When you say not all updates can be injected, do you mean things like Office updates, or are there others that a person would miss?
I also didn't realize injecting the updates to the image didn't actually install them. If they are only the installed after an OSD, then I'm even more inclined not to inject. I might image two PC's as a test, one with the patches already installed, one with them injected, and see which one builds faster. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [mssms] RE: Patch/WIM Injection First, not all updates can be injected into a WIM so even if you do employ image servicing, it is not sufficient to deploy a fully patched image. Thus, you really should be capturing a new image periodically no matter what - if you are using a build and capture task sequence (whether in MDT or ConfigMgr) then this is a trivial task (beware of the double reboots in ConfigMgr though :(). Offline servicing in ConfigMgr has had issues (not really ConfigMgr's fault to my knowledge but that's beside the point) and is why some/many people shy away from using image servicing. Also note that image servicing doesn't actually install the updates. It merely injects them into the WIM for installation during Windows Setup so it really doesn't save you as much as you think it does in terms of time or space. J From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bradley, Matt Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:55 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] Patch/WIM Injection I've read that some people do not like injecting monthly patches directly into the OS WIM. Some prefer to just capture reference images. Being that a bad patch could be removed from a WIM if it was determined to be bad, I'd like to hear some feedback on why some choose to still stay away from this method, and stay with reference image capture. Thanks.
