if you notice many posts on communities forum you will find that people still have problems with the build process when the PCs are not from RM
People don't post about sucess. But that's typically because CC3 appeals to monkeys and a lot of them aren't very clueful about drivers i.e. the idea that they might have to get some "custom" drivers for their exotic hardware. Even when they do understand that part, they often don't realise that maintaining a comprehensive library for every gizmo on the planet is a non-trivial task, not least because of the poor quality of some of the driver packages, in particular their INFs. The BTS forums bear witness this (driverpacks.net).
 Not the same thing as "all people with or all people who like CC3, are monkeys"
This is one thing RM gives you
Another is you get me working for you for free Seriously... I often pinpoint/workaround bugs in CC3 and RM may comprehend and patch them for everyone one day. Trouble is that also means I'm working for RM for free
There are more companies with vanilla knowledge than CC3.
Sure and if people really are good at Windows they'll cope with CC3 in about the same time it takes them to cope with any random Vanilla system and much faster the next time because it's a standard config. Vanilla isn't a standard and there's no telling how long the next one of those you meet will take to decrypt. See 4 below.
I have read a fair few of the posts on here but I am still very confused as to how a set of tools that do a similar job to a vanilla setup but make life a lot easier/quicker for the network manager is a bad thing?
To me it just seems like these people (and they do exist) who refuse to do anything at all using a GUI if it can be done in the command line. Most GUIs were designed to make your life easier and jobs quicker. Not the other way around.
Before anyone says anything, I have had experience of RM networks before as I spent five years with one in school (in which I did mess around with the admin account rather a lot... but shhh, don't tell anyone).
One of the problems with vanilla systems is that most of us who have rolled them out over the years in the various flavours (W2K, Server 2K3, 2K3R2) are at the point of where we can roll it out an we know pretty much the standard structure, GPOs, etc that we know work ...
But my setup will be different to PiqueABoo's ... and different to Dos_Box's ... and so on. Just small things but if they are undocumented it could be important.
Also ... some people prefer to lock things down more, other try to be more relaxed ... some prefer roaming profiles, some mandatory, it goes on.
A pre-built setup that gives a standard that is easily followed is not a bad thing. Remember who excited we got when we looked at LNM? A free alternative to doing what RM commercially do? We didn't slag it off as dumbing down our skills ... we just wanted to look at it as a set of tools to help deploy things faster and more easily, but still allow us to have flexibilty.
Folks ... please ... disagree with RM over costs, disagree with the performance of Classlink, rant about CSE missing a tool compared to other systems ... but stop having a go at people that use these systems *BY THEIR OWN PROFESSIONAL CHOICE* over a vanilla setup. Most people on this site using these solutions have brains enough to be able to decide what is good and what is not ... most are well informed.
Thank you for the intervention as this always seems to be a them and us confrontation.
As i have said in all my posts about CC3 i have never been derogatory about any of my fellow professionals and i would wish the same from them.
This forum is for everyone to get acquainted and to learn and teach skills to other people from all skill sets and backgrounds.
Can we not be professional and agree to disagree then move on permanently.
I don't see why anyone needs extra software over active directory these days ...
Printing locations, Imaging, Remote access are all easily done in a few minutes with 2003 or free software
It's partly a question of time management, ITTech. Printing locations may only take a few minutes in a straight AD set-up, but they take seconds in a CC3 set-up. This may not be the most high-tech/geekiest/most technically satisfying way to do it, but it does free me up to go and do the myriad of other things which build up every day.
The way that the Management Console can be accessed from a student's login is quite handy too.
ittech: That's all good and well if you have a million IT support team members (ala GrumbleDook) and/or enough time in the world
Huh? Or if you have a single NM as well. We manage just fine with a vanilla set up.
Also, when people say 'vanilla setups aren't a standard, each one is different', what do you mean?
I am pretty sure that all vanilla setups use the MMC, use GPO's, use either roaming profiles, mandatory profiles etc... The only place where I can see where there could be differences would be assigning printers - which could be via GPO, via scripts or manually deployed.
Thats the thing with vanilla setups - they are vanilla, so they are all the same basically. Sure, people may have augmented bits with their own scripts - but this isn't necessary, and a new network manager would either have their own way of doing it anyway or would adopt those scripts.
Oh deity ... Vanilla setups the same? Perish the thought.
Do you allow contextual menus for staff on the desktop or start menu? Do you use .bat files for login scripts or do you use .vbs?
Do you make use of startup and shut down scripts?
How do you add printers? By machine on startup or by user on login based on the name of the machine they log into?
Do you have mandatory or roaming profiles? Folder redirection for home areas? For start menus?
Do you deploy machines with all applications installed or do you have a base OS and push the apps out by GPOs? Do you use transform files or reg scripts after install?
And this is just touching the tip of the iceberg without going into using MOM or SMS, building your own bits to make use of WMI, etc ...
I suppose it is semantics again ... just like 'imaging' being used instead of 'deploying' ... We tend to use Vanilla to describe a system without any commercial middleware ... how they are configured is to varied to describe. The technology and concepts are the same but the same way you could say and athlete 'trains' this means so many different things it is astounding.
But nearly all of those options will also be available via CC3 - things like what type of profile, what options are available to accounts etc... They should be standard across the board - if they aren't available in CC3 (which I haven't used, I have read up on and watched a collection of promotional videos for) then that is a major problem and would be a reason not to use it all on its own. And as I said, most NM's will either quickly adopt what has been done extra or will change to something they are familiar with.
Yes there are lots of ways of doing scripts - but then you can also use scripts in CC3, and once again have the myriad of choices.
Once you take those similar items away, you are left with a minimal selection of options - nearly all of which are 'standard' in some way.
I have yet to be shown in any way, by anyone who uses CC3 or is trying to sell it to me that it will actually make things easier.
And CC3 only does one type of profiles - roaming. The base CC3 install is pretty standard with certain files in certain locations and all shared folders following the same naming conventions and drive letters.
So what is your argument?
you use vanilla while other people use CC3 so what! i bet i drive a different car to you but that doesn't make me any less of a person does it!
I wish this "better than you" sh*te would cease as i think many people on this forum are sick to death of this old chestnut and I don't mean you localzuk so don't go getting your nose all bent out of shape.
Grumbledook: please would you end this nonsense and close the post