Good news for Microsoft: Intel is looking forward to installing Windows 7 on the computers of its own employees. Intel was arguably the most visible corporation that decided to skip Vista. And it was by no means lonely in its decision. But Windows 7, it appears, will receive a friendlier welcome. At a Technology Summit with …
SOL with this CTO
Anyone who buys this shyster's [sp?] argument that 3-year-old kit is "rusty" and fit for replacement deserves to end up a statistic of the recession, as they likely will be if they do so with regard to any substantial number of desktops..
Our current desktops are EIGHT years old, well-looked-after and fully-patched XP, and will be carrying on until they drop, which still doesn't appear imminent.
And at home, server and laptops 9, 8 and 6 years old respectively ... see icon ;)
Good News All Around
The good news for Intel is that when it upgrades all of its equipment to be able to use the XP compatibility mode, it will likely get a measurable discount from its PC partners.
The even better news for Intel's investors: the rest of us won't.
There is an obvious, self-serving reason why Intel is drinking the Windows 7 Kool-Aid.
In summary, what this article says is "Intel's sales director says, if your PC is over three years old, replace it with a new one.".
As far as I can see there is no evidence of Intel's CTO/CIO saying "We're rolling out Windows 7 right away".
In other news, the Pope has been spotted in the Vatican.
Thank you El Reg for your incisive insight.
our company is moving to win7 as well
We skipped vista and we already decided to move to win7 from xp.
for Havin_it: you have 8 y old comps? seems like your company is not thinking economicaly long term just short term.. given you have to change hardisk every max 5 years... Monitors... you should have bought already new computers instead of changing parts:)
Intel looking for a monkey wrench?
this seems to be more like one hand will wash the other. Check Intels M&A activities in the past month; seems to me they may be afraid of Microsofts close relationship with AMD, Window 7 and AMD's products seem to be made for each other. If a lower priced video gamer quality (cpu gpu) AMD box is made in the lower to mid range, it shuts the doors on Intel who has claims in (lower margined)netbooks as their market....Intel needs a monkey wrench in Q3
Looks like they've succumbed to the marketing
How is 3yr old hardware any more susceptible to viruses and security issues? Just keep it patched and updated.
Intel looking for a monkey wrench? 2
But Maloney wants companies to upgrade their PCs to run Windows 7. "Now the question is," he said, "can we get the argument to the CFOs and the CEOs that it makes more sense to spend a little bit on capital to reduce your operating costs?"
What he really means-
I may be able to get CFO's and CEO's to spend on Windows 7 , and (discounted) Intel boxes from our partner retailers (cha-ching).....Intel to save the day.......AMD who?
how many companies surveyed early in the year, were not going to upgrade to Window 7? keep a score sheet...the saga continues
Agreed, If it does the job why replace?
Ive have a Novell 3.11 server thats ran for the best part of 8 or 9 years still going. Desktops slightly newer although Ive just retired a pair of PCs circa '99
What a lot of these clowns fail to realise is, if the underlying business model hasnt really changed, for example we buy or make stuff, then sell it at a profit. So Windows 2000 with Office 2000, a few other ancillary programs, a G4 cube for any fruity stuff & a few HP Laserjet 5s all works admirably well.
>> Anyone who buys this shyster's [sp?] argument that 3-year-old kit is "rusty"
If they said 4 years, I'd be with them. I mean would you give yourself anything older than that? No didn't think so. IT wouldn't put up with that so it's not fair on the users either.
Well, unless you're using terminal servers and netboot; then they can put up with 10 year old bag o' shit as long as it'll PXE.
Oh noes.. PCs not workie.. must upgrade.. but who to choose?
Tell you what, if Intel is banking on me upgrading to their kit to run Win 7 then their belief systems are sadly misplaced.
Of no consequence to 95% of users as the vast majority of old software will run perfectly happily natively on Windows 7. So thanks, but I'll be installing 7 on some "rusty" hardware for the forseeable future.
Replace the thing, meaning the PC
If companies replace 3 year-old PCs with new ones running Windows 7, that is obviously good business for Intel, since they make most of the microprocessors and chipsets in them.
No sizable company is going to embark on a program to replace Windows XP SP3 with Windows 7 on all their computers that are 2 or more years old.
Intel Virtualization Technology
"And unfortunately, many Intel multicore chips don't support Intel VT"
A lot of Intel multicore chips support Intel's Virtualization Technology...link below.
Actually, he might have a point..
Generally I'd agree, if the system is functionally complete, stable and has no security issues. Unfortunately over time this starts to become an issue.
I've just de-commissioned one NT 4 box that's at least five years old and probably much older (yes, it shouldn't have been used in the first place if it was installed after 2000), and have another one to go.
As soon as a security problem or unexpected functionality issue occurs, you are utterly stuffed. There are no longer any patches available and the wealth of knowledge about the product has suffered from bit rot and memory loss - old web sites are taken down and people move on to new things. The end result is an often fraught replacement process.
The situation isn't necessarily much better with Free software. Updating to several releases beyond your current version can be tricky, hardware requirements slowly increase, older hardware is dropped and/or suffers from code rot - the code is still theoretically there, but no-one bothers testing it any more and it starts to fail. The advantage is that you can update frequently, usually for no cost..
Of course, that might not be so much of an issue with home systems, but if the Steam hardware survey from 1996 is examined, a sensible proportion of systems are incapable of running Windows 7 well (yes, I know it works well in low memory situations, but realistically you're looking at 1GB+ RAM and >100GB storage to run modern software - otherwise why switch?).
Obviously Steam is a snapshot of established machines, which may already be a bit old, but as it's a gaming survey I think it could be argued that any machine older than five years old isn't worth upgrading/needs to be skipped.
Don't get that bit about VT...
I have a 2003-vintage P4/2.66GHz in a Dell Dimension 4600i. If I use the compatibility troubleshooter in Windows 7, I can get things running "in settings suitable for XP". Is this not the same as "Compatibility Mode"? What am I missing out on?
3-4 years is about right
Sure, old computers may work, and I don't approve of just dumping them in landfill, but for working on, the newer the better. In the last 3/4 years we've had some real steps forward- decent CPUs, cheap/fast memory, reasonably priced SSDs, cheap capable graphics cards, cheap 1TB drives and LCD prices are through the floor. My work PC isn't super old. but still a Pentium D I'm afraid, so will be nagging for a new one as soon as I know I'll be getting Win 7 with it!
Surely the replacement cycle of a PC depends on what it's used for.
Those people who only need to type very quick letters are probably fine with wordwise plus on a BBC, and if they do it all the time then you could probably boot from ROM and type your letter in the time that windows would take to boot and load Word.
Those people developing stuff or those that need large amounts of storage/RAM would probably want to update slightly more often.
It's blatantly a way of encouraging people to get Windows 7, oh and you'll need to buy new processors from us to do it.
"given you have to change hardisk every max 5 years.."
News to me, neither of ours have had to be replaced yet. When one does, everything's replicated anyway.
"Monitors" - Well OK, we did buy a couple of those newfangled TFTs about 3 years ago, by which time they cost about £50 each. It didn't hurt too much given the timeframe (and that we won't require new ones when new machines are eventually purchased). And we've still got the CRTs in storage if you want one.
@ AC 08:14
"If they said 4 years, I'd be with them. I mean would you give yourself anything older than that? No didn't think so."
Who are you addressing? I don't just care for our machines, I work on them just like anyone else, and I haven't found the last 4 years any less enjoyable than the first. More so in fact, as over time I've grown the skills to make them perform better and be more resistant to user- and internet-originated threats to their peaceful running. Stop projecting your own standards onto others.
"IT wouldn't put up with that so it's not fair on the users either."
I AM IT, and they will put up with what they are given and like it, or they will get the cattle-prod again. MUA-HA-HA. Seriously, the only user complaining in our org is the PHB, and not infrequently, about her 1-year-old Vista laptop. I don't complain, I just facepalm myself to sleep after a day wrestling with it.
Good lord are those still 'you can have it in any colour, as long as its cream' monstrostities then? And are you still using CRTs? Is your mobile a nokia 3210?
I'm having late 90s/early noughties flashbacks. Though at least snake was still the good version then.