Comments on: Windows Vista vs. Windows XP – Systems Management

By: Michael Pietroforte

Michael Pietroforte — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:15:53 +0000

CK, the difference is that Vista already has built-in imaging capabilities, so you don’t have to buy third party licenses. Furthermore, XP’s imaging capabilities are quite limited even with sophisticated third party tools. Vista is a cost saver.

By: CK

CK — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:27:21 +0000

You stated, “if you already have all the software you need then Kennedy’s argument is valid”.

But then said, ” … you have to change a lot in your overall infrastructure. For example, you have to ensure that end users can store data only in their user profiles, you have to work with roaming user profiles, you have to invest some time getting acquainted with Wake-on-LAN and, depending on your organization’s size, you might need third party software that fully supports Vista’s image-based deployment, and so on. But I think that once you master all these obstacles, you will save much time in the future”.

So in either case you need things already in place for the argument to be valid.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:35:20 +0000

Not if you have a KMS server. With KMS activating Vista is like using DHCP to issue IP addresses. You don’t have to even think about it.

By: Horst

Horst — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:31:10 +0000

Thanks for the article!

This sounds really interesting, but every time you deploy updated images you would have to go through activation hell again, right?