Should I move to Windows 10 now, or wait?
-
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?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
I use Vbox now (since I'm still on Win7), but like using Hyper-V on machines that are 8 and above. What do you find more friendly about Vbox, just curious?
-
@johnhooks said:
Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?
That would be VDI and introduce all of the VDI costs.
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
I use Vbox now (since I'm still on Win7), but like using Hyper-V on machines that are 8 and above. What do you find more friendly about Vbox, just curious?
Just the general interface. Nothing dramatic, HV is fine, I jut found VirtualBox easier to open and use immediately.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?
That would be VDI and introduce all of the VDI costs.
I thought you could access Win 7 remotely without the added cost and 8 was where they started limiting that? Again, I have no idea and thought I read that somewhere.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?
That would be VDI and introduce all of the VDI costs.
How is converting to a virtual machine and controlling it within a hypervisor any different than building one from scratch and controlling it with a hypervisor? I was confused about the VDI part.
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?
That would be VDI and introduce all of the VDI costs.
How is converting to a virtual machine and controlling it within a hypervisor any different than building one from scratch and controlling it with a hypervisor? I was confused about the VDI part.
If you virtualized a desktop, it becomes VDI. VDI means a virtualized desktop.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?
That would be VDI and introduce all of the VDI costs.
How is converting to a virtual machine and controlling it within a hypervisor any different than building one from scratch and controlling it with a hypervisor? I was confused about the VDI part.
If you virtualized a desktop, it becomes VDI. VDI means a virtualized desktop.
I thought the VDI costs only came into play when you had a golden image that you were pushing to more than 1 client through PCoIP. As a shared desktop with multiple instances basically...
-
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer. -
@johnhooks said:
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.CAL for remote desktop required?
