Should I move to Windows 10 now, or wait?
-
@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?
-
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.
