xp deployment choises?
Dear all
I agree with the article and the personal preference of the author, but for a totally different reason.
I presume that also the servers are upgraded towards either Windows2000 or .Net servers. Otherwise I don’t think there are any advantages to upgrade towards XP.
This article is simple academic, in real life there is only one criteria that count and that’s the budget.
If the company is small enough to support the cost off the hardware replacement, software licenses, and the rollout all at once then they can consider doing a masse upgrade, and in fact that’s the only manner off upgrade they should consider.
In a large company as the one I work in (+1.200users and about 45 Servers) is the upgrade towards XP not a simple thing to perform, and they choose for the staged deployment, because they can spread the total cost of the upgrade over two or three years (in this company the total cost is estimated at about $1.500.000, -.)
There is an additional advantage, it gives the (internal third line) support staff the chance to assimilate the new problems related to this new OS, and /or to know where they have to look for the settings and so on.
In most cases large company’s have a external support service, these persons are well trained in this new OS, but for the internal staff is this not always the case because of the high costs off these courses, or is the policy of “the trained train the others” at work.
I would recommend 4GBof disk space (Don’t forget the swap file and hiber file).
The best way to perform an upgrade is (in my opinion) to upgrade first the servers of the different sites, once this has been done and the servers are communicating at a proper manner, can the workstation be replaced and/or upgraded.
The advantages and disadvantages stays as mentioned in the article, but they are reduced to a few and with careful planning they
