Home Forums Discussions Problems Need update office computers

I am at the point I will need to upgrade all of my office desktop computers. My question to the group of experts at large is this, should I update them and still run the Windows XP ( that is what the laptops have, we did not use the Vista on them) or can I use the newest version of Windows - 7?

What will be the easiest (smoothest, least amount of hassle) operating system for me to go with? Understand that my current desktop pcs are 6 years old and have already had upgrades twice... they perform but slowly. Now that I have digitize xray at my hospital, I need to have something that works a little quicker for efficiency.

Whatever I go with, I want to make certain it will meet the needs of AC version 5 and any subsequent upgrades down the road.

Thanks in advance

I am new to AC, and certainly no expert, but I can tell you that we have 3 networked computers in the office running XP and bought a new one to act as a server on a peer-to-peer set-up. The "server" runs Windows 7 and everything seems to be integrating fine. Upgrading from XP to Win 7 is a significant hassle, so you can keep the old ones with XP or spend the bucks to get all new computers running Windows 7.

Overall, Win 7 integrates well.

Depends on how much you want to spend and how fast you need to be. Last year, I updated my average 1200-1600 Mhz machines to Pentium 2.4-2.8, all used and all had XP. The speed is fine. I do have faster computers at home and there is not a radical difference in speed. I use Win 7 at home. What about your other programs you need, are they Win 7 compatable?

So it depends. You can get refurbs cheap, but they are used and may not last as long. Or you can get new, with Win 7, which will last longer, but cost more money. If you are using a domain you will need the pro version.

As an aside, I discovered that V5 is NOT COMPLETELY COMPATABLE with Windows 2000. It worked on one machine, it didn't on another. Tech support said it is not completely compatable. Time to move on. Anyone else out there with a Windows 2K machine???

I have one Windows 2000 machine - gave errors on install but works fine after install.

Thanks for the information. One additional question, does the type of processor make a difference?

Overall no, I have used AMDs as well as Intel processors. At home I am primarily AMDs, in the office Intel. Never seen much of a difference. Certainly no conflicts between either one and AC.

I use all types of Windows, but would go with Windows 7 as I think Microsoft is going to phase out all others and if you are going to buy new you might as well be new - try to find Windows 7 PRO (room to expand if you want a domain in the future) - just easier.

I will comment on the type of processor. I have machines with AMD and Intel. If it's the same type of processor, the difference is nothing. BUT, make sure you get a DUO (or DUAL) processor. Huge difference in speed. Fortunately most of the newer desktops have the duo processors at a minimum (plus, they're 64bit compatible).

Also, if you go with Windows 7 (which I have used for some time now and really have liked it), make sure to get at least 4GB of RAM and go with the 64bit Windows 7 (I think they all come with 64 bit now on the new computers). You may even want to go to 8GB or more if you're a speed freak like me. If you go with 32bit Windows 7, you can only use 3.3GB of RAM, max. Keep a desktop for 6 years and a 32 bit system with 3GB of usable RAM will drive you crazy in 3 years.

I will say the only negative to 64bit Windows 7 is compatibility with ancient hardware. Say that 1998 scanner that your office manager still uses every once in a while. Well, that thing may or may not work due to the availability of updated 64bit drivers. I personally haven't found anything that wouldn't work but I don't have a lot of super old stuff. I do have an old HP all-in-one that I've hung on to for about 7 years and it works fine.

I like refurbished stuff too. Much cheaper and just as good in my experience.

Jennifer,

In order to get the best advice, you will most likely need to define what you mean by upgrade. I doubt you will be able to upgrade your processor much on a six year old motherboard. You will probably be able to add RAM, but even that will be difficult. As someone said, if you go with WIN7, you will need at least 2GB of RAM and maybe even four.

It sounds like if you are talking about updating hard drives, processors and RAM in six year old machines, you would do better just getting new PCs. They would come with the latest processors, DDR2 memory, etc. If you wanted to use 64-bit OSs, you would need a 64-bit processor. Most RAM now is DDR2 or higher, and I doubt would be compatible with your computers. So, other than adding compatible RAM and maybe a faster hard drive, I am not sure how much more efficient and fast they will be.

I love XP Pro and, to date, has been the most stable OS Windows has made by far. But, you can't dodge WIN7 for too much longer, and it is more compatible with software than Vista ever was. If you were going with new PCs, then I would go ahead and take the WIN7 plunge. But, if you already have XP Pro, then I would stay with them. Why purchase WIN7 and then get it free on a new system. And, IF you do get WIN7, get WIN7 Business or Ultimate (just my opinion).

8GBs of RAM in a 64-bit WIN7 system is sweet, but I would probably take the extra 4GBs in each and put them in the server which is running the SQL servers and everything else.

Refurbished is OK. I am a new type of guy, but that's just I. It's sad that as doctors we have to watch our dollars.

What if you are upgrading from Windows Vista to Windows 7? I hear XP to Windows 7 requires a whole reformatting/reinstall. Has anyone just done the upgrade from Vista to 7?

- S.K.

If you upgrade from Vista to Windows 7 it will not require reformatting UNLESS you are changing versions. When I upgraded from Windows Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 PRO it had to erase everything.

You should have little problem if same version to same version.

Would you go for a Win7 Pro or Ultimate?
32 bit or 64?
Has anyone tried these systems with v5?

I use Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 pro with Version 5.
Both were 64 bit.

We are in the process of evaluating Amazing Charts V5, and would be buying new hardware. Advice would be appreciated. We are a 2 provider office.

Is anyone running "dummy" computers (monitor, keyboard, mouse) connected to a server?

If we run a computer at every station ( 2 at reception,1 at MA ck in , and laptops for the 2 providers)connected to a server, are there any suggestions as to the computer specs.

Thanks
Peter

AC is very flexible. I have run it on everything from a pentium II at 400 MHz (with Windows 2000, which it is no longer totally compatible, but uusually works) to a quad core AMD phenom with Win7.

My office is populated by win xp pro machines on a peer to peer network. Most of the machines are in the 2.4 to 3.0 MHz range. Most have between 512 and 2K of memory. I actually upgraded last year when I bought refurbished HP computers for about $100 each at a site called pacificgeeks.com (I have no financial interest)
I did add more memory to most and it is appreciated.

I run a gigabit network (most of these had it built in) and it made more of a difference than the memory.

You can spend more and use Win 7 and possible reliability. You can have a real server and network vs. peer to peer, which has a number of advantages. But this works fine for me. Each office has about 6 computers. I have the main computer dedicated to AC, it has 2 G memory and a large hard drive and holds most of the other documents for the practice. It is connected by a KVM switch to another computer near the front desk.

Wendell I am not clear when you say you run a gigabit network?

He would probably be saying every PC has a GB NIC, with at least Cat5e and a 1GB switch.

Just my three cents:

1. You can only upgrade from 32 bit to 32 bit, otherwise clean install.
2. You can only upgrade from 64 bit to 64 bit, otherwise clean install.
3. Don't buy 64 bit unless you know your CPU is 64 bit capable.
4. Go 64 bit on a server, won't give you much of an advantage on a client.
5. I would recommend WIN7 Pro over Ultimate or Home Premium. Easier to connect to a domain, has Windows XP mode, and more backup options. Ultimate gives a bit more security and the ability to work in Japanese or Norwegian.
6. I would go with full workstations and not thin clients.
7. Whether peer to peer or client/server, go with 64 bit if you can and run a lot more RAM. Most client OS can run up to 128GBs of RAM (a little overkill), network OS at 64 bit either 32 or 64. You really don't need but more than the 3.2GB you get on a 32 bit client.
8. While there will always be a huge debate over client/server and peer to peer, I will always recommend client/server. If you don't have a server, then peer to peer is fine.

*** I think many times when we talk about P2P vs client/server, everyone concentrates on AC. Most offices run other applications than just AC, I would hope. A domain gives you a ton of advantages, although with a price.

BUT....for me a P2P is boring! No offense.

And, I just personally hate to have anyone working on the computer that has the databases on it. The whole idea of a server (well one of them) is to have it run without touching it and maybe reboot it once every three to six months.

PS As far as specs go, just about anything these days in a client will suffice. You would be hard pressed to purchase a computer even bare bones that wouldn't run most programs sufficiently. They are giving away memory these days. Just concentrate on the main computer (whether a true server or the computer on the P2P designated as your server). Give that one all the RAM and CPU and faster hard drives, etc.

OK, that was four cents.

Oh, and one other thing that is too cool. I am not sure about WIN7, but with Vista you can do a CLEAN install with an upgrade disk. Let me know if you want to know how. Save a hundred or so.

I would second all that Bert has said, including prior post about gigabit network. Very elegantly put.

I don't have a domain, but I do understand the advantages, no argument here.

I do have a dedicated computer my ""server"" double quotes because it reallly is NOT) which hosts AC and some of the other files for the office. It is NOT used by others as a daily machine and has a KVM switch to maintain it.

Which is why Wendell is my here! No user on his server.

When I was at my last office where I seconded as the "admin" I walked into the back room where the server was, and my partner was sitting at his desk while the medical student was entering patients she had seen into an Excel spreadsheet on the server. Well, not only was she using the server, aarrgghh, we didn't even have Microsoft Excel on the server before that moment, which means she actually downloaded the software. I found out later it was a trial version and my partner had logged her in.

So, I did three things:

1. I asked her nicely to use a computer in one of the rooms, hell, use my computer in my office -- it had the full office suite.
2. I uninstalled the trial version of Excel.
3. I changed the password to the server. No, I didn't give it back to my partner. (that may be partly why I am solo now, lol)

Here's one I think everyone has kind of laughed about:

There is one of us in every office that is the default system administrator (for the most part). How many times have you run into a problem and read something like, "If you can't fix this, see your system administrator?"

Bert,

If, as you recommend, no one is using the "main computer" in a peer-to-peer network, is there any reason why a server-client network would be faster or more reliable?

Paul Thurrott's site still has the method of getting a full install of Vista with an upgrade disk, saving the cost of the full version. I always thought this was fair, given the fact Microsoft essentially sold us Vista as the beta version of Windows 7. The reason this worked is that Vista does not need to be "activated" on line before the second time the disk is inserted to qualify the 1st install.

Windows 7 must be "activated", so this method no longer works.

Well, besides the fact that a real server with a real server OS will always be faster and more reliable, than the alternative, yes it would be more reliable.

The real problem with your question is I don't understand it. Can you please clarify. By definition (to some extent), in a client/server setup, no one is using the server, so it is MUCH more reliable and safer.

--Excellent point on Paul Thurotte's methodology and WIN7. One would have to think Microsoft would catch on.

After many comments here (including yours recently), I have set up a "main computer" in my P2P network, and kept any users from using it. So it only serves as the AC database for the other networked computers. Didn't really notice a speed up by doing this, however. Thus, my question to you.

When I notice a real slowdown (in all the networked computers) is when we all are using the internet router to get on line for various purposes. Already have gigabit networking, except for the internet router, of course. Is that the bottleneck, or would setting up a server help?

If you have Gigabit networking, then you running at a speed of 1,000Megabits/s (not Gigabytes or Megabytes which would be approximately 8 times faster -- 8 bits to a byte).

My guess is if you are using cable, then your download speed is about 10Megabits/s (T1 = 1.54Mbs). So your bottleneck for Internet is definitely not your network and probably never will be even if you were running at 10Megabits/s.

When you say you are noticing a "real slowdown" what are you referring to? Internet speed or speed to your database. I am not sure how users using the Internet would slow down your network speed or getting AC to the database. Even though you are sort of running client/server, each client is accessing the Internet directly via your ISP's DNS and not your "main computer."

You probably won't notice any difference in speed by isolating the computer. But, you will have more reliability and way less chance of a user doing something to your database or something else, not to mention requiring a reboot for something.

Your comment on DNS got me thinking. On my setup, I think the cable internet router actually assigns the network IP addresses for each of the computers. I wonder if this is a potential slowdown? Would a server handling domain names be faster?

You are correct that your router would assign IPs, subnets and default gateways via DHCP as your "main computer" would not have DHCP. You could assign static IP addresses if you had a static IP from your ISP. It can be done with dynamic, but it gets a little more complicated. Best to let DHCP handle it.

There are quite a few ways that name servers are able to resolve the queries. Recursive and non-recursive, etc. If you have a server that can act as a name server and uses forwarders, then your clients can send their queries to the name server which uses the forwarders to reach the local server on the Internet. This decreases traffic on the Internet and allows the central name server to build up a much larger cache of names than each local client. So, it is becomes much more efficient. Not to mention that once you put the DNS names from your ISP in as forwarders, you do not have to remember them anymore and can just point the individual clients to the server IP.

While this is more efficient, whether or not you would really notice a lot of increase in speed is dependent on the speed of your connection.

I'll take a crack at this question.

Servers can enforce consistent policies across all of the computers. They can also do auomatic backups. All of you personal settings are maintained on the server so they are consistent from one computer to the other. The server can serve as the DHCP server. The server can also be an internet firewall. The server can set up domains which will allow more computers than peer to peer and may allow faster traffic if you are pushing toward the limit of 10 computers on a peer to peer.

As you see there are a number of roles the server can function. They can all be done by other programs as well, but they are in one box. I chose to let the router be the DHCP server. All key documents are kept on the the server and are backed up peripherally. If one of the computers goes down, it will take me somewhat more time to replace it, but I am looking at some new options. Speed has not been a problem with my 7 computers on the network.

Any more uses Bert?

Is your system only slow when with internet, or is AC affected. If it is the latter, you might need to check that you don't have either 2 computers with the same name or IP address or that you may have a bad NIC card on one of the computers which can screw up the entire system.

question directed to Bert kindly: what are the advantages of a domain, and how hard is it to set one up? I thought I knew a fair amount about computers, but networks seem to be my Waterloo. I started P2P and found I needed to get a server as windows XP would not let me connect all the computers in my office. My server has a 3-disc RAID array and big battery backup. I am solo, but have about 17 computers as I can only have a single chart open at a time on one computer. I have static IP addresses and just upgraded my wireless network to N. Any great ideas to help "bullet-proof" or speed-up the system?

mkweiss: solo with 17 computers? Curious as to how and why?

Your "four cents" are most appreciated!

I do little but medicine during office hours. have 2 front office, 1 biller, 1 office manager, 2 PA's, 4.5 MA's. 1 PA and I use 2 computers, one computer is dedicated to fax, 1 to archive records, rest are spare. details: four are just netbooks for vitals and cc, one tablet, two desktops, rest laptops. hardware is cheap if you shop right.

Good discussion. Good points by Wendell as usual. I will tackle a few of the questions in the AM. I am also tied up installing SBS 2008, so I am right in the fray at the moment as well!

But, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Glad to see that Bert is installing SBS 2008 at 11:00 at night on a Saturday - this means there will be little sleep if anything goes awry.....

P.S. I am solo with only myself and ancillary staff - I have 12 computers in the office not counting a laptop, netbook, tablet and 1-2 computers in the lunchroom that my kids use for playing (net, etc). I think things like this just balloon when "good deals " come around - you should never shop at tigerdirect....things are too neat.

Well, I was going to install WIN7 on all PCs at the same time, but figured that was too much. At least I installed on a sandbox first to check for compatibility.

I would love to install windows 7, but don't want to lose all my XP programs preinstalled. I only wish Windows 7 would let you upgrade without erasing....

What? And, no clean install? AARRGGHH!!

Clean install seems okay, but since most computers come with some proprietary program like a webcam program or something.

Bert, good to hear you're going with SBS 2008 - I've been using it since it just came out and it was my first real server system, switched from P2P. It's been great! I assume you're moving from a different network operating system like SBS 2003 or 2000. That's proabably more complicated. Let me know if you need any help.

LOL, I think I already need help. And yes doing a clean install from SBS 2003. Should have done a migration.