 |
 |
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