Re: filmscanners: yet *another* low cost way to avoid the future

[derek_c@cix.co.uk (Derek Clarke)]

atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr (Anthony Atkielski) wrote:
> Sure, but performance is the very last of my concerns.  My concern is 
> getting
> any new system to do everything that the old system does, and that 
> would not be
> easy--I'm not even sure that it would be possible.

Looking at your comments, I'm more and more convinced that you need to 
start planning for your next machine, and do it soon.

With all these applications that may or may not run on new hardware, and 
which may or may not be crucially important to your business, there are 
just too many maybes.

At the very least you should be devoting time to examining all your 
applications, establishing whether they are mission-critical and what you 
would need to do to get them to run on a new machine.

This way even if you can't justify new gear right now, if something 
critical dies in your hardware you'll be able to rush out and sort it 
without having to extend the downtime by having to sort through all the 
possible problems then.

Like others who have commented, I tend to approach the problem in reverse 
- I currently have 3 desktops and two laptops, with vital stuff protected 
by being distributed, and running three different O/S so stuff can be 
migrated to a newer OS version while keeping an older one going in case 
of possible need.

If you don't have the budget to consider that, then fair enough but if 
better days happen again, maybe it ought to be on your mind then.