Should I move to Windows 10 now, or wait?
-
@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?
-
I just talked to my boss.
When she informed the BOD that our Old system was being removed from internet based access, apparently she told that at some future point we would also be narrowing the availability of access down to just a few machines.
Those in the BOD meeting at the time said that was acceptable.
She went on to say - does that mean that one or two members won't be upset when this happens to them while they are in middle of clinic, demanding something now - no of course not, but she'll (my boss) will just remind them of the decision of the BOD and that will be that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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?
Not exactly. If I go the VDI/RDS route, I have two choices.
- license enough for all current users of the old system to use VDI/RDS from their machines - that's about 60
- deploy and designate a computer ($500) to a non moving location, and assign a VDI/RDS license to that specific machine.
option 2 doesn't make sense to me. Why would I install Windows 10 on that option 2 computer and then have the added expense of a VDI/RDS on top of it when I can just install Win8.1 and access the application directly?
-
@Dashrender said:
- deploy and designate a computer ($500) to a non moving location, and assign a VDI/RDS license to that specific machine.
option 2 doesn't make sense to me. Why would I install Windows 10 on that option 2 computer and then have the added expense of a VDI/RDS on top of it when I can just install Win8.1 and access the application directly?
I've confused, why would VDI or RDS be involved here?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
- deploy and designate a computer ($500) to a non moving location, and assign a VDI/RDS license to that specific machine.
option 2 doesn't make sense to me. Why would I install Windows 10 on that option 2 computer and then have the added expense of a VDI/RDS on top of it when I can just install Win8.1 and access the application directly?
I've confused, why would VDI or RDS be involved here?
I was pointing out the two scenarios where I could envision using VDI or RDS. Your confusion appears to imply agreement that option two, the only way that VDI or RDS could be just a few hundred dollars
@scottalanmiller said:
How? Certainly it shouldn't be more than a couple hundred dollars at most. Where is the cost coming from?
could be possible.
I was explaining how I thought they could be used, and the pricing expectations that would follow.
-
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
-
I would obtain the free licensing now if it is applicable for your machines and not let that window shut. If you're on volume then don't worry about that portion... I would start testing now though if you are worried about compatibility. I know our financial software is going to be a nightmare so I'm putting it off. For regular users and admins, I would love to move everyone to Windows 10. The accounting department will be the last to switch, and probably the C-level execs. I would rather keep my phone from possibly ringing with an angry VP because of compatibility on some untested, obscure application that he/she didn't mention when asking about what all they use day to day.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
This is still in question.
-
@BBigford said:
I would obtain the free licensing now if it is applicable for your machines and not let that window shut. If you're on volume then don't worry about that portion...
We are not on Volume Licenses, so I would have to upgrade to get my free upgrades.
I would start testing now though if you are worried about compatibility. I know our financial software is going to be a nightmare so I'm putting it off. For regular users and admins, I would love to move everyone to Windows 10. The accounting department will be the last to switch, and probably the C-level execs. I would rather keep my phone from possibly ringing with an angry VP because of compatibility on some untested, obscure application that he/she didn't mention when asking about what all they use day to day.
Test has shown that only the old app this whole thread is about that doesn't work. I have a list of apps that we have tested against, and about 5 Windows 10 machines already deployed... and everything else is working fine.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
This is still in question.
The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
This is still in question.
The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.
Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.
-
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
This is still in question.
The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.
Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.
Same thought process, but any OS past Windows 8 can just use Hyper-V to create local VMs, unless VirtualBox is the preferred flavor.
-
@BBigford said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
This is still in question.
The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.
Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.
Same thought process, but any OS past Windows 8 can just use Hyper-V to create local VMs, unless VirtualBox is the preferred flavor.
VBox is type 2, so treats things differently. When you turn it off, it goes away. Hyper-V is type 1 and if you are only using the legacy system once in a while, it has impacts all of the time.
Totally depends on your needs. Hyper-V is definitely better for two equal systems where you flip back and forth. VBox is better for things you only need every now and then.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
This is still in question.
The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.
Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.
Same thought process, but any OS past Windows 8 can just use Hyper-V to create local VMs, unless VirtualBox is the preferred flavor.
VBox is type 2, so treats things differently. When you turn it off, it goes away. Hyper-V is type 1 and if you are only using the legacy system once in a while, it has impacts all of the time.
Totally depends on your needs. Hyper-V is definitely better for two equal systems where you flip back and forth. VBox is better for things you only need every now and then.
Good point. I've read many of your posts on type 1 vs. type 2. I think maybe I got ahead of myself in thinking they:
1.) Have enough horse power where it being a type 1 wouldn't be a significant impact and
2.) They use it very often, causing them to constantly flip back and forth. -
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?
This is still in question.
The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.
Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.
Same thought process, but any OS past Windows 8 can just use Hyper-V to create local VMs, unless VirtualBox is the preferred flavor.
VBox is type 2, so treats things differently. When you turn it off, it goes away. Hyper-V is type 1 and if you are only using the legacy system once in a while, it has impacts all of the time.
Totally depends on your needs. Hyper-V is definitely better for two equal systems where you flip back and forth. VBox is better for things you only need every now and then.
Good point. I've read many of your posts on type 1 vs. type 2. I think maybe I got ahead of myself in thinking they:
1.) Have enough horse power where it being a type 1 wouldn't be a significant impact and
2.) They use it very often, causing them to constantly flip back and forth.They might, so worth considering. But it isn't a certain slam dunk. Totally depends on how they work.
My own experience is that I find VBox more friendly to use, but they are both fine.
-
Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?
