none
Which is better? Install Microsoft Office as part of an image or do a post install? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I've always kept Office as part of the image as I thought it would decrease the total time for deployment. Is it better to deploy it as a post install application?

    Saturday, July 19, 2014 12:16 AM

Answers

  • The time you can save by having Office in the image is if you install all the updates for Office Before you capture your image.

    It's the updates to office that takes time to apply afterwards.*

    The backside of having office in the image is if you want to deploy Machines without office, then you will need one more image without office.

    Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:46 AM

All replies

  • The time you can save by having Office in the image is if you install all the updates for Office Before you capture your image.

    It's the updates to office that takes time to apply afterwards.*

    The backside of having office in the image is if you want to deploy Machines without office, then you will need one more image without office.

    Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:46 AM
  • I like the flexibility of having Office as a post install. You avoid having duplicate CMIDs and if you ever want to add/remove features or customize your MSP its easier to do that post rather than as part of your image. I keep the "base" wim file very thin and only install applications that will never or rarely need updating like legacy applications...I also installl all windows update as part of the base image as well. Applications such as Adobe products, Java, office, antivirus, silverlight, etc are all post installs in my deployments.. I think its rather a preference and based on your needs on your organization. We have a WSUS server that handles windows and office updates..

    Again, I dont know if there are any red flags on which method is better but I rather keep it neat and tidy!

    Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:27 PM
  • In my opininion there is no wrong or right here. There are pro's and con's opposed to installing Office in the image file or post deployment of the image.

    pro's are that Office updates are already present, opposed to post install, where your Office environment needs to be patched afterwards.

    con's are for example changes you have to make to your office installation, while it is embedded in the image.

    I think you just need to look at what advantages will it bring you by taking Office out of the image. If deployment time and office updates weigh more, then the advantage of having the possibility to change your msp file over time. Then things seem pretty straight forward to me.

    Another thing I would like to give you as advice, is in my opinion it all depends on your release cycle of Office. This is just one application that will be around for some years. And if it doesn't change over time, like a monthly update of Adobe Reader or something like that, why take it out of the image?

    Cheers!


    If this post is helpful please click "Mark for answer", thanks! Kind regards

    Monday, July 21, 2014 10:34 AM
  • + Mod points for Henrik, heid4055, and Rens! They are all correct...

    Some additional information:

    1. It used to be true that adding office to the image was very important. Back in the 2010 days, when there was Office 2010, two service, packs, and any additional updates. The updates alone took more time to install than the actual product. Newer versions of office don't suffer from this, but you can weigh the differences.

    2. Note that there is a new deployment method called C2R (not to mention Office 365), which don't actually install in the foreground, instead install the application icons at the start, and stream the rest of the office suite in the background.

    3. While working for Microsoft's own IT department, we started to look into putting the C2R source bits into our core Windows 8 image. If users wanted Office 2013, it would quickly install. Since the core Win8 image was streamed down to each client via MultiCast, we didn't think the overhead of adding in the C2R bits was too much.

    Confused? Sorry. But there are several great options here if you know what you want.


    Keith Garner - Principal Consultant [owner] - http://DeploymentLive.com

    Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:47 AM
    Moderator