3 ms·

I went back and forth as I read the article. I work in the public sector (K12 Education) and I find that many of the problems I deal with are the same impetus

I went back and forth as I read the article. I work in the public sector (K12 Education) and I find that many of the problems I deal with are the same impetus for the policy they've used. You're right, however- I think it should be on a case-by-case basis. It's obvious that heavily used end-user desktops/laptops/etc need to be upgraded at least once every 13 years, but some server hardware might last a bit longer than 15 or so. I guess it all boils down to cost/reward.

jjoonathan 12y ago
The whole problem is that if cost/benefit is evaluated with an artificially reduced benefit horizon (e.g. the period an administrator will spend in a position able to take credit for the improvement) then benefit will be systematically underestimated and outdated system will be irrationally favored. The 13-year policy recognizes this and serves as a stop-loss against the worst of these irrational judgements.
opendais 12y ago
Eh? http://b2b.cbsimg.net/blogs/data-center-infographic__ashx.jpg http://b2b.cbsimg.net/blogs/data-center-infographic__ashx.jp... http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/data-center/infographic-the-life-cycle-of-a-server/ http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/data-center/infographic-the... The replacement cycle is closer to 3 years than 15 in the private sector for hardware. Major software releases [including those with full rewrites] happen more often than once every 15 years as well. I'm not sure I buy the full rewrite bit simply because I know things can go horribly, horribly wrong with those. I'd be happier with a 5 year refresh cycle.