|
This Question is Answered
9 Replies
Last post:
Aug 14, 2008 1:23 AM by
MarXtar
So it sounds like you are happy with Ghost but want a way to deploy an image then post deploy applications and customize an image using LANDesk and a packaging solution that is more up to date and supportable than Package builder. Sound correct?
Well you have a very detailed post but it there still is not enough information (Desktop OS, how many packages, what type of packages, packagers experience level, budget, 64 bit support, MAC support, IIS/Java, Repackaging, Infrastructure, etc...) to answer this question, however, I can give you suggestions.
Package Builder (PB) and the Ghost Builder are basically the same tool. Both came from 20/20 but that is a long story. PB for all extensive purposes is not supported past XP, and IMO is not really "truley" supported/enhanced by LANDesk. Good tool for quickie snapshopts (yack) and other items, but Autoitscript is a better tool. Most of the tools out there will be MSI based since we are a MSI world. Not saying I agree with this decision but that is reality. Choosing a Packaging tool is like deciding to get married. First you have to make a decision whether you want to get married, then you have to find the right person. Just like I can't tell you who to marry I can't tell you what tool to use. So do you go with a straight packaging tool (Wise, Admin Studio, free MSI tools, etc..) or do you pursue a virtulization solution (Landesk App Virt, etc...) or a hybrid solution utilizing both. All these tools work. You need to sit down and define your requirements and find the right one. We have both Wise and Admin Studio (not my decision), and in about 90% of our packages both are overkill. If you believe the poll on appdeploy then most people are using Wise Package Studio. Sounds like in your shop that you may not have dedicate packagers and admins may be doing the packaging. I've had some good luck playing around with Advanced Installer fast, easy, inexpensive. So don't feel you have to go with one of the big boys.
Default User Profile. Not really a packaging question since this can be accomplished without packaging.I would not use this as a package settting solution - too cumbersome. So define your requirements and budget and start downloading and testing. IMO I don't feel you can go purely virtualized since you may have apps that will not work virtualized, however, if you can Virtualize and store the apps on app share you won't have to worry about post image installs 
Sorry got a little wordy... BTW we have 1 desktop/laptop image in a diverse enviroment and 1,500+ applications.
Thakn you for the replies. Here is a followup to answer some of your questoins about my question.
zman: We have about 3000+ PC's and Macs across about a dozen campuses. PC's all run Windows XP Pro SP3, and Macs run Leopard (Mac OS 10.5). Fortunately, we have a Mac solution. My main concern is for the PC's. We will have dedicated package builders, but we are all new at this. As far as the Default User profile, the Microsoft link that you posted is the current method that we use to create the Default User profile. We do this as a last step in our image building process. The Default User profile contains many software and OS configurations, such as license agreements, application settings, desktop settings, etc. We rely heavily on creating a customized Default User profile in order to create a clean, easy to use Desktop PC for our computerized Labs and Classrooms. This appears to be the true difficulty with packaging, as I have seen it. For example, I can create a software package using the LANDesk Package Builder for Firefox. In the configuration process of building the snapshot, I can chose to always delete private data in the Firefox options. If I deploy this package, the Firefox options that I set are not applied to the Default User, and thus when students log into the lab or classroom computers using their Active Directory accounts, they will not receive the correct configuration of the Firefox application.
It is little things like this that are currently difficult for me. My environment is unique compared to a corporate environment, where users often keep their own profiles. In a university lab or classroom, however, user profiles are created on the fly by relying on a Default User profile that has all of our desired settings for the lab environment. Our classrooms and labs are our life blood. Many different classes are taught in the same classrooms, each having different software requirements. Classes are often moved to other rooms, and we require "software requests" from each department every semester so that we know what software is needed in what classroom or lab. Multiply this by the number and size of our classrooms and labs, and you have quite a challenge to maintain each computer in such a way that classes can be held without interuption
As faras budget goes, it is a problem, but I am not sure how much of a problem. I want to find the best solution for us for a reasonable price. If something works well, then I am sure we will be able to justify the budget for it.
MarXtar: I have not tried virtualization. One of our to-be package biulders if interested in this, and I will probably have him persue researching this aspect of software deployment. Maybe launchpad is something that we would like to persue as well.
Thank you for the information, guys. If you have more ideas, please throw them my way.
Thanks,
Dan
All good products that will do the job. However, a BMW M3 is ranked higher than my Ford Focus Wagon 
and for my requirements the Ford Focus is perfect for me. I would again start by clearly defining your requirements. I would not pick any of those products purely on HKCU functions. If that was it, grab a free copy of Autoitscript or perl. Plus keep in mind how LANDesk works, especially when it comes to HKCU settings.
We will have dedicated package builders, but we are all new at this.
So if you hire first the packagers will usually dictate the tool, or you can buy a tool and then hire packagers that are familair with the tool. If you are an active directory shop alot of this settings can be done with either canned GPOs or writing your own.
Again you can't really go wrong with any of those choices, or the other ones that Mark and I listed. The questions is are you going to use the majority of functions/features of those tools. This is where a clearly defined requirements doc will help. Again a difficult decision.
| ||||||
