A PC runs at least 7 years. Simple stuff such as internet, email and hardware related jobs such as 8 port serial, embedded compilers and programmers are running on my P2 166MHz from 96, I once increased the memory from 64 to 128M. It had WinNT then and I upgrade to SP3.
Another machine from 98 is a 500MHz P3, my workhorse in programming and protel. It had WinNT SP4 on it and still has. An important lesson I learned : never change a running system. These machines stay as they are, no new OS, no new servicepack of the OS, no more memory, no more nothing. Another machine from last year, was called experimental, has Linux on it and acts as server. As I depend on it, it is not really experimental anymore. "Experimental" and "dependable workhorse" are exclusive to each other. In earlier days I'd get a new soundcard and spend three days and still there was and is no sound. A new machine planned for this year is going to have Win2k on it, not because I'm unhappy with NT, I need it for the USB. There are too many peripherals with USB. I just don't want to spend days after days on PC hardware while lacking the knowledge. After finding a crashed disk keeps me busy for at least 3 days, for the second time, I got a RAID5 for the Linuxbox. We'll see. And since Win2k has the tag of being dependable while WinXP does not yet seem to be there, stack a few 2k's. I doubt the hardware in 6 years will run Win2k, but the hardware of today and this year does. And this hardware will still run in 6 years. Rene Actually Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: > > > I stocked a few Win2k for the upcoming machines that will last > > another 6 years. We'll see what happens till then. > > Interesting - you have your own planned obsolesence program ;-) > > I do the same, but I try to squeeze more time from a PC (4 years, at least). > But I haven't stockpiled OS licenses. I wonder if new PC hardware 6 years > from now will run W2K? > > In my office, old PCs never die - they just get retasked. My old (circa > 1996) Dell was retasked as a Windows Samba print server and voice mail > system. It still uses the Win95 it came with. I knew that Protel 99SE > would be slow on it, so that's why I put 99SE on the newer dual-PIII W2K > machine. > > There's lots of life left in those old PC's! Just give them something else > to do! > > Best regards, > Ivan Baggett > Bagotronix Inc. > website: www.bagotronix.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rene Tschaggelar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:18 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel 99 se SP4 on Windows XP Home > > > I tried hard to find some Win2k pro. > > While I was successful now, I know I won't within a few month. > > I stocked a few Win2k for the upcoming machines that will last > > another 6 years. We'll see what happens till then. > > > > > > Rene > > > > Mike Ingle wrote: > > > > > > While in general agreement that I am not interested in moving to XP, one > is > > > faced with the fact that almost all new PCs come with it. Thus usres > buying > > > partticularly name brand PCs are going to be faced with using XP, or > coming > > > up with an old license for win 2k (my preference). > > > > > > I hate that Protel is going to have to invest engineering effort into > XP > > > compatability rather than autorouter and other basic feature upgrades. > > > Basically as I see it we are all going to be paying for the fact that XP > is > > > not compatible with previous windows versions. Protel has no choice but > to > > > make their product compatible with the latest version of windows. > > > > > > Mike * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
