>>We disagree on the weight of the OS rebuild vs the weight of making the image and the best time to implement.
Well, if you insist we disagree, OK. I believe the weight
is very much an individual thing based on lots of factors
discussed here at various times. I, naturaly, give my
view, but I think YOU should use YOUR weighting for YOUR
decision. If that's disagreeing, well, have it your way
... (see, I'm agreeing with you <G>).
Now if you want ME to do it YOUR way when my weights are
different, THEN we can disagree. Are we fighting yet? <GG>
>>I implied from your post that making an image is somehow difficult or time consuming. My experience is that it is neither.
I'd've inferred it, but I'm old fashioned <GGG>. Well,
look at it this way: I do backup/recovery things which
I think are easy and not time consuming (I'm talking
about KOT restores, not data backups). I know how to
do these. You do images because you think they are easy
and not time consuming. You know how to do them.
You are reluctant to tackle what I do (I gather, anyhow)
because you would need to learn a lot and are not
sure of the cost of learning nor whether the result would
be satisfactory if you did. I assign exactly the same
reasoning to images: I don't do them now; I have a learning
curve which I perceive to be of some substance; I am
uncertain as to the efficacy of the results versus the
efforts.
I DO think images have merit. I have simply
assigned a (much) lower priority on my weighting scale
than you. Also my costs are much higher than yours
because of the learning curve and methodolgy design.
I assign a high priority to key backups
(registry, configuration files, boot sectors, blah, blah),
which I find simple and effective, VASTLY reducing
the immediacy of images in my scheme of things.
In virtually every particular, these seem like exactly
symmetric positions. I don't see that we're disagreeing
at all (except about the fact of disagreeing<g>). |
