> stay on XP and just replace parts (hard drive, monitor, etc.) as they break. Which may not be the smartest thing in the long run.
Aye, there's the rub.
Based on enterprise-class calculations (staff time etc), the cost of keeping an old XP PC running is dramatically higher than replacing it. You can get a tiny desktop with 4GB and a 1TB drive for less than $300, and cut your electricity bill as well.
In accounting terms, you may also save money by reducing reboots and fast start-up times, esp with UEFI. Whether Gartner averages apply in a specific case is, of course, an entirely different matter.
And, of course, if you've got a hardware lock-in that's no help at all ;-)
I agree with your final paras. We can see where Microsoft is heading. Where the world will actually be in 2020-25 is another matter....
> Based on enterprise-class calculations (staff time etc), the cost of keeping an old XP PC running is dramatically higher than replacing it. You can get a tiny desktop with 4GB and a 1TB drive for less than $300, and cut your electricity bill as well.
Have you seen how extremely short-sighted and quarterly report oriented some executives can be. You say "only" $300 but I regularly replace $30 hard drives (that I charge $80 for) and they thank me for it because I'm "saving" them $200.
Aye, there's the rub.
Based on enterprise-class calculations (staff time etc), the cost of keeping an old XP PC running is dramatically higher than replacing it. You can get a tiny desktop with 4GB and a 1TB drive for less than $300, and cut your electricity bill as well.
In accounting terms, you may also save money by reducing reboots and fast start-up times, esp with UEFI. Whether Gartner averages apply in a specific case is, of course, an entirely different matter.
And, of course, if you've got a hardware lock-in that's no help at all ;-)
I agree with your final paras. We can see where Microsoft is heading. Where the world will actually be in 2020-25 is another matter....