For the record, here at my shop at MSU I am still running Windows
Vista with a Core 2 2.5 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM, on a machine
built from parts purchased at Digilink in town. I use this for some
heavy-duty software development as well as normal office use, and
have not felt any need to upgrade. Is Windows 7 so different from
Vista that it would require more resources?
-- David McFarlane
At 11/14/2014 04:57 PM Friday, STeve Andre' wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>On 11/14/14 15:41, Gary Schrock wrote:
>>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
>
>I think I have two Dell's running XP on faculty that are retiring so I'm not
>sure that counts.
>
>Probably many of us have a few laptops out there using XP--I give laptops
>to people and they flee, and I don't see them for a while. ;-)
>
>Yes, a core 2 duo with 4G is about the bottom for win7. Of course if the
>user is of the light-duty variety, they could be OK. I have a friend with a
>2.1GHz core two duo with 3G and it does work, for simple things.
>
>As for the Dec 1st deadline, I think that means internet -> XP won't work,
>not that they are completely blocked.
>
>
>--STeve Andre'
|
