 |
 |
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'