3 ms·

That, and there are typically many other good reasons to just replace a machine: - A new machine is in warranty. - You don't need to keep track of what machin

That, and there are typically many other good reasons to just replace a machine: - A new machine is in warranty. - You don't need to keep track of what machines you have, how many memory slots they have, what DDR version and speed they require, etc. You don't need personnel to do the replacements. - In large organizations, hardware is only a small cost compared to salary, etc. So, it is typically not a problem to replace machines every 2-3 years, if necessary. Upgradability is more interesting to individuals and small businesses.

zrm 9y ago
I'm not convinced. > A new machine is in warranty. Warranties are for individuals. Businesses will use them if they exist, but when a machine fails you replace it with a spare off the shelf. All a warranty does is save you the cost of buying another spare, which amortized over a fleet is nowhere near the cost of buying all new equipment. > You don't need to keep track of what machines you have, how many memory slots they have, what DDR version and speed they require, etc. You don't need personnel to do the replacements. There is inventory software to automate this. And upgrading a machine requires much less work than replacing it because an upgrade doesn't normally require transferring programs, settings and user data. > In large organizations, hardware is only a small cost compared to salary, etc. So, it is typically not a problem to replace machines every 2-3 years, if necessary. That other costs are larger is no excuse to waste money. An upgrade will often make a 2-3 year old machine equivalent to this year's machine, which is typically less expensive than replacing the entire machine. Especially since you don't have to replace any component that isn't actually a bottleneck in your applications. But the main value of upgradability to large companies is as a hedge against unexpected requirements. Some vendor's new software requires twice the resources as the old version two months after you've bought equipment using the old spec. Either you can upgrade the machines or you have to replace them. Even if you don't always have to do it, you always want to be able to.

zrm 9y ago

I'm not convinced. > A new machine is in warranty. Warranties are for individuals. Businesses will use them if they exist, but when a machine fails you replace it with a spare off the shelf. All a warranty does is save you the cost of buying another spare, which amortized over a fleet is nowhere near the cost of buying all new equipment. > You don't need to keep track of what machines you have, how many memory slots they have, what DDR version and speed they require, etc. You don't need personnel to do the replacements. There is inventory software to automate this. And upgrading a machine requires much less work than replacing it because an upgrade doesn't normally require transferring programs, settings and user data. > In large organizations, hardware is only a small cost compared to salary, etc. So, it is typically not a problem to replace machines every 2-3 years, if necessary. That other costs are larger is no excuse to waste money. An upgrade will often make a 2-3 year old machine equivalent to this year's machine, which is typically less expensive than replacing the entire machine. Especially since you don't have to replace any component that isn't actually a bottleneck in your applications. But the main value of upgradability to large companies is as a hedge against unexpected requirements. Some vendor's new software requires twice the resources as the old version two months after you've bought equipment using the old spec. Either you can upgrade the machines or you have to replace them. Even if you don't always have to do it, you always want to be able to.