Install from CD vs Image copying

[harichennai]

Hi all,


Which is best? quite simply..


Just to add..


If remote installations are required without the need for physically using CD drive, then also running the PTC.setup from a common server and doing installation through network makes sense.


Is image copying method an old method?


I await your comments from all your experiences..


Thanks in advance

 

[Dell_Boy]

Make your 3 disk images using some CD copying software and leave these on the server.



Use Daemon tools or some other virtual drive software to mount the image.





Install

 

[harichennai]

Hi ,


I dont have a need for an installation method.


All I need is a comparision of the two methods and their pros and cons..


Thanks..

 

[Dell_Boy]

In a big company it is relatively easy to lose install disks. Making
these available over the network to multiple users makes a lot of
sense. It is also possibly to put around 7 CD images on a single DVD to
create a super disk that can be used for almost anything and with only
disk it makes duplicating much easier as well.





DB

 

[Speling]

Using image like source for installing is faster and better than cd

 

[harichennai]

My question should be


which is better?


running PTC.setup and let it install (either from CD or over network )


or


copying the Software image and editing the registry (In this method, we dont run PTC.setup )

 

[bruppert]

I have always done the copy method. I just copy the startup shortcuts to the user's desktop or the "All Users" desktop. The only required registry entries made by Pro/E are to the path environment variable. All other registry changes - like file associations - are done on-the-fly when Pro/E is run by the user. You only need to do the path change and shortcut copy once per release. Updating builds just requires a copy of the Pro/E install folder to the user's machine. Doing it this way makes it easy to "push" out a new build with scripts. I would also install the Help files in a separate folder from Pro/E. That tends to be fairly stable and doesn't need updating with each build. You copy the Help files once - or better yet put them on the network. That way when you do your Pro/E copy it's not so big - it drops it by over 250Mb in WF2. Doing it this way I could update over 50 stations in a few hours, without interaction, on a slow network and never need to bother the user.

 

[looslib]

Do a network install and you can do hundreds of installs in the time it takes to do the one network master install.

 

[jnoval]

The best solution is to do a network installation. Simple - just install the software on a network drive. Copy a shortcut to the local WS.


If you need a local installation (on a laptop) I would use copy.

 

[bruppert]

I agree a network install is best for the Administrator. If you want the best performance for the designer, however, it's best to have Pro/E running locally. It's slower to start when networked - which is really no big deal because it's only a one time wait - but then Pro/E continues to load files as they're required - dialog boxes, menu files etc. This can make it more sluggish to the user. For example there are almost 8000 dialog box resource files in the Pro/E WF2 install. As the user picks different menu choices they are loaded as required. Maybe it's not a big deal to you but if you're looking for the best performance, local is the way to go.

 

[jnoval]

We are talking about seconds in startup time on a 100mbit LAN. I haven't notice any different in using the system after start up, and no complains from users, after we change to network installation. We use it in many different sites in Europe.


Try to make a test and see if you can see any different.

 

[looslib]

Well the startup time difference is not just seconds, it is more like a minute. In my timed tests, Pro/E starts in 23 seconds from a local install and 1 minute 18 seconds from a network install. If you close and restart Pro/E, the times are 7 seconds and 23 seconds.


The ssyetm iscaching data as it runs, so menus and other items are 'local' the second time they are accessed.


Yes, for the administartor it is the best solution. Most users won't notice the difference. But when you look at the time savings for installing a new build or even a new version, network installs win, unless you only have a handful of users. I have WF2 loaded on 160 workstations and 2001 is still on 200 more to be migrated this year. It takes a while to do local upgrades.

 

[harichennai]

Basically we have to debate between


1. Installing ProE by running PTC.setup from a physical CD


2. Installing ProE by running PTC.setup from sotware dump (This one is downloaded from PTC webiste)


3. Copying all the files that is generated from installation (IMAGE) , to a location in local hard drive(C/program), then do a registry change and environmental variable changes.This image is stored in a central server.


We shall discuss RUNNING ProE later in this thread or seperate thread..


I want you guys to compare only the installation methods and not running methods..


If the two cannot be seperately discussed, then also fine with me....some times better to take the whole picture





Thanks a lot ..

 

[Dell_Boy]

In a previous company I worked for we were running local licenses
because the IT department wouldn't put in a server triad. Even then we
found it quicker to complete an install one machine with help files in
a separate folder and then copy the install through the network and
re-run PTC setup to configure the licenses than it was to install from
CD.



On the odd occasion when the network server went down, we were also
able to continue work un-interrupted because we were fully independant
of the network.





DB

 

[proed]

A couple of years ago @ PTC/USER, 2 of us presented on different methods to manage a multi-user implementation... eg: PUSH out software updates, or PULL from central server. I wrote up some of the details here:


http://www.cadmin.co.uk/articles/admin_workload.htm


See the 1st section about Installation.


Anyway - as some have said, network installs are a great idea if you have a reliable hi-speed network (100mb as above). We use individual workstation installs, since our network coverage is sometimes patchy, and we have many sites. Maintaining a "master network" Pro/E install at each site would be more hassle than having every user with the same local install.


Hope this makes some sense (for a friday!)


Edwin