What a Vista Upgrade Will Really Cost You

narramissic writes, "James Gaskin wrote an interesting article this week about what he recons it will really cost organizations to upgrade to Vista. Gaskin estimates that each Vista user will 'cost your company between $3,250 and $5,000. That's each and every Vista user. Money will go to Microsoft for Vista and Office 2007, to hardware vendors for new PCs and components, and possibly a few bucks to Apple for those users jumping to a Mac.'" Any sense of how realistic those figures are?

Comments

FUD

[networkBoy]

Most of the hardware costs would be there anyway as part of a normal IT refresh cycle. So I call BS.
-nB

Re:FUD

[gEvil (beta)]

The hardware itself will be about 1/2 the cost when you factor in both Vista and Office. Not to mention that many typical desktop users are still fine with machines purchased 3-4 (or more) years ago.

Re:FUD

[TrippTDF]

yeah, but do you NEED to do this refresh is the question. Everything I've seen of Vista looks like XP without the usability/stability (I know, still beta). These cotsts would be part of a cycle, but why do the cycle inthe first place?

Re:FUD

[goldspider]

I think an interesting analysis would be a comparison between the cost of upgrading to Vista and switching the entire office to Linux.

What would be the cost of:

- replacing/training desktop support?
- training the rest of the workforce?
- lost productivity due to the above?

Re:FUD

[jZnat]

Now that's Microsoft-funded FUD, so I'd rather not see that report.

Re:FUD

[networkBoy]

Of my company (~80K employees) about 2/3 have IBM/Lenovo notebooks. The other 1/3 are dell notebooks or desktops. A rolling three year window is used to determine upgrades, and yes it's required. When the dot bomb happened and we pushed to a 4 year cycle support costs in that last year were dramatically higher than the other years. The knee in the curve appeared to happen at 3 years 3 months (quaterly mapping).

If your department/company is on desktops then the upgrade costs for a rollout will be minimal anyway as a vista PC will likely only be a couple hundred more than a bottom end XP box from dell, and I'm sure the entire optiplex line will be Vista compatible.
-nB

Re:FUD

[networkBoy]

"Of course if you can properly lock down your software"

I guess you missed the part about the volume of PCs that are notebooks?
Physical abuse takes it's toll far more than software issues. All one needs do is refresh with the latest and greatest image for that notebook build and you've fixed any software issues. The hardware takes a pounding, that pounding increases the rate of parts wear out on the notebooks, that's life.

Really, not to flame, but I don't get your point.
-nB

Re:FUD

[Lumpy]

REally?? so you would normally buy high end laptops with high end 3d graphics? Becausethat is what Vista calls for as "reccomended"

last time I was in corperate IT we certianly did not buy the high end stuff for sales. marketing and management. we bought lower-middle to give performance where needed and certianly opted out of the 3d graphics capabilities.

Have you even tried running vista? I have. and it sucks without a good 3d card. kind of like how XP sucked on the p-III hardware that was normal when it came out.

Vista runs nice with 2gig ram, a decent 3d card (something that does not exist in laptop land outside of the higher end laptops) and fast hard drive... (gotta upgrade to SATA 5400 drives in those laptops... again up to the premium level.)

So I call BS on your calling BS. you obviousally dont know what it takes to run Vista as smooth as XP nor even did any research on it for management education at your monthly IT management update.

Re:FUD

[RAMMS EIN]

``So because such an analysys, no matter how objective or thorough, might tend to favor Microsoft, you'd rather not take those factors into consideration?''

Of course. Are you new here?

Re:FUD

[AviLazar]

How will the hardware cost be 1/2 the cost when you factor in vista/office. At 3-5k...50% of that is 1.5-2.5k. Vista/office for business is not going to cost that much.
While many desktop users "are still fine with machines purchased 3-4 (or more) years ago" that does not make it a good thing to do. I know desktop users who are fine with win95/98....do you recommend they stay on those platforms? I sure don't. While users who are using winXP are going to be fine for the next few years, they will eventually need to upgrade. Nobody is saying run to the store the moment vista hits the shelves (well except MS and people who will reap some benefits from those sales) - most people will say wait until SP-1 (/. people will say wait until SP-3552352).

The cost to upgrade will be there, but for organizations who have been using XP for a number of years, they have gotten their use out of it. They can stay on XP, but it will not cost 1.5 to 2.5k to upgrade.

Re:FUD

[RAMMS EIN]

I'm sure some people somewhere will be running pilots with both Vista and some Linux distro. I hope they'll post their findings; they will be interesting at least.

Re:FUD

[UncleRage]

Not exactly true.

Many small to medium size companies choose not to lease or buy "Big Brand"; meaning, you don't always get a new Windows COA on a piece of hardware.

I just finished a new business install w/ a dual xeon server and 6 workstations. My build estimate was substantially lower than Dell and landed the job. (Specifically, my server build was lower than Dell by nearly $800 for the same hardware -- neither of us providing Win2k3 SBS. The workstations, also beating Dell by nearly $200 per box, all used recycled Win 2k Pros -- COA's pulled from retail, not OEM, licenesed systems that the client provided from their last business).

End nut? New hardware that did not come packaged with new Windows.

Had the client been forced to buy new licenses for the workstations (and not recycle existing, valid, licenses), the cost would have been an extra $870 for OEM XP Pro's.

Now, the client has a rock solid workstation using an OS that is already proven with their OS/Software choice. And they are thrilled.

Any reason to move forward to XP (with another OS migration in the next 1-2 years)? No.

Would the migration to Vista have cost this client more if they had chosen big built OEM? Absolutely, especially when one considers the cost of the new equipment (Microsoft Tax included), and then a secondary migration to Vista a year down the road.

Remember, not everyone leases with a dollar buyout to ride the write off. There are many businesses that are working on a small(er) budget that will definately pay more for the transition.

The nitpicking line is now open... fire away.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I like to ask questions that I then answer immediately? Fuckin' A.

Re:FUD

[notnAP]

Not really true; the hardware will come with a Vista license when you buy it.

So the requried hardware for Vista didn't really cost me anything extra because it was I was going to buy it anyway as part of my system upgrade cycle (I have a system upgrade cycle?!?), and Vista didn't cost me anything because it came "free" with the hardware.

Well that's a relief. I thought that money I was going to spend was real. I can't wait to tell the CFO the money I'm telling he's spending doesn't really cost him anything.

And I guess the good news is that I'm no longer paying this same nothing twice, too.

Re:FUD

[UncleRage]

Actually...

Client's were installed with a very good NAS solution that backs up the single App run off the server.

Each workstation was finalized and then imaged with all necessary mapping configured. The final image is stored locally on a DVD in each station. The reinstall is held on a CF card run through the IDE slot. If failure occurs, booting off of the CF and reinstalling the image takes exactly 12 minutes -- that's 12 minutes from uh-oh to working again. The only necessary step afterwards
is to update any system patches and virus/spy/adware definitions; which, of course, is SOP anyhow.

The client was trained in this procedure and, being computer literate, is very comfortable with the process.

Oh, and included with the estimate is a once a month service call where I check each system and burn a new image. So, as you can see, the client is never forced to update more than a months worth of patches or definitions.

Unless there is a hardware failure, I need not be called.

But that was a really good try. I especially like the "lining of pockets" part. Because we all know that Microsoft never provides redundant products with the explicit intent of increasing sales.

In fact... your tone seems familiar. Are you my MS partner rep?

Re:FUD

[networkBoy]

A large part of our workforce is mobile.
We are in the semiconductor industry, and while your wanting sales and MarCom to have notebooks is obvious, I'll agree the rest is not so obvious:

Techs: Notebooks allow them to have their computer no matter where they are (in a lab, at their desk, in the cafe, checking e-mail over breakfast, etc.) What I've noticed is that most of the techs desks are now empty. They've set up shop in the lab and basically live there. Since labs are up to 3 buildings away from peoples desks, this means a lot of time not wasted.

Engineers: Go ahead and basically ditto techs, while silicon is in-house. While in the design phase, this allows teams working on the same functional block to all huddle in a conference room and work as a team (granted an open office plan could allow this as well, but then you'd be moving people's desks around as their team assignments changed).

Managers:
Damned if I know, all they seem to do is power point and show each other their power point foo in meetings. A thumb drive and bullpen PC on the projector would work fine, but then again, they usually work from the Cafe and/or home.

Legal:
Stickiest situation. Notebooks are better for security for a non tech savy user. They have hardened locking cabinets that their notebooks are locked into at night. While a removable HDD would do, these are lawyers, not techs.

HR: Ditto legal.

It all sums up to increased time availability &&|| security. All notebooks use IBMs TCPA chip to run the HDD in an encrypted session, so little chance of a stolen book being an issue for us.
-nB

Re:FUD

[stunt_penguin]

I call FUD on this article as well; for a start most current hardware (above a midrange P4 system with half a gig of RAM ) will run Vista just fine- you might just want to drop the Aqua interface (though I *do* like the look of it myself). You can stick any version of office you like on the damned thing, and be done with it.

The article should read 'upgrading all your computers to brand new ones, trashing all your old hardware and putting Vista and (for some reason) MS office on them will cost $3000'.

Big fscking surprise there.

Re:FUD

[UncleRage]

Hardware warranty on parts, one hour labor on parts replacement. Most business clients agree with my recomendations to purchase additional necessaries (i.e. on hand replacement of HD and DVD). In the event of HD failure, a replacement is on hand and the failed unit is then sent back for warranty replacement.

As I'm in a relatively small town, with a shop on Main St (literally), most of my business clients are within a 5 minute walk. And as such, if a business client needs me now. I place an "out of the shop for an hour" sign on the door and am at their disposal.

To answer the question above parent about undercutting Dell not being worth it:

It's funny. Everyone talks about how business need to evolve to make the required changes to compete. In my situation, it's actually very easy.

I don't sell computers. I sell a service. When a client comes in for a consultation with me, we sit down and map out their needs. I provide the client with a selection of hardware choices and include my recomendation. Once components have been selected, I provide the client with either Newegg or Tigerdirect ordering numbers (in the case of Newegg, I offer to setup a preliminary client account w/o financials, and fill their cart). The client actually orders their own parts and I assemble and provide a one year (hardware) service warranty on each assembled system.

My billing is very simple that way -- I don't handle inventory, so there's no taxable sales. I provide service only and charge flat rate service fees that are set as to complexity and provide scalable discount for quantity. i.e. Workstation builds are $150 a pop. More than three builds gives a 10% discount, five builds - 15%.

I sketched the initial idea and handed it to my accountant for refinement. I now have a very simple business model that is beginning (after two years) to show some real stability.

The majority of my PC business is walk in cleaning jobs and reinstalls for Mom and Dad. Occasionally I get to build cool stuff (high end gaming rigs and HTPC's), I've got 8 systems on the floor for closed LAN party gaming, a 12'x 10' chromakey green screen for novelty digital photo's, and now we're branching out to cover novelty karaoke recording and mobile garage band and gig recording on the weekends.

So, again, when asked how it's worth competing with Dell... because I don't try and rape each client for every last dollar they have. I offer advice and reasonable service charges.

Fortunately, my wife and I own our home. We have no children (or plans for them) and, generally value our friends, and peace of mind more than keeping up with the Jones family.

Also -- we try and incorporate our own personal interests into our business (I'm a musician, therefore: recording, she's an artist and photographer: so, greenscreen photography. We both like gaming - so, closed LAN parties on Saturday nights).

The last part sounds a bit preachy, sorry. But after the article yesterday on dwindling IT jobs in the country (and a few very solid reader comments about hardware support and instllation), I just felt verbiage heavy.

It's easy to compete, when you don't. Use the current market as an advantage and wipe away your inventory. If you don't have the pockets to compete with Walmart, Circuit City or CompUSA... don't. Use online sellers to your advantage and build off their lower prices.

Works for me.

Re:FUD

[wrfelts]

Having managed or assisted in innumerable cycle and incremental upgrades due to version changes of one piece or another over the last 22 years, I can tell you that these costs are quite valid.

The whole idea of attrition upgrade is untenable when a MS OS or Office upgrade is involved. The two overridding issues are compatibility and supportability.

Compatibility issues arise due to such things as new features of office version not being usable by older versions, thus, eventually forcing an accross the board updrage. Also, there are often changes in the way that the new OS networking integrates with the existing infrastructure. This can cause hard to find issues cropping into the network. These types of problems can slowly build up, and eventually force an accross the board upgrade. Also, simple changes in the user interface create innumerable support headaches when there are more than one OS/Office version floating around on the floor.

For large organizations, the only tenable solution is the Enterprise or Site licensing clauses that allow them to continue putting out PCs with the existing standard (such as XP & Office 2003) until they are forced to upgrade. In this way, they can slowly (with attrition) buy hardware that will support the new software without yet deploying the new software. When all the support pieces are in place and enough of the hardware has been replaced, then a large project can be launched to upgrade all the users to the new software, replacing the remaining low-end hardware at the same time. This also entails internal and commercial application upgrades to take care of compatibility issues. With a well thought out plan in place and no hitches in rollout (which always occur) the low end price per PC might be attained.

Smaller organizations do not have the leverage (or deep enough pockets) for the site licensing. This forces them to go with a mixed environment as they buy new or replacement PCs. For a while, such changes can work, until the level of pain forces them to do more aggressive upgrades. Since they don't have the ability to do things on a mass scale to reduce per PC costs (upgrade and rollout labor, hardware costs, and licensing), they are forced into the eventual high end cost, as noted in the article.

In reality, the quoted costs for upgrade have been fairly consistent over the years. These issues have existed since the beginning of this industry. Although hardware costs have generally decreased, software has gone up to fill in the gap.

What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that these figures still suprise people. This is very, very old news.

As an aside, if I were given carte blanche with the IT direction (and budget) of a large corporation, I would use the upgrade budget to:

1. Hire a large group of seasoned programmers that can navigate in both the commercial and OOS worlds,
2. Develop replacement software for the commercial or in-house apps that are Windows-bound (making parallel Win/OSS versions),
3. Develop a standard set of OSS corporate desktops to run the apps,
4. Begin migrating, department at a time, onto the new environment.

No, I'm not ignorant of the costs. It will initially be a larger cost than the upgrade to Vista, without question. Long term, however, support and upgrade costs become much lower. I would rather spend a bit more now to save a large amount over the long term. Strategically, it makes for a more agile IT department that has the ability, because of its investment in good programmers, instead of commercial software, to adjust quickly to new needs or challenges.

There will always be a need for commercial services (spam black listing, virus definition updates, specialty programming, etc.). The OS and, for the most part, office productivity and databases, however, have become simple commodities, and should be treated as so. High-end databases, such as Oracle will still be needed, at least for now, as

Re:FUD

[UncleRage]

Ghost 9.

Mostly because I wound up with a lot of 12 unopened installs in a closed auction. I'd originally tried this with Acronis TI 8, but kept getting errors during the reinstall. With the mobo's I've used with this procedure, I've not had any problems.

Re:FUD

[manno]

Let's be honest that's just MS FUD. You're telling me MS actualy "supports" its software? Dell actualy "supports" MS's software? They're going to have to get support from some 3rd party anyway. I can't think of an IT guy worth his salt that could get around XP, and then get lost working on 2k... They're 99% the same OS. 2K just requires less memory HD space, and processor cycles, by no small amount I might add. Window dressing != new, and better OS.

I'm working on a 2k machine right now that's up 24/7 and when I do the math on up time, it's 9 9's. Our security is nothing extravagant just a NAT firewall, and antivirus software. Our server is a 2k pro machine too, just simple file serving, openVPN, and VNC for maintenance. Outside of shutting it down for hurricanes it has been up continuously for 5 years straight. I mean literally 0 minutes of unscheduled downtime. 2k pro is a rock solid OS. If you install "weatherbug" yes you're going to get spyware, but that goes for XP as well. He's talking business machines here I see absolutely nothing wrong, morally or ethically with what he did. Why sling mud at a guy you know nothing about? That's just rude.

Re:FUD

[Bing Tsher E]

And if you don't fix it, you better quarantine it. No internet, ever.

So in your mind, any 'vulnerability' at all is essentially the same as any other.

People are obviously 'quarantining' their systems already. It's called a firewall.

Firewalls can be used to separate subnets, too, ya know. Judiciously used, they can provide a lot of protection. Also, locking a W2K machine down by skillfully rolling it out with non-admin user accounts makes a hell of a lot of difference, too.

You're sounding like one of those IT toads who can only deal with the concept of one ghost image at a time.

Huh?

[MMC Monster]

Does Windows Vista no longer support Office 2000? Why not update all your networking cable to fiber, while you are at it?

Why the heck do you need to upgrade everything at once?

Re:Huh?

[91degrees]

But if you'ree using Office 2000, you don't need Vista. The OS on its own is useless for a business. In fact, so is the PC. People are spending that much just to run office.

Re:Huh?

[gEvil (beta)]

Honestly, I do have to give Microsoft a bit of marketing credit for using years in their product names. When machines were refreshed around my office last year, a coworker of mine started hemming and hawing about how he needed an update to Office 2000, because it was 5 years old. The thing is, he has absolutely no problem using the other programs that he does that are 5 years old and 2 versions out of date. He doesn't think of it in terms of "I'm using version 5 when version 7 is out there." But he does notice that he's using Office 2000 in the year 2006...

Here is the breakdown:

[Anonymous Coward]

$2000: New Hardware
$ 900: Vista License
$2100: Solid Gold Mouse

Re:Here is the breakdown:

[hypnagogue]

So long as I've got my solid gold mouse and my rocket car, I don't need anything else. I'm not greedy.

Re:Here is the breakdown:

[ajs318]

Bah! Just scribble all over the mouse with a 6B pencil (or gently toast it with a flamethrower) to give it an even coating of carbon all over. Now suspend this in a tank of any dilute acid. Connect this to the negative pole of a high-capacity rechargeable battery. Connect anything made of gold (stolen jewellery, unreported Treasure Trove or anything without a hallmark, is ideal for this purpose) to the positive pole, via an ammeter, and suspend this in the acid bath. Adjust the positions of the two electrodes (mouse shell and gold) until the meter is reading at least 5 amps or as high as it will go. (Add more acid to increase the current, if required).

There's your gold-plated mouse, and you're rid of that hot gold into the bargain!

Article Text

[gravyface]

Strange times indeed when the stock market analysts hope a new Microsoft operating system will counteract the declining housing market, but that's the hope of some for next fall. If your company plans to play the Vista game, start cooking your books now.

I estimate each Vista user will cost your company between $3,250 and $5,000. That's each and every Vista user. Money will go to Microsoft for Vista and Office 2007, to hardware vendors for new PCs and components, and possibly a few bucks to Apple for those users jumping to a Mac. After all, if Apple's higher cost has been the factor keeping your company from trying a Mac, that factor just washed away.

Why $3,250-$5,000? Here's my calculation. Feel free to tell me what your company has budgeted, and whether you believe your own numbers.

New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000. Darn few existing corporate PCs will have the video horsepower needed to run Aero, Vista's primary upgrade inducement. You need 256MB of video RAM to run Aero properly, no matter what Microsoft's marketing says. I don't know of any motherboard-based video chip sets that include 256MB of RAM. Upgrade? While in the PC, add memory: Vista needs a minimum of 1GB of RAM. The hardware cost of the RAM may be less than your labor costs getting that installed in every PC. If your exiting PCs can take full advantage of Vista, I'm happy for you. I don't believe you, but I hope your upgrade goes well.

Depending on your volume purchasing agreements, new copies of Vista and Office will total between $750 and $1,000. After all, your company always buys the "professional" packages, right? And they have to be installed, right? If you're getting a much cheaper quote on both packages installed and tested, let me know.

The real value of Vista and Office 2007 includes new collaboration services. This means new back end servers. Most estimates place the back end support cost at $2,000 per user, but I used a range of $1,000-$2,000 for my calculations. Why get Office 2007 if not new SharePoint and Exchange servers? Can you run both on one box? Didn't think so.

Document your objections now, because next year the vice presidents will blame IT for their busted budget. But the housing market appreciates you taking up the slack. James E. Gaskin writes books (16 so far), articles and jokes about technology and real life from his home office in the Dallas area. Gaskin has been helping small and medium sized businesses use technology intelligently since 1986. Write him at mailto: james.gaskin@itworld .com.

New Hardware?

[mackyrae]

I doubt all the computers have been there as long as XP has. There's got to be quite a few that are only a year or two old. Those ones should be able to handle Vista. Ones that are even 3 years old should be okay as long as Aero/Glass is turned off. And hey, it's cheaper to just upgrade the RAM in the computers they have (which is probably the main thing that'd need to be upgraded) than to go buy a bunch of brand-spankin'-new computers.

Re:depends on the company

[TykeClone]

Or more than 640K of memory - that should be enough for anyone :)

Moo

[Chacham]

Any sense of how realistic those figures are?

Sounds to me as realistic as the numbers in this story.

OK, some details.

New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000.

Um, no, they won't. A new computer *without* corporate discounts is 25%-30% of that.

Darn few existing corporate PCs will have the video horsepower needed to run Aero

Methinks this person knows not what he speaks of. My "corporate" computer is more powerful than my (admittedly older) gaming PC.

Vista's primary upgrade inducement.

Is this guy serious? The "primary" upgrade inducment is looks? I bet he doesn't have a girlfriend...

Vista, for better or worse, has quite a bit more to offer than just "looks".

You need 256MB of video RAM to run Aero properly, no matter what Microsoft's marketing says.

So, i should believe this guy more than MS. Granted MS has a stake in saying it needs less, but this guy seems to have it in for MS just the same.

I don't know of any motherboard-based video chip sets that include 256MB of RAM.

Even if that was true, why does that affect corporate PCs, which are usually higher quality.

Upgrade? While in the PC, add memory: Vista needs a minimum of 1GB of RAM. The hardware cost of the RAM may be less than your labor costs getting that installed in every PC.

Actually, if we're talking corporate, upgrades are rarely done for a variety of reasons.

If your exiting PCs can take full advantage of Vista,

I assumed this meant "existing". Exiting is a different word, having nearly the opposite meaning.

I'm happy for you. I don't believe you, but I hope your upgrade goes well.

And sarcasm? *This* is an article?

The rest of the "article" is worse FUD than MS puts out.

Re:Moo

[pNutz]

New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000.

Um, no, they won't. A new computer *without* corporate discounts is 25%-30% of that.

Now who's exaggerating? As most coporate PC's are on a 3-4 year cycle, you won't be buying $400-$600 systems. The MS troll's numbers were about right. Look at a decent (i.e., will be useful in 3 years) Opteron or Latitude right now. Our picks were $1450 for the desktops and $2100 for the laptops. That's with a state purchasing discount (more than what private corps get). That's with 3 year warranties, gold support, etc.

There will be a significant cost for the Vista/Office2k7 upgrade, but mostly because it coincides with a number of other upgrades. If you factor in Vista Server (supposedly coming out next year, Enterprise Ed. for clustering), Exchange, SQL Server, and Sharepoint, CALs, the new Office Servers if you want them, I'd say $1500-$2000/client isn't too pessimistic for software alone. That's factoring in software assurance for Vista/Office.

Of course, if the submitter had used these large yet non-inflammitory numbers, we wouldn't be reading this right now.

App upgrade cost shouldn't be counted

[davidwr]

The cost needs to be broken down into:

1) Hardware upgrades that would have happened anyways. Apply the "Microsoft Tax" and cost of supporting Vista -or- the manpower cost to install XP to the vista-upgrade cost, leave the rest segregated.
2) Application Software upgradest that would have happened anyways, or that would have happened but for the fact the new software requires Vista
3) The cost of upgrading vista, including supporting Vista, training end-users, license fees, Microsoft Tax on new computers if tax is above license fee for the version of XP you were using, and for companies NOT upgrading, the manpower involved to "downgrade" from Vista to XP.

Yes, that's right, "upgrading" to Microsoft will cost you manpower for every new MS-license-equipped PC even if you stick with XP. Happy Happy Joy Joy.

Office and Windows?

[hal2814]

What organization upgrades Office and Windows at the same time? Are the older versions of Office not going to run on Vista or am I missing something? Last I was in charge of tech support, even though our University contract got us the latest software cheap (from a departmental perspective), we were always very leery about deploying one piece of new software. Deploying two new pieces of software at or near the same time sounds like you're asking for trouble. I could see that firgure being accurate in such a case because of the sheer amount of tech support you're wishing upon yourselves.

New PC's to cost $1500-2000?

[ProppaT]

Sign me up for that company! As resident IT guy here, I usually buy boxes for $400 and spend an extra $50-100, depending on current market value, to upgrade the RAM. Depending on the user, another $50 to give them a Geforce 6200 w/ dual monitor outputs. And these systems are nothing to sneeze at. As long as you ensure the hard drive in the computer is up to snuff and it has enough RAM, most people can't tell the difference between processors.

Even if I wasn't a budget oriented IT guy, I sure couldn't justify spending $1500-2000 on a system. For that everyone better be getting hotrod laptops w/ 17" widescreen displays.

No reason to upgrade

[AK76]

Why on earth would companies upgrade all of their systems to Vista if it requires them to upgrade the hardware? Vista in itself has no real advantage over XP for corporate use, so the only machines running Vista in the workplace will be the ones that came with it pre-installed.

Not Really..

[DelawareBoy]

You don't necessarily need new Hardware, unless you want to take Full Adantage of Vista. If you don't want to use Superfetch / ReadyBoost, you don't need 2.0 USB. If you don't want Media Center capabilities, don't buy a TV Capture card. If you don't want Aero, don't buy a Video Card. Vista works in my Virtual image, and it sure as hell doesn't have a 256 Mb Video Card emulation in it.
Come on, people. Sheesh.. If it works in my VM Ware image, it will work with old hardware..

Vista will cost me nothing

[EtherAlchemist]

I switched to Mac in March, and after a few Windows-only tool withdrawls, I must say I am doing fine and will never switch back. I'm tired of the weak security and exploits. Using Windows started to feel like walking down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood at night. When you feel like you have to continually watch your OS to make sure it's doing the right thing, in my op it's time to get a new OS. So I did.

That's not to say Mac is perfect and I'm sure the time will come when security will become a more focused concern for Mac users, but I have faith (oddly) that Apple will see this coming, remember what mistakes MS made (and will no doubt continue to make), and adjust accordingly.

And if I'm wrong, there's always Linux ;)

XP will stick around

[ArbitraryConstant]

Remember how long it took to get rid of NT4/98? Lots of people are still using 2k, and XP has been out longer than other desktop releases. XP is going to be around for a long time.

If the move to Vista is stretched out over a number of years, much of the cost will be absorbed by normal new hardware spending, and I don't see XP becomming rare until the next decade.

heh

[Phantom of the Opera]

good point, but I'd say that current word processing, email, web browsing and spreadsheeting technologies are at a point where tossing more hardware at them makes no discernable difference after about a gig of ram and a one gigaherz processor. Number crunching, Image and movie manipulation is an other matter. Most offices don't do those things.

Re:heh

[TykeClone]

I've got two or three applications that are the drivers for hardware upgrades. Unsurprisingly, one application is a tax package - the issue is code bloat, but I'm not sure if it's in the software or in the tax code :)

Because we need to keep a number of machines fairly current, I can spread around the older machines to places where they are useful two or three times until they are either no longer useful or have been supplanted by something better.

For the record, I've still got some PII-233 machines out and about - I don't believe in upgrading for the sake of upgrading!

Re:heh

[HiThere]

Tax packages are tricky, and require constant updating. And they need to be timely. They aren't good candidates for a FOSS project. This doesn't mean it couldn't work, but it would definitely require subsidy, the provision of time from tax attorneys, etc.

There may also be legal issues particular to the preparation of taxes. That I'm not certain about, but governments may be touchy about limiting the liability of ANYONE involved in the process. Or they may want to certify the programs (and charge for the certification).

I'm not saying it can't be done...just that I suspect that tax programs are one of the last services that will transition to FOSS.

Aero in the workplace?

[enkafan]

The main problem is that the author assumes that to upgrade to Vista means you have to use Aero. Microsoft has made it very, very clear that Vista is supposed to scale up as new hardware is released, but it will still run fine on most PC purchased recently. I'm running it fine on a PC and a laptop that are both 2+ years old here in office. Plus, if a company is going to be running 3+ year old PCs, well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they aren't the type of company that upgrades operating systems on their desktops all that frequently either.

Hooked on drugs

[MECC]

FTA:"Why get Office 2007 if not new SharePoint and Exchange servers? Can you run both on one box? Didn't think so."

MS and the MS-kateers really pushed Sharepoint at work like it was the greatest thing since the wheel. It did nothing for me, and I really didn't see the point (a few small end-user hand-holding convieniences and the usual glazed-over security problems, but that really seemed to be the extent of it), but it was *FREE* . Just like that first hit of crack, sans the high, but complete with the addiction and heavy hidden future costs. The curious thing is the MSkateers, when asked about security, just say "Its secure", after they give you the usual nasty attitude.

*sigh*

I'm almost to the point of keel-hauling vendor reps on a parking lot who give you free stuff to get you hooked. Dell gave us a blade server with one blade, in the hopes of us filling the rest of the slots. We won't put anything on that box, because of Dell's disasterous server track record (100% rate of failiure of some component withing the first three months, 0% for everybody else). Its hard to tell a CFO you have to say 'no' to this new free thing that looks to have some kind of value, and then get money for important projects in the future.

This is FUD

[kahei]

New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000. Darn few existing corporate PCs will have the video horsepower needed to run Aero, Vista's primary upgrade inducement. You need 256MB of video RAM to run Aero properly, no matter what Microsoft's marketing says. I don't know of any motherboard-based video chip sets that include 256MB of RAM. Upgrade? While in the PC, add memory: Vista needs a minimum of 1GB of RAM. The hardware cost of the RAM may be less than your labor costs getting that installed in every PC. If your exiting PCs can take full advantage of Vista, I'm happy for you. I don't believe you, but I hope your upgrade goes well.

Now, Vista is a trainwreck, but unless there is some gigantic inexplicable performance disaster between current versions and the released build, the above is very much in the 'obvious fabricated attention-grabbing FUD' area of truthiness. Given that Vista works fine without with 128Mb video RAM and 512Mb system RAM, the argument above boils down to 'Hi guys, I need hits on my articles so I'm going to make preposterous claims and get linked to!'

If I were spreading Vista FUD, I'd focus on the much more difficult question of 'what will it actually do for you? Specifically, what does it do that Win2k doesn't?' Sadly, the main answer is 'Well, Microsoft will make sure that new stuff doesn't run on Win2k'.

Totally unrealistic

[suv4x4]

New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000.

He assumes none of us have Vista ready PC-s (512 RAM or more, DirectX9 card optional).

Even if we ignore this very important flaw, a Vista basic ready machine from dell is sub $600. Including a laptop. I bought one myself a month ago, and it has 512 RAM and is Vista ready. Very decent machine for the money.

Add maximum $100-$150 for a DirectX9 card (Aero Glass), and you have a full blown Vista desktop for sub $750.

Depending on your volume purchasing agreements, new copies of Vista and Office will total between $750 and $1,000.

Existing Office versions work just fine in Vista. Many people use Office 97 in XP.

Also "depending on your volume purchases" is quite a stretch. Notice the prices of Office and Vista (the corporate editions) and you're looking into more like sub $500 for both, if you're that keen on the new Office, that is.

Office Pro 2007 upgrade is $320-ish. And most people don't need Pro, they need the basic Word/Excel/PowerPoint pack. Upgrade: $239.

Vista Business upgrade is somewhere in those figures too, so sub $500 for all goodies, and sub $250 for Vista.

The real value of Vista and Office 2007 includes new collaboration services. This means new back end servers. Most estimates place the back end support cost at $2,000 per user, but I used a range of $1,000-$2,000 for my calculations. Why get Office 2007 if not new SharePoint and Exchange servers?

Again he presumes we need Office 2007, while his heading says "Vista" upgrade: misleading. If the back end is good for your business, good enough to outweight the cost, the cost doesn't matter.

If it doesn't, then you don't buy it, simple as that.

----------
Totals:

Vista upgrade only - ~$250
Vista + Office upgrade - ~$500
Vista + Office + PC upgrade if outdated hardware (avg) - ~$750 (pessimistic: $1000)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:depends on the company

[Ravenscall]

That is until you put Vista on it.

I tried RC1 over the weekend. With a 2 ghz processor and 1 gb RAM, at Idle I was pushing 70% physical RAM usage and a constant 10% load on the processor. I wrestled with Neverwinter Nights till it ran and the graphics lag was unbearable, not unplayable, but when it runs qwuite smoothly on the same system with XP or 2K3 server, there is an issue.

Yup.® FUD

[pointbeing]

Aero is not required on corporate PCs so scratch the video upgrade. We deployed Windows XP with the dummied-down Windows 2000 interface and expect to do the same with Vista. We do allow users to change to the Fisher-Price UI if they like, though.

Corporate customers don't pay between $750 and $1k for Office - our enterprise licensing for Microsoft products (which includes the OS, Office Professional and Server and Exchange CALs) runs about $200 per PC per year.

Wow! It's really worth it!

[rlp]

Yeah, but look at the benefits you get - a spiffy new CPU hogging GUI and tons of great new DRM!

Keeps IT employed - No joke

[Danathar]

For all that Microsoft does to make our life harder, they create more jobs for everybody supporting windows. In a strange way, windoze sucking as bad over the years has spawned whole industries that would not be around probably if we had a rock solid OS.

Completely inaccurate

[RingDev]

The guy is working the numbers in ways that no competent IT Manager would ever attempt.

Why $3,250-$5,000? Here's my calculation.

And here is why he is wrong:

New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000.

• A solid IT Manager will have a PC replacement plan. The organization will be buying new PCs anyways, this cost is not specifically for Vista
  
• A New Dell workstation (high end, but not top end) with Windows XP and Office XP can be had for about $1000 at volume. Just PC with Windows XP for around $700.
  

Darn few existing corporate PCs will have the video horsepower needed to run Aero, Vista's primary upgrade inducement.

• Actually Aero can be turned off and you can run Vista on any machine that will run XP. And 'graphical coolness' is hardly the primary reason to upgrade.
  

Depending on your volume purchasing agreements, new copies of Vista and Office will total between $750 and $1,000. After all, your company always buys the "professional" packages, right? And they have to be installed, right? If you're getting a much cheaper quote on both packages installed and tested, let me know.

• As previously stated, both come pre-installed on new purchased machines. If you want to upgrade all of your users to the latest version of office standard you are looking at about $350/license at volume.

The real value of Vista and Office 2007 includes new collaboration services. This means new back end servers. Most estimates place the back end support cost at $2,000 per user, but I used a range of $1,000-$2,000 for my calculations. Why get Office 2007 if not new SharePoint and Exchange servers? Can you run both on one box? Didn't think so.

• This statement completely ignores economies of scale. If you have 3 employees, sure, it might cost you $3k+/user for back end software, hardware, and support. But if you have 500 employees, it'll cost you more like $5/user.

The items the guy completely missed is training costs, deployment costs, and business process changes. Those will wind up costing the organization just as much, if not more than the licensing costs. The cost IS higher than licensing alone, but not to the extent that this guy claims, nor for the reasons he expects.

-Rick

heh, what were they doing

[Phantom of the Opera]

Playing games?

Seriously, when I was writing simple C programs on an 8088, that was suuuuper slow and an upgrade shaved about an hour of compile time a day. For programming, I chose an extra monitor over a dual core box. Long gone are the days of starting the compile and finishing the cup of coffee before its done.

Re:heh, what were they doing

[spectral]

Those days are long gone? I guess that explains why products such as Incredibuild aren't popular, and why visual studio needs the ultra-mega-expensive edition just to parallelize building projects in a solution between your multiple cores. Oh wait.

I work on a mid-sized C++ project where the build times are approximately 30-40 minutes. I can finish a can of dew in that time, easily. Incredibuild has drastically reduced that time to about 6 minutes.

Note: I don't work for Incredibuild, just am a customer who is sually happy/satisfied.

Here's what I see happening

[logicassasin]

Here's what I see happening:

Small businesses will delay their upgrades until they absolutely have to get off XP/2000 server/2003 server. The small businesses that I've done contract work all own their machines, they don't lease. They upgrade as much as possible until it no longer makes sense. Many are still using P2's and P3's loaded with as much RAM as possible to be able to run XP smoothly. Because their current environment simply works, there's no rush to upgrade.

Medium sized businesses may test the waters, but will ultimately delay upgrades until their leases are up on the current batch of PC's. As lease refreshes begin, Vista will roll in, creating a support headache as techs now have another platform to learn and keep track of. They'll eventually get over to Vista, but it'll take a couple of years.

Large businesses may follow the same pattern as medium sized business clients and upgrade with lease refreshes. Having two platforms to support isn't much of a problem as they can usually afford to get their techs up to speed quickly and some may even dedicate a group to Vista support.

I don't see many businesses running out to buy new machines just for Vista. In fact, I see the opposite; very few will. They'll just get Vista with new PCs during lease refresh cycles.

Re:Try Telling That to the Coders

[rjstanford]

Of course, the average cost of a good developer, total to the company, is around $60-90 per hour. That's $500-750 per day. If having the latest hardware around makes them even slightly more productive, or gives them a reason to work an extra hour per week (not day, week), that pays for a new, kick-ass system every six months or so -- and that's assuming that you just shred the old hardware.

It was hugely expensive to move to XP...

[csoto]

from 2000. Then again, it was totally worth it. We basically did the same as we did moving people to Mac OS X - hunt down groups of users and spend a lot of time migrating. But the increase in stability and capability it added really made up for a lot of this.

Now, this isn't to say I agree with the figures. I haven't seen them, yet. With 2000->XP and OS9->OSX, there typically weren't hardware upgrades required. It was mostly technician time. But there was a cost, and it's not inconsequential.

Re:Yup.® FUD

[tmasssey]

So you pay, at a minimum, $600 for that copy of Office. The only way that SA would cost you less is if you upgrade Office every 2 years or less. And exactly how much money would you spend to stay on *that* upgrade treadmill? Why would you even *want* to do that, even if the software were "free"?

Re:Try Telling That to the Coders

[pixelpusher220]

There you go applying 'logic' to 'business decisions' ;-) Some people just never learn! (the others go into mgmt!)

My biggest peeve is a lack of development focused PCs, we're saddled with the 'standard' footprint that everybody gets. I don't want email, or office or anything else non development related on my dev box. All developers should get 2 machines - 1 cookie-cutter footprint for mundane office stuff, and one completely unshackled and free dev box (on a separate dirty LAN).

The amount of productivity lost to such 'decisions' boggles the mind....

Re:Try Telling That to the Coders

[smithbp]

Vista seems to do that to a bunch of people. I downloaded it when they released the beta to the public a few months ago. It proceeded to set my system clock 40 years ahead, rendering the Vista install worthless and unable to be accessed. I deleted that partition and went to Ubuntu because of my disgust with the M$ response. Their answer was basically, "Bummer, it's a beta." I had changed the clock back through the bios, but once the licensure for the beta had "expired" according to the system, there was nothing I could do with it. I have been a happy ubuntu camper ever since. The only thing Ubuntu can't do that my Windows instances could is view newer flash sites. My wife was skeptical at first, as she didn't see all of the clutter that was once there in Windows and couldn't immediately find her files. She quickly warmed to it and doesn't have any desire to use Windows now. It is a simple OS that the average user wouldn't be able to differentiate between.

Re:FUD with sprinkles

[goldspider]

Microsoft keeps users because (among many reasons) their software's interface is consistent and familiar. I can't imagine they break that with Vista.

I really hope you aren't suggesting that the differences between Vista vs. XP are similar to Vista vs. Linux.

Re:FUD with sprinkles

[nasch]

vista is dramatically different. just like how XP was dramatically different.

You're saying XP is dramatically different from Windows 2000? I didn't need any training to make the switch, and I've never heard of anybody else ever needing any training either. I'm not familiar with Linux so I can't comment there, but I can say that the differences between XP and previous versions of Windows, even back to 95, are trivial compared to the differences between XP and OSX. Just my opinion, but I don't buy your argument that XP is just as different from other Windows as other OSes are.

A solid gold mouse is only $2,000

[patio11]

The last $100 is for the MousterCable.

Re:FUD with sprinkles

[Lumpy]

you did not do the XP transition in a corperate environment. Support desk calls went up 60% the day we rolled out XP and office 2003. useability is very different if you do not change XP's default behaivoir back to 2000 style as most people do.

remember, most corperate users have the IQ of a small box of rocks and they absolutely freak when things change. XP was a dramatic enough change we had to schedule training for most of the sales and marketing staff.

and do not get me started on office 2003. incompatability with many office 200 documents, things that used to work dont anymore, etc...

So yes, the amount of money we spent on training staff for XP last year would be very close to the expense to train them on osX or linux.

Exactly

[ACMENEWSLLC]

>>Aero is not required on corporate PCs so scratch the video upgrade. We deployed Windows XP with the dummied-down Windows 2000 interface and expect to do the same with Vista. We do allow users to change to the Fisher-Price UI if they like, though.

>>Corporate customers don't pay between $750 and $1k for Office - our enterprise licensing for Microsoft products (which includes the OS, Office Professional and Server and Exchange CALs) runs about $200 per PC per year.

Exactly right. Our first XP PRO PC was a Pentium 200MHZ, which ran XP PRO just fine with all the UI bells turned off. All it needed was extra memory to be usefull. This was my PC.

Prior to installing XP, we bought XP and used the backrev agreement to install NT4. When Vista comes out, we will do the same. We will purchase PC's with VISTA, but install XP. Eventually, once all our software works with Vista, we will roll it out to everyone. By that time, half the PC's will have VISTA ready hardware anyway and the others will run it without Aero.

Re:VISTA requires ALL new hardware

[Foofoobar]

In which case, you don't even NEED to upgrade to VISTA, In fact, you don't even need to be on XP and could still be on 2000. This was an article for companies that ARE upgrading. If you are upgrading when you don't even need to and your needs are so minimal, you are just throwing money away at features you will never use.

Re:FUD - A lot of misconceptions here...

[teeker]

If your department/company is on desktops then the upgrade costs for a rollout will be minimal anyway as a vista PC will likely only be a couple hundred more than a bottom end XP box from dell, and I'm sure the entire optiplex line will be Vista compatible.

Not to pick on you in particular, but there is a pretty big misconception out there that Vista requires everybody to upgrade hardware. I was at a TechNet event (mandatory for work) last week regarding Vista deployment and the MS rep stood in front of 1000+ people and told us that officially, Vista absolutely WILL run on *any* box that comes with a Microsoft "Designed for XP" sticker on it, which most people are already using in a corporate environment (and if you're not, then you're clearly not the early-adopter type anyhow). Part of the install checks your hardware capabilities and turns off eye-candy and such to (hopefully) make a reasonable-performing system.

There is reason to be skeptical that it will perform just as good as XP, on exactly the same hardware, but he said that this was one of Microsoft's priorities.

Anyhow, my point is that most people won't *need* to upgrade just to run Vista. XP Ready == Vista Ready (although not necessarily "Vista Optimal").

Re:Try Telling That to the Coders

[E-Rock]

Why are you buying models that change that often? The models we buy change maybe every year. We've got 5 years of stuff out there any maybe have 4-6 images for all of it (including the laptops).

Of course if you need to reimage your machines every 6 months, then you're obviously doing some other things wrong too.

forgot an f

[everphilski]

I think he forgot an "f", making it 25-30% off that, which is completely reasonable for a desktop machine. 2000$ - 600$ = 1400$ which is what you cite.

Author isn't in tune

[dingbatoolpud]

I feel like he's lost the plot with regard to the functions *most* people do for their jobs (not /. readers of course...but the people /. readers support). HR staffers, admin support staff, accountants, etc. aren't going to need Aero. Aero is really just a fancified interface and while it's pretty, it adds nothing but overhead to people who just need to get the excel sheet written. Verdict? - no hardware upgrade is truly necessary. If you run Vista in 'windows classic' mode with no themes and no fancy options (basically like windows 2000) it'll run just fine on almost anything currently running XP. The compelling reasons to move to Vista from an Administrator's point of view is in the background...everyone runs as 'Normal User' until an admin function is required - at that point you're prompted with a credentials popup that, while annoying as flan may end up saving support staff untold hours of undoing the evil that users can do in XP and Win2k because on those operating systems they frequently feel they have to run as local admin to do their jobs; Adding printers and changing wireless networks are no longer admin-only functions. Bottom line - this guy should spend a little more time learning what 'Vista Capable' and 'Vista Premium Ready' means as well as identifying target groups that would use/require the Aero Glass features before he spouts off on the costs to companies who are full-blown Windows shops.

Re:Exactly...

[jcluthe]

No way he's going to be able to do that and still make money. Sure DELL & HP cost a little more, but when things go wrong, I have someone to yell at. I have been buying DELL, Apple, HP, & SUN for a major organization for about 10 years. I spend a lot of money and I am often asked by my users, "Why not just get a board from Tiger, and RAM from crucial, etc....." and I always have to argue the warranty. But, these same users that think they are going to save money are the first ones to come to me and say "Its broke, what do we do now." I have had all three of these vendors out to do repairs, and they always do a great job and they always have the parts they need - never an issue. i have evne called DELL and said "I'm sick of messing with this machine, your techs have been out twice, give me a new PC." They not only give me a new PC, but a lot of times it has been a newer model at now extra charge. OK, I'm off of my soap box now!

Re:Yup.® FUD

[Ravenseye]

You are so right. We're in a bank. 85% of the people here run one application...the teller app. Absolutely no need for Aero and all the other stuff. They log in to the network, crank up their teller app and stay in it until they go home. They use e-mail...but not Outlook. Our company doesn't do Word. Our XP PC's are streamlined....no funky Toys 'R Us interface...no balloon help...no shadow cursors...no animated menus. ZIP support is shut off...USB is shut off. These are basic terminals.

We need Vista like we need a delivery of counterfeit money.

If you would have started three years ago...

[HangingChad]

...moving your key production applications to web-based alternatives, standardizing on FireFox and Thunderbird for web browsing and email, and getting people comfortable with OpenOffice by handing out disks for everyone in the company to take home and play with then today you could laugh at Vista upgrade costs because you could use any client OS you wanted.

Some companies have actually been doing that and now it's paying off.

I believe his calculations are going to prove pretty close to on target. If they're over it won't be by much. I use the following rule of thumb guide for hardware/software upgrades/refresh:

1. If the estimate comes from MSFT, double it.
2. If the estimate comes from one of the Big 5, raise it by 45-50%
3. If the estimate comes from a MSFT Solution Provider, add 40%
4. If you're doing a MSFT upgrade yourself with all internal labor, add 35%.

Not everything is about technology people!

[WebCowboy]

When the dot bomb happened and we pushed to a 4 year cycle support costs in that last year were dramatically higher than the other years. The knee in the curve appeared to happen at 3 years 3 months (quaterly mapping).

Doesn't anyone know the WHOLE reason why the TCO of computer infrastructure rises after three years? Don't ANY accountants read /.?

The TCO of computer hardware includes "depreciation expense". The government allows a certain percentage of your fixed assets to be written off for tax purposes. I'm not sure of the terminology in other countries, but the maximum permissible depreciation allowable for taxation purposes in Canada is called the "Capital Cost Allowance". In the case of computers it has been a linear depreciation of about %30 of the original cost. That means your computer is "written off" in about three years. I believe the US has a similar allowance for depreciation expense on computer hardware.

This has more of an effect in the US IIRC, becasue in Canada, if a business does not claim the full allowance (for example, if it is not required to bring net tax to zero), the unused portion PLUS the normal maximum CCA is allowed as a deduction. (I THINK) in the US businesses CANNOT accumulate unused but allowed depreciation expense in future tax years so a business tends to make sure to write off the largest amount possible. This means that in each of the first three years of a PCs life a business could save hundres in taxes from this deduction.

After three years PCs are essentially WORTHLESS assets--they contribute exactly ZERO dollars to the asset portion of the balance sheet, and yet they continue to incur maintenance expenses so they would probably have a noticeably larger negative effect on the balance sheet if there are a lot of old PCs in a busines. Furthermore there aren't many warranties on PCs that go past a year much less three years so if there is a problem a business must bear the full cost of repairs--on an asset worth $0.

Realistically a company could get SOME money from the sale of three year old PCs, and even three year old laptops could be prefectly usable and capable of running five-year-old XP and any contemporary application software. From my practical experience, aside from hardware failiure a machine that is 3 or 4 years old is no more trouble to support than a new machine--WinXP still costst the same for both, it still buggers up just as much on new machines as old, 3 year old machines in an office environment are not all that slow so it doesn't take any meaningfully longer time to perform various tasks and if things are really fouled up both new and older machines have the same reimaging process. Aside from replacing hard drives, however, most hardware upgrades become more expensive over time, when warranties expire and models are discontinued.

I'm not an accountant (as is probably evident from my post--I'm just waiting for a real accountant to pick it apart) but wherever I've worked it becomes instantly and magically easier to justify replacement of a workstation desktop or notebook the moment it becomes three years old, and in the vast majority of cases there was no similar magic jump in maintenance costs. We had scads of flimsy, cruddy Dell C600/610s that were already expensive in terms of hardware replacement costs well before the three year time limit, but it was only at the three year point where the bean counters on high would finally say "yeah, it's crap...put an order in for a new one". I cannot say EXACTLY how much or what kind of a positive effect it has on the financial bottom line, but once accounting has fully written off a PC their tone changes dramaticaly and they are almost eager for you to upgrade--slightest little issue (especially with hardware) will justify an upgrade to a whole new machine.

ANyways, I'm sure that because of this behaviour, it could be almost a full three years before we significantly move from XP to Vista. All incoming PCs will be imaged with WinXP for t

Re:Exactly...

[ajs318]

So just get two or more spares ready for deployment in an emergency! If you need 50 identical desktops, buy enough bits for 55 machines. If one goes down, you bung in a spare while you fix it -- substituting parts from another, known good machine. The original spare stays put and the fixed machine then becomes another spare.

Installing identical software on many machines is easy too. Either use dd to copy an entire drive (BTW, this even works with Windows: boot from a USB device if possible, otherwise a DVD+RW drive [DMA-capable, won't slow down the bus] on hdb and have hard drives on hda and hdc); or set up your own local mirror of your favourite distro, and install over the LAN via http or ftp.

Math and reality suck when you are a whiner!

[metoc]

Here is the reality.

All PCs eventually get lifecycled, and all new PC's come with a copy of Windows (Vista starting next year) whether you like it or not. Worst case you have to upgrade from Home to Professional versions at purchase time. If you want to use your existing PC, then just pay the upgrade fee. Unless your hardware is old, it will probably run Vista with a minor memory upgrade. If your hardware is old, buy a new Vista ready PC.

Vista needs more powerful hardware. So? Once upon a time a new PC had a 286 processor and less than a 1MB of memory. By christmas most PC's will be Vista ready. If you really want the full Aero experience, upgrade the video card when you buy the PC.

Office 2007. If you already have a version of office... upgrade! Why would you buy new? If you don't have Office now, then you don't need Office 2007.

Finally. Why do you need Vista & Office 2007? For most of us XP & Office (XP or 2003) is good enough for now. Do you need Vista & Office 2007 or want Vista & Office 2007? If you are an early adopter, then its the price you pay.

Short of it. If you have never owned a PC, the cost of buying a Vista ready PC with Office 2007 is probably going to be steep. As you have no legacy requirements (how could you if you have never owned a PC?) then think Linux or Mac. Otherwise you are buying into the perpetual M$ upgrade program with both eyes open, so don't complain. If you do own a Windows PC with Office, then you are already in the loop, so upgrading is the cost of doing business.