At scale: +1 Small orgs can handle individual servers. At scale just about everything needs to be cookie-cutter / commoditised to make it manageable. And that means fitting into vendor support offerings and lifecycles. You can't have too many different pieces and given that an upgrade program takes a while to implement, you can't be waiting 5-6 years to kick something off.
Repurposing something into Test/Dev is fine if you are a small org. It's not feasible for large organisations. Cheers Ken -----Original Message----- From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] Sent: Friday, 2 April 2010 4:40 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: How would you go about this? 3-4 years is a VERY standard lifecycle in many orgs. Five years is really pushing it and means that you're likely using some sort of supplemental hardware/field service which is just an extra burden to manage. Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 -----Original Message----- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:angu...@geoapps.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:39 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: How would you go about this? On 26 Mar 2010 at 10:05, Mike Gill wrote: > if you can´t get at least 5 years out of your servers before > replacement, then IMO you need help. -- Mike Gill FWIW I'm about to write a memo to a client telling them we need to replace their Windows 2000 Server box, which I put in sometime in 2004. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
