Just to clarify, the original question is not
about minimum specs for a newly purchased
machine, but minimum specs for an *old* machine to be upgraded from XP to Win7.
-- David McFarlane
At 11/14/2014 04:08 PM Friday, Benson, Ehren wrote:
>If you are buying a machine, I wouldn’t get
>less than an i5 w/ 4gb of memory these days.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ehren Benson
>IT Services Virtualization Storage & Systems (VSS)
>517-884-3088 | [log in to unmask]
>
>From: Gary Schrock [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:42 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [MSUNAG] xp to win 7 or junk machine,
>what's the opinion on cutoff point?
>
>I'm kinda curious what other people think about
>this issue, and where people would tend to draw
>the line. As part of this sudden (and
>about-faced policy from what it was a few weeks
>ago) deadlines on xp machines being on the
>network, we're looking at the task of what to do
>with what's turning out to be a *lot* of
>machines that are still running xp. And while
>we're still early in the process of identifying
>and determining what the hardware is under each
>of these machines, needless to say we're already
>getting pushback from faculty (some of which
>will give up a computer when you can pry it from their cold, dead fingers :) ).
>
>So basically, I'm kinda curious what people
>think is a reasonable minimum machine that runs
>windows 7 decently enough that it's worth the
>effort of upgrading from xp to windows 7. What
>cpu and memory combination do people think is a reasonable cut-off point?
>
>Personally, I'd probably look at something like
>an E8400 Core 2 Duo processor machine with 4
>gigs of ram as what I'd call about the bottom
>end of acceptable. I wouldn't really say it's a
>great machine when running win 7, but it seems
>to be an adequate machine. From what I can
>tell, machines with this combination tend to be
>in the 4 to 6 year old range (and I have to
>admit, the idea of upgrading a lot of 6 year old
>machines that might only last another year or so
>is a little on the depressing side).
>
>Or heck, maybe we're the only department on
>campus that really has this issue of a large
>number of machines that need to be dealt with,
>and everyone else has done better at keeping
>machines newer in their
>departments? Personally, I found it kinda
>laughable that the linked to form in the email
>that went out only allows one to enter a single
>machine at a time, because I'm facing numbers
>where that isn't exactly practical :). (And
>anyone else notice that the linked form last I
>checked still said that December 1st the
>machines would be blocked from accessing the
>internet, we still haven't gotten an answer on
>why that discrepancy is there and whether we
>really have till Feb 1 before they're blocked from the internet or not).
>
>Thanks,
>Gary
|