS under NT4 until they came
out with Sysprep). Without Sysprep you would have to use other tools like
NewSid or something to that effect. I can't really see any other reason to
use Sysprep as it was developed just for this purpose. And once you get the
images the way you want for the hardware it almost always works without
problems. Believe me I have done this several thousand times and it ROCKS!!
I am not sure what problems this person is referring to and what method do
they suggest?

<snip>

First, i'll second your comments and add a few...
A hardware abstraction layer can't be modified by Plug and Play
detection. While its true that often enough the same HAL will prove to be
sufficient to support different motherboards based on the same chipset
architecture, its certainly not a viable option when creating an image that
will be distributed amongst a few hundred systems.
A good workaround is to create the image with a standard HAL instead.
Ghost a syspreped standard image and then upgrade the HAL to an ACPI HAL
once image is transferred.

To the original poster:
Syspreped images are not perfect, there will always be a few
applications and service pack issues. But the advantages of providing a
standard desktop throughout far, far outway the occasional issues.
Additionally, since the images are generated and deployed in a controlled
manner, the issues that arise, and their fixes, apply to all the related
images.

What is certainly not an option, is distributing an image without
running sysprep or at least sysinternal's NewSID utility. This can better be
understood when one considers that names mean absolutely nothing to W2K,
except for DNS name resolution. All that matters are the GUIDs and SIDs in
the W2K world. Without sysprep, the network architecture has no way of
discerning an object on system#1 and the same object on system#2. Which
becomes rather serious when the "object" is a local administrator, for
example. If you choose to ghost, you MUST handle the security identifier
issue. Thats not an option.

 

[Oli Restorick [MVP]]

I'm not a great fan of Ghost on its own, or even Ghost with SysPrep. On a
large network, you just end up managing a lot of Ghost images by hand and
that's a pain. To do it properly, you need one of each model of machine in
a test lab to make sure it will work properly. You might already have that,
in which case it's not a problem.

It is my preference to script the build as far as possible so that the
scripted build will install on every machine you have. The installations
will be slower this way, but you can then use Ghost to image the scripted
builds. That way, you have one build that's self-documented (because you
can look at the scripts) and you know that you can easily get the latest
build on any model of computer.

Who wants to manage 70 Ghost images? Sounds like a full-time job to me.

Regards

Oli