idealist.org

How do I know when I should upgrade a computer?

Summary:

Very early advice from computer users and technology planners.

Answer:

On Mar 3, 1997, Doug Biggs of the San Francisco
Conservation Corps, sfcc@igc.apc.org , wrote:

I am beginning a process of inventoring the computer needs of our agency.
Our current supply consists of everything from a Texas Instruments 80 to a
powerbook 170, a bunch of 386's, 486's, one or two pentiums, and maybe
even something with vacuum tubes (just kidding about this last one). It
seems futile to try to get everyone up to the top of the line pentiums,
because of expense, the fact that not everyone needs a top of the line
pentium, and becaue this weeks top of the line will be next weeks mid
range system.

I am wondering if someone has developed a tool for assessing the
obsolesence of computing systems, and determining at which point it makes
sense to upgrade them, and at which point it makes sense to junk them and
start all over. I have already started to jot down some ideas that I have
picked up from various "experts", such as:

Don't mess with a monitor that is more than 5 years old

If the motherboard can use 72 pin SIMMS it is worth upgrading, otherwise
dump the motherboard

486 is sufficient for the task if the primary job is just word-processing

If anyone else has any thoughts on this, or have gone through the process
of standardizing your computer systems, I'd like to hear from you.

Jayne Cravens of Impact Online, jcravens@coyotecom.com or jayne@impactonline.org,
responded:

I disagree. At a recent job, I used a 486 to create and manage a
customer database (including generating various reports), do
intermediate desktop publishing (create and import simple graphic,
2-color publications), surf the Web, use e-mail, and create a Web
site, in addition to a lot of word-processing. 486 was plenty. What I
really needed was additional storage space (and I got it via the
company network).

Actually, up until last year, I still used a Mactintosh Classic II to
do all of the above from home, and never had a problem either.

I think computers are like people's brains -- people seldom use them
even close to their full potential.

Neil Berkowitz of The Non-Profit Motive, neilmber@ix.netcom.com, also
wrote:

Like Jayne, I've done significant database work on 486s (DX2 66),
working with tables containing several thousand records. Some of this
was on a client-server network (with the application software on the
clients due to license fee considerations), some on a peer-to-peer
network. The PCs each had 8m ram, and the work was done in FoxPro. We
did very powerful work with these setups! (Currently I'm doing some
database development on a 486 DX2 66 with 24m ram--slightly underpowered
for the extra development demands but far from inadaquate.)

More and more 486s are being retired these days (The Boeing Company
started offering up to 5 of them to qualifying local NPOs not too long
ago--but not DX2 66s yet and less ram). There is a challenge with
migrating to these machines now: newer software will not run
successfully on them.

The good news is that there are many sources for non-current versions of
software that can legally be installed. There may be stores in your
area like Half Price Books & Software in Seattle, which sells sealed
(and unsealed) vintage software. Another source is people who are
upgrading their hardware and/or software. If the software is removed
from their drives, most license agreements will allow it to be
transferred to another user.

None of this directly addresses the original request for a needs
assessment tool. But since NPOs in need may be able to find sources
for--and then cheaply upgrade--retired 486s now or soon, I thought I'd
second Jayne's reminder of just what they can accomplish.

Tim Mills-Groninger of Technology Resource Consortium (TRC)
and Information Technology Resource Center,
itrc@igc.apc.org, followed up:

A big part of our business at the ITRC is assessing the viability of computer
systems in use in nonprofits. We have found from a technical standpoint that
if a machine works, it's viable. The only hard and fast rule is if catches on
fire, throw it away.

Our two assesment instruments are a one page hardward profile and a 10 page
skills profile. Hardware is simple: what's inside. There are, however, some
questions about user problems and attitude. Some staff have an inflated sense
of entitlement and will not be seen using WP5.1 even though their job is
straight writing. Others are perfectly happy w/ aging but stable technology.
In my view, the major questions about technical utility must be made in
context of agency culture and resources.

The skills assessment is much more involved because it gets to the core of
what's happening in the agency. It essentially documents what tasks are being
done w/ technology, what skill sets are necessary to accomplish those tasks,
and how staff skills compare to requirments. Many technical defecienies are
due to lack of process definition and adequate training. These are solved not
with new computers, but w/ management commitment.

We've also found that the assessment can't be effectively self-administered.
Consequently, we'll do the evaluations using our professional staff, our
volunteers (after training) can perform them, or we'll train agency staff.
But without a facilitator, organizations can't look beyond short-term
problems. We don't distribute the assessment forms.

Charles C. Saxe, chassaxe@interaccess.com, added:

As recommended by Tim Mills-Groniger, I would start with an assessment
of your agency's information needs and processes as well as staff
skills. By doing this you will determine who needs the most powerful
machines and for what purpose.

In my experience there are relatively few people in an agency who need
the power and capacity of most state of the art computers. The most
common uses for computers are very basic word processing and spreadsheet
applications which can be handled very adequately even by seemingly
obsolete machines (386s).

While this means that many of your current machines are still quite
useful, if you are acquiring new or donated machines I would not
recommend purchasing anything less than a Pentium 133 or accepting
anything less 486-66 with 8MB RAM and 500MB hard drive. Anything less
is quickly becomming obsolete with the rapid advancement of software
applications, and I have seen on too many occasions non-profits invest
substantial unavailable staff time trying to figure out what to do with
marginally useful donated machines.

Clearly, declining a donation of computers is a strategic decision
which goes beyond the simple technical considerations and needs to be
handled carefully.

You mention that you have PC based machines as well as powerbooks.
This implies that you need to consider standardizing your platform as
well as software applications. While staff will be resistent,
preferring to stick with the computers and software they are familiar
with, there are enormous inefficiencies in having staff in the same
agency using different software applications. Pick one word processor,
one spreadsheet and one database as your standard suite of applications
and expect everyone to learn them. Provide training and technical
support where necessary. Otherwise you will be wasting a lot of time
customizing each machine for its particular user.

---

An early discussion on soc.org.nonprofit, the UseNet discussion group -- PB