On Aug 15, 11:03 pm, The Lone Ranger1 <L...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> AZ Nomad wrote:
> AZ Nomad wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:37:28 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> Let's look at that, shall we? You can plug in your own numbers, but I
> >> think you will find that Microsoft "spam-bots" is costing us a lot
> >> more than you might think.
> > ...
> > Not only that, but probably half of all PCs purchased are purchased
> > because the previous PC was so infested with malware, that repairing
> > it would cost half as much as a new PC. Factor the cost of replacing
> > PCs every 2-3 years instead of every 5-6 years.
Yes. This became "best practice" last year. It seems that it's
cheaper to purchase a new computer and transfer key documents than it
is to take the user's computer and attempt to "fix" it using tactics
such as hard drive re-image.
This has also resulted in increased popularity of desktop
virtualization. It seems that it's cheaper and easier to replace a VM
image than it is to replace the physical hardware (makes sense). For
desktop users on a corporate network, or remote access users with high
speed access, the ability to download a fresh VM image from the
corporate server, to a server running Linux as the primary OS is
probably the quickest and easiest way to recover a "Windows" desktop.
In addition, the Windows image can be stored to a USB drive, and
snapshots can be taken, making it easier to recover even when you
don't have high speed access to the corporate network.
> > I've been seeing 6 month vista machines that are already unuseable due
> > to millions of temp files piling up and the idiot OS trying to catalog
> > all of them for DRM and desktop search. Just keep on replacing them!
This is one of the biggest problems with Vista, is that it gets
progressively slower and slower until it's unusable. According to one
report, Vista on state of the art hardware of today (2 Ghz dual core
cpu, 4 Gb RAM, 7200 RPM hard drive) is 23% slower than XP on previous
generation state of the art hardware (1.5 Ghz single CPU, 1 gb RAM,
5400 RPM hard drive).
Microsoft was trying to grab all the resources and trying to get rid
of Google Desktop. Instead, they have just made Vista "unwelcome" at
most corporations. According to a Forrester report, only 2% of the
1001 enterprises have adopted Vista, 38% have no plans to adopt Vista,
and a substantial portion are considering alternatives, including
Linux and Mac.
And Microsoft's "Security" seems to have been aimed at keeping
competitors of the desktop. Companies are reporting that as much as
40% of their applications are incompatible with Vista.
And now Microsoft has tried to "force" these companies to to switch,
by cutting support for Vista on new machines. The result is that many
companies have a "hold" on purchase of new machines.
When Microsoft tried to "Force" corporations to upgrade from NT 4.0 to
Windows 2003, many of those companies who were using NT 4.0 ended up
switching as many of those applications as possible to UNIX or Linux.
The server counts for Unix and Linux remained low because they
supported virtualized hardware. As a result, as many as 100 Windows
servers could be replaced with one Unix server broken into 20 or 30
LPARs.
> > Not only that, but probably half of all PCs purchased are purchased
> > because the previous PC was so infested with malware, that repairing
> > it would cost half as much as a new PC. Factor the cost of replacing
> > PCs every 2-3 years instead of every 5-6 years.
> How stupid is that, that someone would not just flatten the HD and just
> reinstall everything. But instead they would go out and buy a new
> computer every two or three years is totally ridiculous, for the reasons
> you stating is BS.
Actually, this was a recommendation that was suggested by an Anchor
Desk columnist and became a Microsoft recommendation. Keep in mind
that in a corporate environment, people are typically paid while they
wait for their hard drives to be reimaged. Personalization and job
specific software is usually installed by the user as well. If you
make people sit around and wait for the computer, the costs can go as
high as $10,000 per image. If you swap them out and give them an
identical computer, and just copy the personal information across, the
costs drop to about $1800 per user (Gartner). The trashed computer
can then be re-imaged by installing a new corporate image. Even this
requires interaction, which limits the number of PCs that can be re-
imaged concurrently.
Microsoft likes to quote it's own re-image costs, based on a "Standard
all Microsoft image" that consists only of Windows and Office, and
does not even include the time required to set the user's ID and
password. It also doesn't take into account the time needed to back-
up and recover personal data (Microsoft's argument being that all user
data should be on a Windows file server shared drive at all times
anyway.
> > I've been seeing 6 month vista machines that are already unuseable due
> > to millions of temp files piling up and the idiot OS trying to catalog
> > all of them for DRM and desktop search. Just keep on replacing them!
> That's BS, because the out of the box default settings are not indexing
> the entire drive, and one can also change the indexed locations by
> including or excluding folders as an example.
The point is that lots of areas are automatically indexed, and the
average PC user these days has gotten used to having thousands of
files on their hard drive, plus the web sites and other cached data
that can pile up pretty quickly.
> <http://www.watchingthenet.com/how-to-add-folders-to-windows-vista-sea...>
>
> One deletes temp files by hand if need be or one uses the Disk Cleanup
> off of Properties to clean off unneeded files such as .tmp files.
This assumes that Vista users are intimately familiar with how to
clean their files, and are willing to do the cleaning during unpaid
time. If it takes 2 hours to clean the index, then that could be 2
hours of non-productive paid time.
If the user is on the critical path of a project, he could be holding
up 10 other people while he cleans his index.
|
|
