Should I move to Windows 10 now, or wait?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Would you bother actually upgrading the Windows 7 machines today? or just leave them on Windows 7 and worry about them closer to the 2020 deadline for those that haven't been replaced?
It's situational, of course, but normally I would upgrade because you want to reduce people feeling "at home" on old systems as much as possible.
So you would upgrade them to Windows 8.1 basically just because?
The effort to upgrade them to Windows 8.1 and migrate their settings, etc seems like a huge hassle for nearly zero gain. Not to mention the training required for people moving from Windows 7 to 8.1. Windows 10, mainly because of the Start Menu is not nearly as jarring for Windows 7 users. But I'll be fielding tons of calls over the new start screen what what amounts to no real reason, just to keep people on their toes?
While I don't mind the idea, the practice and the actual gains are not there for non technical people. They won't learn anything - they will only memorize the steps they have to take to get exactly where they need to go, but not understand the why or be able to apply it to a new task when asked (this is a continual problem).
-
I find it easier to manage with everyone using the same system. So test it, make sure everything you need will work on it, and document work flow changes. Then roll it out to a few people, 10-20% or so, and handle their complaints/issues, document workflow changes again. Then roll it out for everyone else.
-
Can you run the old systems that use ActiveX controls on Remote Desktop Services?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Is there any problem with Migrating everyone to Windows 10, and then using a Server 2008 based Remote App server to serve up the
brokenold app?Or even VDI, potentially.
Yes - that's super expensive.
Generally, but not always. It exists for a reason and there are times that it is effective. If you needed, say, two systems it would likely be cheaper to do VDI than RDS, for example.
My answer was for your both - not just the VDI suggestion. Both of these solutions would be over $10K.
As I mentioned, a level of management (my direct management) has already approved the use of a few machines strategically placed around the office for the old apps use.
The bigger question is: will the board try to override, or demand more stations.
-
@Dashrender said:
So you would upgrade them to Windows 8.1 basically just because?
I don't think it is just because. It's because having people using many disparate OSes is more difficult to support, increases the attack surface, increases the cost and makes it harder for them in the long term. It's a tradeoff, of course, as it is more work to move them over. But over time the cost of 8.1 begins to offset the cost of Windows 7 today. I would not prioritize this work, I'd do it only as time allows and not hold off other projects for it. But as a "thing to squeeze in when time allows" I would find it a good place to invest some effort.
-
@Dashrender said:
My answer was for your both - not just the VDI suggestion. Both of these solutions would be over $10K.
How? Certainly it shouldn't be more than a couple hundred dollars at most. Where is the cost coming from?
-
And, of course, how many machines are we talking? One, ten, one hundred?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So you would upgrade them to Windows 8.1 basically just because?
I don't think it is just because. It's because having people using many disparate OSes is more difficult to support, increases the attack surface, increases the cost and makes it harder for them in the long term. It's a tradeoff, of course, as it is more work to move them over. But over time the cost of 8.1 begins to offset the cost of Windows 7 today. I would not prioritize this work, I'd do it only as time allows and not hold off other projects for it. But as a "thing to squeeze in when time allows" I would find it a good place to invest some effort.
I've rolled out a small number of Windows 10 (to locations that don't need access to the old system) and it's working just fine for everything else.
But if I decided not to deploy Windows 10 universally except for these 4-5 stations that would be dedicated to the old application, then I would downgrade all of those previously upgraded machines down to Windows 8.1. This would leave my environment as it' has been for the past 2 years - Basically one department with Windows 8.1 (the only department that got all new machine after Windows 8 was released so everyone had a Windows 8 license, and therefore the entire department could be the same) and everyone else on Windows 7.
Stated more plainly - if I don't upgrade, there will be Windows 7 and 8.1 deployed throughout the organization, just as there has been for the past two years.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
My answer was for your both - not just the VDI suggestion. Both of these solutions would be over $10K.
How? Certainly it shouldn't be more than a couple hundred dollars at most. Where is the cost coming from?
I would need to license either solution to at least 60 machines/users.
RDS = $132/user (CDW price)/year $7920
VDI = $106/device $6360This is before we look at the server side requirements.
$10K isn't that far off as I currently don't have the server resources to run either environment.
-
@Dashrender XP Mode in Windows 7 was perfect for this. When 7 came, I had issues with a single piece of old software at one client and got around it with XP mode. It was transparent to the user since they just had the icon for the application on their desktop.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So you would upgrade them to Windows 8.1 basically just because?
I don't think it is just because. It's because having people using many disparate OSes is more difficult to support, increases the attack surface, increases the cost and makes it harder for them in the long term. It's a tradeoff, of course, as it is more work to move them over. But over time the cost of 8.1 begins to offset the cost of Windows 7 today. I would not prioritize this work, I'd do it only as time allows and not hold off other projects for it. But as a "thing to squeeze in when time allows" I would find it a good place to invest some effort.
I've rolled out a small number of Windows 10 (to locations that don't need access to the old system) and it's working just fine for everything else.
But if I decided not to deploy Windows 10 universally except for these 4-5 stations that would be dedicated to the old application, then I would downgrade all of those previously upgraded machines down to Windows 8.1. This would leave my environment as it' has been for the past 2 years - Basically one department with Windows 8.1 (the only department that got all new machine after Windows 8 was released so everyone had a Windows 8 license, and therefore the entire department could be the same) and everyone else on Windows 7.
Stated more plainly - if I don't upgrade, there will be Windows 7 and 8.1 deployed throughout the organization, just as there has been for the past two years.
Personally, I would roll everything to Windows 10 except for the few old systems.
There is no reason to worry about the differences between 8.1 and 10. The start menu is not relevant with their program pinned to the task bar and a shortcut on the desktop. These will not be a user's dedicated system right?
-
Anything new we put out has been windows 10. We don't do windows 7 anymore. We haven't really made a push for our techs to do re-imaging of currently deploying
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So you would upgrade them to Windows 8.1 basically just because?
I don't think it is just because. It's because having people using many disparate OSes is more difficult to support, increases the attack surface, increases the cost and makes it harder for them in the long term. It's a tradeoff, of course, as it is more work to move them over. But over time the cost of 8.1 begins to offset the cost of Windows 7 today. I would not prioritize this work, I'd do it only as time allows and not hold off other projects for it. But as a "thing to squeeze in when time allows" I would find it a good place to invest some effort.
I've rolled out a small number of Windows 10 (to locations that don't need access to the old system) and it's working just fine for everything else.
But if I decided not to deploy Windows 10 universally except for these 4-5 stations that would be dedicated to the old application, then I would downgrade all of those previously upgraded machines down to Windows 8.1. This would leave my environment as it' has been for the past 2 years - Basically one department with Windows 8.1 (the only department that got all new machine after Windows 8 was released so everyone had a Windows 8 license, and therefore the entire department could be the same) and everyone else on Windows 7.
Stated more plainly - if I don't upgrade, there will be Windows 7 and 8.1 deployed throughout the organization, just as there has been for the past two years.
Personally, I would roll everything to Windows 10 except for the few old systems.
There is no reason to worry about the differences between 8.1 and 10. The start menu is not relevant with their program pinned to the task bar and a shortcut on the desktop. These will not be a user's dedicated system right?
There is some misunderstanding.
Situation 1 - upgrade everything to Windows 10
This would mean we would have 105 computer all on Windows 10.
We would have 3-5 Windows 8.1 computers placed around the office used to access the old system, these would not be user's primary workstations, they would be extras used only to access the old system.Situation 2 - upgrade license, but leave environment in current status
This would have about 20 computers on Windows 8.1, and the rest on Windows 7 -
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So you would upgrade them to Windows 8.1 basically just because?
I don't think it is just because. It's because having people using many disparate OSes is more difficult to support, increases the attack surface, increases the cost and makes it harder for them in the long term. It's a tradeoff, of course, as it is more work to move them over. But over time the cost of 8.1 begins to offset the cost of Windows 7 today. I would not prioritize this work, I'd do it only as time allows and not hold off other projects for it. But as a "thing to squeeze in when time allows" I would find it a good place to invest some effort.
I've rolled out a small number of Windows 10 (to locations that don't need access to the old system) and it's working just fine for everything else.
But if I decided not to deploy Windows 10 universally except for these 4-5 stations that would be dedicated to the old application, then I would downgrade all of those previously upgraded machines down to Windows 8.1. This would leave my environment as it' has been for the past 2 years - Basically one department with Windows 8.1 (the only department that got all new machine after Windows 8 was released so everyone had a Windows 8 license, and therefore the entire department could be the same) and everyone else on Windows 7.
Stated more plainly - if I don't upgrade, there will be Windows 7 and 8.1 deployed throughout the organization, just as there has been for the past two years.
Personally, I would roll everything to Windows 10 except for the few old systems.
There is no reason to worry about the differences between 8.1 and 10. The start menu is not relevant with their program pinned to the task bar and a shortcut on the desktop. These will not be a user's dedicated system right?
There is some misunderstanding.
Situation 1 - upgrade everything to Windows 10
This would mean we would have 105 computer all on Windows 10.
We would have 3-5 Windows 8.1 computers placed around the office used to access the old system, these would not be user's primary workstations, they would be extras used only to access the old system.Situation 2 - upgrade license, but leave environment in current status
This would have about 20 computers on Windows 8.1, and the rest on Windows 7No, that is exactly what I understood you to say, and my recommendation would be to upgrade to 10.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So you would upgrade them to Windows 8.1 basically just because?
I don't think it is just because. It's because having people using many disparate OSes is more difficult to support, increases the attack surface, increases the cost and makes it harder for them in the long term. It's a tradeoff, of course, as it is more work to move them over. But over time the cost of 8.1 begins to offset the cost of Windows 7 today. I would not prioritize this work, I'd do it only as time allows and not hold off other projects for it. But as a "thing to squeeze in when time allows" I would find it a good place to invest some effort.
I've rolled out a small number of Windows 10 (to locations that don't need access to the old system) and it's working just fine for everything else.
But if I decided not to deploy Windows 10 universally except for these 4-5 stations that would be dedicated to the old application, then I would downgrade all of those previously upgraded machines down to Windows 8.1. This would leave my environment as it' has been for the past 2 years - Basically one department with Windows 8.1 (the only department that got all new machine after Windows 8 was released so everyone had a Windows 8 license, and therefore the entire department could be the same) and everyone else on Windows 7.
Stated more plainly - if I don't upgrade, there will be Windows 7 and 8.1 deployed throughout the organization, just as there has been for the past two years.
Personally, I would roll everything to Windows 10 except for the few old systems.
There is no reason to worry about the differences between 8.1 and 10. The start menu is not relevant with their program pinned to the task bar and a shortcut on the desktop. These will not be a user's dedicated system right?
There is some misunderstanding.
Situation 1 - upgrade everything to Windows 10
This would mean we would have 105 computer all on Windows 10.
We would have 3-5 Windows 8.1 computers placed around the office used to access the old system, these would not be user's primary workstations, they would be extras used only to access the old system.If you are able to get by with only 3-5 Windows 8.1 computers, am I to assume that the old system is not accessed frequently? Or is it just not used by many folks at all?
-
@dafyre said:
If you are able to get by with only 3-5 Windows 8.1 computers, am I to assume that the old system is not accessed frequently? Or is it just not used by many folks at all?
We are currently in the discovery phase to ensure only 3-5 machines would be enough to handle the load of request for the old system.
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
If you are able to get by with only 3-5 Windows 8.1 computers, am I to assume that the old system is not accessed frequently? Or is it just not used by many folks at all?
We are currently in the discovery phase to ensure only 3-5 machines would be enough to handle the load of request for the old system.
Even if that number is 10 machines or so, would the effort of that be worth upgrading everybody to 10? My guess would be a definite maybe. Depending on how well your current systems handle Windows 10.
-
@dafyre said:
Even if that number is 10 machines or so, would the effort of that be worth upgrading everybody to 10? My guess would be a definite maybe. Depending on how well your current systems handle Windows 10.
The problem with 10 is the cost of 10 machines being dedicated to this sole purpose. Sure for these 10 I could get the cheapest bottom of the barrel PC and monitor, still probably looking around $500 per station.
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
Even if that number is 10 machines or so, would the effort of that be worth upgrading everybody to 10? My guess would be a definite maybe. Depending on how well your current systems handle Windows 10.
The problem with 10 is the cost of 10 machines being dedicated to this sole purpose. Sure for these 10 I could get the cheapest bottom of the barrel PC and monitor, still probably looking around $500 per station.
But it would still come out cheaper than doing something like RDS or VDI... The real question is how much usage would these machines see?
Edit: I think you said you were looking trying to figure that part out anyway, right?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
My answer was for your both - not just the VDI suggestion. Both of these solutions would be over $10K.
How? Certainly it shouldn't be more than a couple hundred dollars at most. Where is the cost coming from?
I would need to license either solution to at least 60 machines/users.
RDS = $132/user (CDW price)/year $7920
VDI = $106/device $6360This is before we look at the server side requirements.
$10K isn't that far off as I currently don't have the server resources to run either environment.
that's how many legacy machines you will need to maintain?
