Hey guys
I'd like a second opinion on this one.
I manage computers at my job. We're a small business and we're currently using 3 workstations and a server (plus about 10 laptops).
2 of the workstations are old. I mean really old. Duron 1000 old. They're starting to show signs of aging but performance-wise they are still very acceptable as they have plenty of RAM that was added through the years as other systems died (768M per box). Unfortunately, some components are starting to die.
So they're going to be changed.
The uses of the computers are very basic : window xp, word 2007, excel 2007, outlook 2007 (tied to an exchange server), adobe reader, occasional powerpoint, light internet browsing. All the order taking and the like is done through terminal services so that's irrelevant to the workstations. All in all a pretty light load. And our software set is very stable and it shouldn't evolve in the next 5 years. I don't see a need to move up to either windows vista (or windows 7 down the line). The only software that might see an upgrade is office when newer versions launch if they bring productivity gains (aka office 2007 ribbons).
My question is then this one :
I want to build the cheapest possible system that would last about 5 years. Currently dual-cores, for our usage, are a waste. However, I know multi-threading is just around the corner so are there going to be tangible gains (meaning longer lifespan of the system) by going to a dual core vs a single core in our light office usage setting ?
There is a price difference of 40$ per computer between a single and dual core. That's almost a third of the price of the system in extra (under 300$ for both systems in the single core config as we have no need for screens or any peripherals). Would dual core extend the life of the system significantly given this light usage scenario ?
Thanks.
I'd like a second opinion on this one.
I manage computers at my job. We're a small business and we're currently using 3 workstations and a server (plus about 10 laptops).
2 of the workstations are old. I mean really old. Duron 1000 old. They're starting to show signs of aging but performance-wise they are still very acceptable as they have plenty of RAM that was added through the years as other systems died (768M per box). Unfortunately, some components are starting to die.
So they're going to be changed.
The uses of the computers are very basic : window xp, word 2007, excel 2007, outlook 2007 (tied to an exchange server), adobe reader, occasional powerpoint, light internet browsing. All the order taking and the like is done through terminal services so that's irrelevant to the workstations. All in all a pretty light load. And our software set is very stable and it shouldn't evolve in the next 5 years. I don't see a need to move up to either windows vista (or windows 7 down the line). The only software that might see an upgrade is office when newer versions launch if they bring productivity gains (aka office 2007 ribbons).
My question is then this one :
I want to build the cheapest possible system that would last about 5 years. Currently dual-cores, for our usage, are a waste. However, I know multi-threading is just around the corner so are there going to be tangible gains (meaning longer lifespan of the system) by going to a dual core vs a single core in our light office usage setting ?
There is a price difference of 40$ per computer between a single and dual core. That's almost a third of the price of the system in extra (under 300$ for both systems in the single core config as we have no need for screens or any peripherals). Would dual core extend the life of the system significantly given this light usage scenario ?
Thanks.
Facebook
Twitter