|
Yes I suppose this might be something worth considering.
It is possible for a machine to become duplicated (by reimaging) and then retired (since only one would be active) and remain in the database. This would represent a real duplication, and the desired action be to remove this duplicate.
I could see that there might be confusion as to whether you would want to merge these two different machines..
Considering an upgrade from 2K to XP:
Example A:
If a company uses a convention where the computer's name is its barcode number, when a computer gets upgraded you could have two resources, one of which is the old (replaced) operating system installation, and another that is the current active build on that workstation. In this scenario you would want to merge, as the old operating system no longer exists.
Example B:
If a company used a different naming convention, lets say, the users name, this could lead to a situation where the physical hardware was retired and replaced, but the computers name stays the same across two different PCs. In this case, you would probably not want to merge the two different pieces of hardware (Windows 2K, Windows XP builds) that happened to use the same computer name (UserXYZ).
What do people think about this? I dont think the latter is a common practise..
I beleive most companies conform to the first example, and in this case I beleive you would want to merge the two different resources as they really are the same.. it is just two different operating system installations, one of which no longer exists.
I doubt people would want to keep resources in the database which represent a previously installed operating system on a workstation.
__________________
Steven Oakes
------------------
NS Guru
|
