Company-wide Vista Upgrade

A

aronoge

n00b
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
15
Hey all,
I need to recommend a graphics card to my boss for the 600+ computers we're upgrading for Vista. Right now most just have a 8MB Trident Blade 3D, and some have a Radeon 7000 if they're lucky. Vista must have a DirectX 9 card to run, right? If so, since we've bought lots of computers over the years, the only slot that all the computers have is PCI (most don't even have AGP) and we'd like to just set up one profile to run on all the computers. Does anyone have any recommendations for A) a card besides an FX 5200 that is PCI and DirectX 9 and as cheap as possible; and B) a better place than CDW to buy giant amounts of cards?

Thanks in advance.
 
Vista must have a DirectX 9 card to run, right?
Click to expand...

No. Vista will run fine with onboard video.
The best option for your pci motherboards would be a 6200.. it will do just fine with vista.
 
You guys will need more than videocards to run it properly...

oldmx
 
You will want to run Matrox pci if they are business machines.

Oh and why in the world woudl you go vista? Go win2k pro for those machines running tridents will never have the memory capacity to run Vista lol
 
jacuzz1 said:
You will want to run Matrox pci if they are business machines.

Oh and why in the world woudl you go vista? Go win2k pro for those machines running tridents will never have the memory capacity to run Vista lol
Click to expand...

um, I have a LOT of systems that can take 2+gb of ram and only have PCI slots (or PCI-X). Servers don't need AGP. And you go Vista because 2kPro is getting old and active support will be phased out soon (corporate wise, at least).
 
lopoetve said:
2kPro is getting old and active support will be phased out soon (corporate wise, at least).
Click to expand...

Its still the standard in networking terms.. they still sell it retail and it is the "top of the line" when it comes to corperate networking solutions from microsoft. Chances are that your company is going to downgrade with vista (much like running an XP network is a downgrade for options and security).
 
lloose said:
Its still the standard in networking terms.. they still sell it retail and it is the "top of the line" when it comes to corperate networking solutions from microsoft. Chances are that your company is going to downgrade with vista (much like running an XP network is a downgrade for options and security).
Click to expand...

We use significantly tweaked versions of XP Professional around here (using the XP embedded SDK) with AD. As secure as Windows can get. ~shrugs~
 
you don't really need to upgrade to prepare for vista unless you think your employees are going to need to use the accerated interface for some reason
 
So aero basic will not need a directx 9 capable GPU? Everything I've seen seems to say that the minimum cards you can use are the FX 5200 or Radeon 9500. If our computers just want to run in "Basic" mode, we wouldn't need to upgrade our computers from the Tridents and Radeon 7000s?

And most of the computers have been kept up to date with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM and half decent processors, so a lot of the focus is just on the graphics requirement of Vista.
 
You can tweak the gui to look like Xp or even 98 if you like.. You don't need any graphics muscle unless you plan to run Vista with the eyecandy turned up..
 
GORANKAR said:
You can tweak the gui to look like Xp or even 98 if you like.. You don't need any graphics muscle unless you plan to run Vista with the eyecandy turned up..
Click to expand...
You do need some CPU and throughput muscle to run the OS, though. It's got a lot going on in the background.
 
I don't know what company you are in, but its not very smart for businesses to go with a brand spanking new OS right away on launch. There are still bugs that need to be worked out, service packs, security flaws, etc.. At the nuclear plant I work at, we are just finishing up our XP Pro installs. (heavy duty security modded, etc..) I don't know what OS you are running currently, the specs of the machines, and all the other technical stuff. Please give more info. Any little problem or nuance can slow down productivity in your company at a very significant rate. I'd go with XP, and mod it for security, compadibility, and speed.

edit: As a reference, most of our computers are Dell's that have 2.4ghz and 2.8ghz P4's, 512ram, 40gb hdd's, and gf5500 pci cards (most of us run dual 23'' viewsonic widescreens). When I get a bunch of stuff going on my screen all at the same time, I can even feel the lag of productivity under XP.. I can only imagine Vista. We are upgrading our machines to these little LAN server powered PC(?)'s soon. I guess you don't even need a computer at your desk. Just a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and controller box. (something kinda like this.. remote server side controlled and stuff.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client )
 
aronoge said:
So aero basic will not need a directx 9 capable GPU? Everything I've seen seems to say that the minimum cards you can use are the FX 5200 or Radeon 9500. If our computers just want to run in "Basic" mode, we wouldn't need to upgrade our computers from the Tridents and Radeon 7000s?

And most of the computers have been kept up to date with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM and half decent processors, so a lot of the focus is just on the graphics requirement of Vista.
Click to expand...

Do you guys not have a test lab or at least one test machine with a common configuration that you do hardware/image testing on?

My guess is as long as your machines have 1GB memory, Vista will run fine. Aero Glass / Flip 3D adds nothing in the way of productivity to your clients.
 
lopoetve said:
um, I have a LOT of systems that can take 2+gb of ram and only have PCI slots (or PCI-X). Servers don't need AGP. And you go Vista because 2kPro is getting old and active support will be phased out soon (corporate wise, at least).
Click to expand...

Um 2 gig of ram in a single channel 100 mhz scenrio is not what vista is looking for. You need 512 meg in dual channel sceneio with a dual core processor to get her to even react to mouse clicks rofmlmao ............... It will feel like that anyway although i am exaggerating I think you get the point
 
I'm running a test box with Vista Beta2. The motherboard is an Intel D865GLC with integrated video. It runs the Vista Basic theme just fine (no pretty Aero effects).

Here are the box's specs:

Processor: Celeron D 2.6 gig (2.something, I forget)
Hard Drive: WD 80JB
Video: On board Intel 900
Mobo: Intel D865GLC
Memory: 512 megs Kingston Value

I had only one problem with the install: the box didn't have a DVD drive, so I yanked my DVD burner from my main box for the install.

Other than that, it found and installed all the drivers except for the Soundmax audio drivers. Once I was connected to the Internet it found and installed those.
 
jacuzz1 said:
Um 2 gig of ram in a single channel 100 mhz scenrio is not what vista is looking for. You need 512 meg in dual channel sceneio with a dual core processor to get her to even react to mouse clicks rofmlmao ............... It will feel like that anyway although i am exaggerating I think you get the point
Click to expand...

Who said anything about them not having dual channel? buddy, server boards don't have AGP, and often still don't have PCIE either (we're runnign a lot with PCI-X). We don't NEED agp, nor do we need PCIE yet either, since all of our interconnects are based on different technology.

And even then, you're assessment is a bit... wrong? It'll be fine even with a decent single-core proc and single-channel ram.
 
I am an IT Manager for a bank with 75 pc's 2 windows2k servers/sbs2000 and with 600 pc's I would go the route of Citrix and making the machines thin clients like stated before in this thread.

Trust me, managing 75 stand alone win2k box's is a pain in the butt with just making sure that all the machines updated the latest security/critical updates, let alone av updates and numerous other software apps that we use.

Citrix/thin client would be the way to go imho. And from what I have tested Vista on you do need at least the bare minimum requirements and then turning off all the stuff not needed for a basic "stripped down" service set the system runs fine without all the eye candy and such. Just make sure you have the old windows styles selected.


Also if you go with just updating each pc I'd recommend the following (but you probably already know about this).

Exact hardware systems (i.e. mobo,processor,video, etc) install Vista on one of them, remove uneeded services, install software u need then ghost the drive to a bootable CD with an autoexec.bat/config.sys setup to auto install at boot. Will take the install time waay down. And repeat on other similarly matched pc's.

But honestly Thin client would save you hours upon hours of install time.
 
At a price of only $250.00 for thin client terminal (a display, mouse and keyboard) the pricing advantage of a Citrix/Terminal server rollout is huge, so I'd also agree about going this route.

In addition, software upgrades, patching and other administration tasks only are required for the servers that serve your terminal server clients. This greatly reduces the amount of work for new software deployments and other needed changes.

Upgrading the server hardware also provides performance increases for the clients when such upgrades are needed in the future. Our entire accounting department runs in this environment and it works "flawlessly" and allows us easy support when issues pop-up (you can shadow the session and interact with the client without visiting their office).

Check out http://www.citrix.com or look into the Terminal services that come with Windows Server 2003 (or the eventual Vista server offering).

P.S. If you use the Citrix client, you literally can run it on a SVGA card in a 25MHz 386 and receive high end peformance. The reason is that the server is doing all the work and the client computer or terminal box is only displaying the image and passing the keystrokes and mouse movements. We also have this solution working great for our telecommuters, it'll provide decent results even over a 56K dialup.

I'm seriously suprised that more organizations don't use this method as it free's the client to use any device and since it's only compressed transfer of the keystroke,mouse, display helps to prevent virus and other security exploits from unsecured locations (especially when enhanced with token type authentication, I don't care if a kiosk is infected with a keystroke logger as it's totally irrelevant seconds later).
 
I have no experience with Citrix setups, but suggest looking at the cost effectiveness previous posters have noted.

What I do know is that it seems like a waste to buy new OS licenses, as well as new hardware to meet the OS requirements, for systems that already have working OSes in place. Is there some pressing reason for the Vista upgrade, or is management just caught in the bubble of admiration for the shiny new toy from Microsoft? Because here's my suggestion for cost and labor efficiency - run those systems on what they've got, until they're ready to be replaced altogether (another year or two or three?). Then get your new systems shipped with Vista and the appropriate hardware already included (maybe get one or two licenses ahead of time so the tech guys can familiarize yourselves). This will let you avoid fussing over a generation of computers that's eventually going to be retired and replaced by machines that will come with OEM Vista anyway.
 
I'm an analyst for a bank and there are two major reasons why thin clients will never cut it..

A. Single point of failure (this is a HUGE one)
B. Remote users/branches
 
lopoetve said:
Who said anything about them not having dual channel? buddy, server boards don't have AGP, and often still don't have PCIE either (we're runnign a lot with PCI-X). We don't NEED agp, nor do we need PCIE yet either, since all of our interconnects are based on different technology.

And even then, you're assessment is a bit... wrong? It'll be fine even with a decent single-core proc and single-channel ram.
Click to expand...

My appologies, its just that the last time i saw a trident in a machine it was a P1 133 lol

Somehow i got the impression you were on some really old P1 P2 era chit
 
I had vista installed on my dual core 3.2ghz system and 2g of ram, running a G4 MX 440 PCI card and it ran smooth with the basic GUI on so your current systems will be fine.
 
jacuzz1 said:
My appologies, its just that the last time i saw a trident in a machine it was a P1 133 lol

Somehow i got the impression you were on some really old P1 P2 era chit
Click to expand...

lol. nope, there have been a few more cards, or we sometimes throw them in some of the boards that don't have integrated ones ;) <3

There are lots of server cards out there that work fine.
 
As stated in a few of the (more educated) posts, you'll be fine running with what you have now.

'Vista is a huge memory hog, etc' - Yes, very true - but only if you're running aero glass, a loaded sidebar, etc. Without all of the fluff, Vista isn't that bad at all. Not much worse than XP. People need to get the misconception out of their heads that you need to be running a Conroe EE with 4GB of RAM and SLI'd 7950 GX2's just to get in to the OS...
 
Just remember, its not so much the machine you have to worry about, its all the problems you can run into with a newly launched OS's on a corperate network. Security vulnerabilities, incompadibilities, bugs, etc. If you absolutely want to upgrade OS's, XP Professional stripped down and security modded would be an excellent choice. I'd wait at least a year or so from the time an OS becomes available until I'd use it on a company LAN. It gives time to get all the kinks worked out. I guarantee you'll see all sorts of weird problems when people upgrade to it on their LAN's. Just wait and see. It happens with nearly every OS no matter what the company says or how good "users" proclaim it to be.
 
wiretap said:
I don't know what company you are in, but its not very smart for businesses to go with a brand spanking new OS right away on launch. There are still bugs that need to be worked out, service packs, security flaws, etc.. At the nuclear plant I work at, we are just finishing up our XP Pro installs. (heavy duty security modded, etc..) I don't know what OS you are running currently, the specs of the machines, and all the other technical stuff. Please give more info. Any little problem or nuance can slow down productivity in your company at a very significant rate. I'd go with XP, and mod it for security, compadibility, and speed.

edit: As a reference, most of our computers are Dell's that have 2.4ghz and 2.8ghz P4's, 512ram, 40gb hdd's, and gf5500 pci cards (most of us run dual 23'' viewsonic widescreens). When I get a bunch of stuff going on my screen all at the same time, I can even feel the lag of productivity under XP.. I can only imagine Vista. We are upgrading our machines to these little LAN server powered PC(?)'s soon. I guess you don't even need a computer at your desk. Just a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and controller box. (something kinda like this.. remote server side controlled and stuff.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client )
Click to expand...



now that I know nuclear freaking power plants run on Dells with XP I wont be able to sleep at night, thanks.
 
Thanks all for the help. We won't be implementing vista until at least a year from now, probably later, and we're trying to plan for long term with current necessary purchases and upgrades. I'll suggest the thin client idea, but it might take some serious incentive to do so. The $250 per workstation is nice, but how much do the core servers end up costing? Is the single point of failure bit worth noting as well? Right now we just use WinVNC to solve all the problems, it works rather well, but thin client does sound tempting.
 
AppaYipYip said:
Junk those PC's and buy Macs.
Click to expand...
What problem would that solve? Mac systems are relatively expensive and adding Windows would make it cost even more. The OP never listed running OS X apps as necessary so why in the world would you make that recommendation? :p

I could see the point of junking those systems and replacing them with new systems with Vista preinstalled in the mid- to late-fall since business availability is supposed to appear by then. Being such an early adopter is risky and I wouldn't do it "company-wide".

I do plan on getting Vista after introduction, probably with a new laptop. :cool:
 
Tutelary said:
now that I know nuclear freaking power plants run on Dells with XP I wont be able to sleep at night, thanks.
Click to expand...
hahaa.. yea, thats what I said when I first started working here last year. :p But, we are on a closed LAN with crazy proxy stuff... and none of the office computers are hooked up to anything in the plant that actually control anything. Those computers are on a secondary seperate closed loop LAN in the control room only. And even then, most of the controls they use to operate the plant look like something out of a 60's-70's James Bond movie with all the big buttons and stuff. lol. They're all hardware/hardwired stuff.
 
Agree with above, Citrix is the only way to go with that many clients. If a significant percentage of the clients run cad/design stuff, citrix doesn't do too well with the graphics-intensive type of work that requires, of course. But I haven't seen too many shops that have 200 or more design specialists. And they wouldn't be working on those old boxes that the op is talking about anyway.
 
aronoge said:
Thanks all for the help. We won't be implementing vista until at least a year from now, probably later, and we're trying to plan for long term with current necessary purchases and upgrades. I'll suggest the thin client idea, but it might take some serious incentive to do so. The $250 per workstation is nice, but how much do the core servers end up costing? Is the single point of failure bit worth noting as well? Right now we just use WinVNC to solve all the problems, it works rather well, but thin client does sound tempting.
Click to expand...

Sure a thin client could have a single failure point, but that is why you have backup systems in place.

I would most certainly think you would have a mirroed identical core server incase once goes down you just pop in the back up and done - repair the other one, it becomes the backup and so on....


for that many clients i would think you would need some pretty beefy servers to serve out all that data.
 
don't wait for the server to go down. with that many users, cluster the servers, no matter what they do, if they are important in daily operations. one box goes dead, the other ones distribute the load. loads monitors tell when there is too much activity for the cluster to handle, that's when more servers are added. 24/7 reliability; the "four nines".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top