Office PC's - your opinions on minimum spec
Discussion
My company is reviewing the specifications of new PC's - they'll be for fairly standard users, generally using Outlook, Office, Intranet applications and maybe Citrix, plus some users will have one or more of about 500 tested and packaged applications. The pc's will be using Windows XP pro.
I'd appreciate comments on the below:
1. Firstly, consider the specifications for the machines - do we need to increase this above the base spec of 1.7GHz Celeron, 10Gb drive, 256Mb
memory?
We are obviously trying to
balance performance and longevity of the equipment with cost at all times, so we will not go for top end systems.
Personally I think that as a standard model, the ram is fine (we can always order extra for developers etc who need it) but perhaps the processor and HDD should be increased?
I'd value your comments!!
I'd appreciate comments on the below:
1. Firstly, consider the specifications for the machines - do we need to increase this above the base spec of 1.7GHz Celeron, 10Gb drive, 256Mb
memory?
We are obviously trying to
balance performance and longevity of the equipment with cost at all times, so we will not go for top end systems.
Personally I think that as a standard model, the ram is fine (we can always order extra for developers etc who need it) but perhaps the processor and HDD should be increased?
I'd value your comments!!
1.7Gb Celeron is hardly top notch these days. I'd invest in a better CPU spec if you want to sweat them asset wise for a while. XP is very CPU hungry too. A 10Gb hard disk is tiny today - look for 30Gb or larger.
Memory wise it depends on your users. Experience has shown me with XP/Office etc that 256Mb is too little - I'd go for 512Mb minimum. It will do well in the long run and you won't get complaints off the users when the machine starts paging like mad when it runs out of RAM.
Just my tuppence worth.
>> Edited by GregE240 on Tuesday 16th September 10:16
Memory wise it depends on your users. Experience has shown me with XP/Office etc that 256Mb is too little - I'd go for 512Mb minimum. It will do well in the long run and you won't get complaints off the users when the machine starts paging like mad when it runs out of RAM.
Just my tuppence worth.
>> Edited by GregE240 on Tuesday 16th September 10:16
CPU's are so cheap its difficult not to justify spending a little more.
A 2Ghz Celery is only £7 more than a 1.7
As for HDD space depends on the config of your network I suppose, if you are using a file server for peoples documents folders then HDD size is neither here nor there.
Citrix will be a big impact as nothing is held locally, if you are planning to run apps across Citrix then this upgrade may be moot.
As for mem 256 is the bare minimum for Win2K and XP so upgrading this to 512 may be worthwhile.
A 2Ghz Celery is only £7 more than a 1.7
As for HDD space depends on the config of your network I suppose, if you are using a file server for peoples documents folders then HDD size is neither here nor there.
Citrix will be a big impact as nothing is held locally, if you are planning to run apps across Citrix then this upgrade may be moot.
As for mem 256 is the bare minimum for Win2K and XP so upgrading this to 512 may be worthwhile.
XP laptop users (70% of the 1000 or so users at my site) will store everything locally, so they have 40 gig. Desktop users will have their personal folders on file & print servers, so you're only holding workstation portions of the applications.
I should have added, we're considering the following (current spec in brackets):
Standard desktop (1.7 Celeron, 256Mb, 10Gb)
Lightweight laptop (P3 1.2, 512Mb, 40Gb)
High-spec laptop (P4 2.0, 512Mb, 20Gb)
I should have added, we're considering the following (current spec in brackets):
Standard desktop (1.7 Celeron, 256Mb, 10Gb)
Lightweight laptop (P3 1.2, 512Mb, 40Gb)
High-spec laptop (P4 2.0, 512Mb, 20Gb)
I agree that your spec is moderate on the CPU, but this is still plenty quick enough for most applications. We run XPPro with many installed apps on systems as low as PIII 866MHz with no issue's - the bottleneck on most machines has been RAM, so we've invested in giving 512MB RAM where needed (cheap and easy solution). Works well in out environment (large corporate enterprise).
10GB hard disk: I would have thought this sufficient for most applications, although it may get used up pretty quickly if you run huge pagefiles and/or install many apps locally. Cheap(ish) but time consuming to put right.
I always tend err towards overspecing as no matter how much resources we think our desktops will need in future, there's always some funky new 'must have' application waiting in the wings to grab any resources. Higher spec machines probably balance out long term as they should be a bit more future proof.
Don't forget there can be huge savings gained by just changing supplier or going for non-proprietary systems (although there may of course be a higher support overhead which has to be balanced against this).
>> Edited by trackdemon on Tuesday 16th September 10:27
10GB hard disk: I would have thought this sufficient for most applications, although it may get used up pretty quickly if you run huge pagefiles and/or install many apps locally. Cheap(ish) but time consuming to put right.
I always tend err towards overspecing as no matter how much resources we think our desktops will need in future, there's always some funky new 'must have' application waiting in the wings to grab any resources. Higher spec machines probably balance out long term as they should be a bit more future proof.
Don't forget there can be huge savings gained by just changing supplier or going for non-proprietary systems (although there may of course be a higher support overhead which has to be balanced against this).
>> Edited by trackdemon on Tuesday 16th September 10:27
Whatever you do, consider this. Try and build a slimmed down machine with just the relevant apps and utilities on it. Most machines these days need all the ram and cpu power just to run the dancing goblin mouse pointer, or the animated clown help button that they all seem to be supplied with. Get rid of all this crap, strip the builds right down to useful business apps. These are tools at the end of the day not toys for users to play on (bah humbug..)
Reducing the amount of crud resident in memory will do you more favours than investing money in spanky new machines only to find they are running like dogs in 3 months time.
Ask yourself, how many of those utilities in your system tray that are burning up ram do you ever use ???
Reducing the amount of crud resident in memory will do you more favours than investing money in spanky new machines only to find they are running like dogs in 3 months time.
Ask yourself, how many of those utilities in your system tray that are burning up ram do you ever use ???
TBH the spec you've quoted is probably more than adequate for an office PC which is just going to be doing the tasks you state, although I doubt you could get hold of 10Gb hard drives anymore - 20Gb being more likely.
256Mb Ram on XP is plenty for the tasks you suggest, more for developers but 256 is more than adequate to write a word document.
Have you looked at Dell PC's - there are great value for money and are v.easy to tinker inside with. They normally come pretty well specced as well. Will come with P4 CPU's min 256Mb Ram and 20Gb Hard drive if you go for the GX260, 40Gb with the GX270. We have hundreds of them at work and highly recommend them.
256Mb Ram on XP is plenty for the tasks you suggest, more for developers but 256 is more than adequate to write a word document.
Have you looked at Dell PC's - there are great value for money and are v.easy to tinker inside with. They normally come pretty well specced as well. Will come with P4 CPU's min 256Mb Ram and 20Gb Hard drive if you go for the GX260, 40Gb with the GX270. We have hundreds of them at work and highly recommend them.
Even 20Gb drives are getting scarce - 40 seems to be the new entry point for most PC models.
Agree with 512Mb of RAM; it only adds 30-40 quid more per desktop and is the most likely thing to need upgrading later. Going round to all PCs fitting memory to bring them up to spec later is an expensive business.
Also agree with the Dell Optiplexes - great systems and very good value too, especially when you factor in warranty.
Agree with 512Mb of RAM; it only adds 30-40 quid more per desktop and is the most likely thing to need upgrading later. Going round to all PCs fitting memory to bring them up to spec later is an expensive business.
Also agree with the Dell Optiplexes - great systems and very good value too, especially when you factor in warranty.
onedsla said:
What sort of budget are you looking at?
I'm working for one of the top 10 largest companies in the world so we're talking huge global contract with lots of 000000's at the end!!
Hence I'd like to be sure my suggestion is good!!
My userbase are fairly resource hungry, so I tend to buy Workstations not standard Desktops. (Ie faster bus speeds etc.) When buying if you are considering the 3yr life cycle, I would suggest buying the 3rd fastest processor in the list. (Example from Dell)
ie 2.4 = base
2.66 = +50
2.8 = +140
3 = +250
I'd go for the 2.66
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff