My company is planning a Windows 2000 Pro rollout. Our present desktop OS is Win9x. We have already determined that in order to achieve at least the same level of performance (in terms of end-users noticing a difference in speed), W2K Pro requires more processor and memory than does Win9x. While our PII’s and better will be okay with perhaps a memory upgrade, we know that will have to replace our Pentiums. This has caused a debate between the techs in the IT department and the CFO. It has already been determined that we will go with PIII’s or IV’s for those staff who run apps that require extra processing. The debate lies in determining what kind of processor to use for the majority of staff who simply are using their PCs for word processing and email.
The techs’ view is that we should go with PIII’s or better. They argue that PIII’s will give better performance, allow for potenial growth in the event we need the PC for future processor-intensive software packages, and that thedifference in price is only $100-150 per machine.
The CFO wants to go with the less expensive Celerons. He believes that there really isn’t that large of a performance difference between a Celeron and PIII when the PCs are only to be used mainly for word processing and email. He also is looking at the budgeting big picture. While the cost difference between the a Celeron and PIII is only $100-150, he sees it as $10,000-15,000 if you’re talking a hundred PCs.
I personally am leaning towards the PIII’s, but I need ammunition to take to the CFO. Has anyone had any experience utilizing W2K Pro on a both a Celeron and a PIII? Is there a noticable difference? I’m also trying to find some performance benchmark tests on the Internet.
Thanks in advance for any advice.