Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Companies Keeping Systems Longer Than Ever

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the penny-pinching-till-lincoln-cries dept.

Ant writes to tell us ComputerWorld is reporting that based on a study done by the Yakee Group Research company out of Boston companies are leveraging the durability and reliability of computers to extend the lifespan of desktops, laptops, and servers. From the article: "IT's life-cycle demands have raised the bar for vendors. "There's more pressure on [the vendors] to make the boxes last a longer period of time."

8 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Why should I upgrade? by mnmn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We're using Windows 2000 Pentium-III machines for the most part in the company. We just have no real motivation to start using Windows XP or 2003 server anytime soon. (Apart from the fact that some of our apps will in time force us to upgrade).

    Most applications require Windows NT/2000/XP, which means they can still run on the older Windows NT 4.0 machines. So why upgrade?

    I think microsoft dug themselves in a hole with Windows 2000. Its everything companies need, and Windows XP offers not a whole lot more.. (prettier screens? faster bootup? DirectX 9.0c?) Most app vendors have standardized on Windows 2000, and Microsoft will have a tough time to force them to Windows XP alone, or Longhorn, which will force customers to get new hardware as well. In doing so, they'll also force some app vendors to more to Linux, which will happily and freely run on older hardware. Time to sell that Microsoft stock.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Why should I upgrade? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, Editor, it's "Yankee" and not "Yakee". RTFA.

      To the First Poster's point, the bigger question is whether or not Longhorn will force massive code rewrites. People got sucked into the hype with Windows 95 and 32-bit, but it killed a lot of small to midsize software builders which is the basis for a lot of anti-MicroSoft sentiment.

      Will web-based applications require a rebuild? (The web being the obvious weapons of choice.) Better yet, will Longhorn try to cripple Apache? (I have a dollar that says 'yes' -- for 'security reasons', too.)

      And you forgot one reason why managers will go away from WIndows 2K -- SharePoint. I have a Win2K machine, one of the last in my organization, and I can't connect to ANY of our SharePoint work. CIO doesn't care, says he won't be supporting Win2K in a few more months. Lucky me, I get one of the laptops of my friends who just got fired in the recent RIF. Yipee.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    2. Re:Why should I upgrade? by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft is all over us to move to .NET but, their hardware requirements are for 400MHz processors. Our least-common denominator is a lot of 266MHz, 128MB RAM machines. There really is no chance to make .NET perform acceptably on those old boxes. But since the only people with a real interest in moving us to .NET seems to be the Microsoft consultants, nothing much is happening on that front anyway.

      --
      John
  2. Investment in Software by under_score · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also drives this need to keep hardware around longer. A major piece of software for internal corporate IT might take several years to build, and then last a couple of decades. Suddenly it becomes important to have a fairly stable hardware environment.

    --
    Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
  3. Why upgrade? by Centurix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    W2K does everything we need right now for both developers and users in the company. The only reason I can think of to upgrade would be ongoing support from Microsoft for the platform. We call them once in a blue moon, mainly due to there being so much information elsewhere for most domestic stuff, only calling them when something weird goes on with something like Exchange (which is an expensive call in itself and not related to our desktop installs). We don't need the Fisher Price interface just something that works so we don't have to fix it.

    If you went to our CIO and said "We need to upgrade all our PC's to XP" and gave one reason, even if it's a good one, he'd get out the calculator and say no. It would have to be a reason like "We have to upgrade to XP otherwise the company will explode killing all executive management". Then he'd probably sign a check.

    --
    Task Mangler
  4. It's the Applications, stupid by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are most people in offices doing? Email, a little Word and Excel. How much power do you need to do that? If the machines aren't broken, and they're letting people do their jobs, then what's the impetus to make managers spend the money for upgrades? Unless you're doing heavy-duty number crunching or playing the latest and greatest video games, there's no reason to have the top of the line machine.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  5. Which is why... by keesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...I'm having a hard time getting over a one year warranty on IDE drives. I'll start to believe that people care about hardware lifespan when SCSI drives with a five year warranty start to become the norm again.

  6. They run as fast as the day they were bought by Radical+Rad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why get rid of perfectly good equipment? The major reasons I have seen for PCs to run slowly is:
    1. Spyware/adware.
    2. Antivirus scanners/firewalls/spam filters taking up most of the RAM.
    3. Unnecessary software getting loaded every time the user plugs in a new printer or USB device. You can't just load drivers anymore. The user is prompted to insert a CD which installs gobs of crap, many of which are not even full apps but trial versions. It is just submarine marketing.
    4. Fragmentation. I still remember the good old days when Microsloth claimed that NTFS doesn't fragment.
    5. "Upgrading" the system from the OS it was designed for to anything newer, i.e. 98 to 2000 or 2000 to XP.

    A few years ago I loaded some version of DOS, WordPerfect, and Lotus 1-2-3 on an old 386/25 laptop. I was blown away by how fast it booted up and by how fast the apps ran. Recalculating a spreadsheet took a fraction of a second instead of the microseconds it takes on my new system, but scrolling around a sheet full of data went so fast that I couldn't even stop where I wanted to. Instead of scrolling over to column G for example I kept overshooting and ending up at like column AK. Windows and Windows apps seem designed to slowly bury your PC under an avalanche of bloat forcing you to upgrade the hardware just to stay even. If this gets modded redundant it's only because everyone knows it's true.

    I just retired two servers that were with the company longer than me. They had NetWare 3.12 on them when I got there and NetWare 5.1 when I removed them from the tree. After about eight years of service they had only gone through two OS upgrades.