 |
 |
Win7 typically requires less resources than Vista—it uses RAM more efficiently. On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:15 PM, David McFarlane <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: 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'