The "Cascade"

 

When I use the term cascade, I'm sure most people envision something like this, or at most a high waterfall. Generally something peaceful and beautiful. Actually, what I meant by the word is nothing of the sort. I'm sure others in managing IT have used the concept, if not the word, but in my application; I invented it for my own use...."back in the day." The Y2K days, when I was working my first real IT job at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I was a departmental IT guy, but I was the guy. There was no one else. I had a boss, but she mostly worked on the application end of the software that ran our departmental functions. For hardware, or software support, I was it. We had roughly 60-70 computers that I was responsible for in our area. They ranged from regular desktops, to laptops, to servers. Since I was it (my job title was Area Coordinator for IT), I also handled digital cameras, PDAs, Printers, setup and maintenance. I had 1 student who worked for me. My one minion was a long-haired Mac lover. We had no Macs! Since we were a lone department at a public university, we didn't have a ton of money, we had some, just not a lot. Every year, I could buy anywhere from 10 to 20 machines, which basically calculates to me being able to replace them all on a 3 to 4 year cycle.

Although we weren't exactly a cube-farm, everybody used computers. From the department head who was a university Vice President, to front desk workers of the various building who were students. Some like my buddy Scott was the graphics professional who needed LOTS of power, others, like the aforementioned "desks" just needed to access records. Some like, the big boss (who was a New Yawker), needed to look good while he sat behind his big desk, in his big chair. After sitting down and looking at what I needed to do (machine-wise), and comparing that with what I could do budget-wise, I realized the corporate way of doing things where I put everybody on a cycle and got a new machine every so many years isn't going to work very well. We just didn't have the resources to do that.....eg. buy dozens/hundred of computers every year. So I came up with "the Cascade".

What I had to do was to go around and figure out what everybody does on a computer. How they use it, where they use it, what software they run, yada, yada, yada. Then, I had to figure out how much computer they needed and if there were any other considerations. For instance, my immediate boss needed lots of computer. She got into our databases, and the server software that the department ran on, on a daily basis. The graphics guy needed lots of computing power as well for obvious reasons. The other "executive" type people ranging from the "Big Boss", needed to do the routine office type stuff and didn't need the latest greatest, and so on down to the folks that just needed to access the "front-end" of one of the applications. Once I got that handled (it took a while), I had to break everyone down into groups that fit generalized categories of PCs relative to their capabilities in easily configurable buying specs, and make sure there weren't too many different models to support well. I didn't want to make the mistake of my predessor who had 5 different brands of computers, which God only knows how many different models!

 

I bought 2 brands: Dell for the desktops, IBM for notebooks. Within those 2 brands, I had maybe 2, sometimes 3 models during any given buying cycle. There were sometimes small variations within the specific models such as a bigger screen for some particular worker who was looking at giant spreadsheets all the time, or more powerful/dual processors for the graphics guy, who also got extra/giant hard drives. Actually, his stuff was almost always special because of what he did. I can't even begin to tell you how much of a difference this made in everything from setup to support, by my second year. Of course, I only spent a little over 2 years there, but this was the testing ground for my IT ideas.

.....But what about the others? Oh yeah, them, the proletariat. I almost forgot.... It's actually they who allowed me to conceived of the cascade. I realized pretty quickly that by virtue of what they did on their PCs, there were some folks who didn't need to have a new $2000 machine every 2, 3 years, or actually.....ever. Some like a the cadre of administrative assistants, only ever looked up certain data, and wrote memos. Their computers were glorified word processors. Then there were even some workers who only occasionally did things on their machines. Maybe an hour or two a day at most, but they needed a machine to complete those tasks. Therein lies the function of the cascade. If I could eliminate them from the new machine "cycle", then I could use my finite pot of budgetary funds each year, to speed up the cycle so that my high-end users got new machines! I would just take their old ones, and push them down to the next level, or whichever level that the specification of machine was appropriate for their job. In the end, they didn't really care, because they still got "new" machines every 2 or 3 years and that kept them for having to use the antiquated 486s that didn't pass the Y2K utilities!

What did that do for me? It caused me to do more work! If you think about it a little bit. This meant that not only did I have to set up just the number I bought that year; I had to reload all the ones that they displaced for someone else, and maybe do the same to the machines at the next level as well! Holy Cats!!! It's financially efficient, but it almost tripled my workload! At UIC, that wasn't so bad, but when I moved on to the Texas Tech University Libraries with the 700+ PC (and Macs) that were my responsibility, it was daunting. However, I did it. Every spring when the orders would arrive, and through the summers when we did the bulk of our update work, I was stressed. Over a period of several weeks, I'd have to refer to my cascade spreadsheet to make sure we got the correct PCs to the correct workers.

What does all that have to do with a home propellerhead like me? Well; when I pulled the old guts out of the "old" Blackbird, I started a cascade! You see, in our house, my desktop workstation is at the top of the food chain. It has the most powerful, the biggest, and the fastest of everything. It's parts are more advanced than every other computer in the house. I'm sure you can see where this is going. Over the course of the next several weeks, the various parts taken from the Blackbird are going to replace parts in maybe 3 other machines! So stay tuned; we've only scratched the surface!

The Other Side of the Great (Technological) Divide

This is the consequence of crossing the technological Rubicon that I posted on a while ago. The other day, I found myself discussing and defending the ThinkPads that we're issued at work. I was part of the first group of teachers when the school district made the decision to move from desktops to laptops and was issued a ThinkPad R60. We were told at the time, the "cycle" would be 4 years which is going to be typical and understandable for a money-strapped public entity like a school district vs. a corporation (typically 3 years). Unfortunately the cycle went to 5 years which isn't good, but workable for a machine running XPP. After all, the mission of these machines was to do "office" type applications, email and browser oriented functions. These were dual core machines and could handle those tasks well, however, the powers that be in charge of sourcing and spec'ding these machine are.....shall we say.....lacking in expertise with hardware? Which is where I'm going with this post. It's not a rant regarding them (although their lack of understanding in this area given their jobs is inexcusable), but more so a general issue that's out there among most if not all buyers. I'll just point out that they ordered them with 512Mb of RAM and 40Gb HDD.

We are an "Ebook" school, meaning that the district made the decision some years ago to purchase computers for issue to students and attendant electronic versions of the text, vs. physical books. Given the price, weight and rapidity of change in texts in today's world, it looked to be the right decision. Although ultimately this project is doomed to be abandoned (partially due to circumstances beyond anyone's control), lets just say that the implementation was lacking from the get-go. As most anyone who's worked in a corporate environment knows, the implementation of security software is enough to significantly slow down any computer, so certainly they don't need to be further hampered by being purposely crippled in the ordered specifications! 

Three year ago when I moved to the High School, I was duly impressed by the fact that the issued computer to the students were the ThinkPad X200. And for those who aren't familiar with this model, it's basically a shrunken X300 without an optical drive at half the cost! One day, after listening to the students complaining about the slowness, I decided to look at one. I was horrified to find that it was equipped with 1Gb of RAM! Thinking that this was a mistake or that someone had taken out one of the modules, I checked another.....same thing.....then another......same result. To say that I was a little stunned would be putting it mildly. In fact, I got onto the ThinkPad Forum and had a prolong discussion with other members about why Lenovo would even sell a crippled machine like this, customers' wishes not-withstanding! My contention is that just in our district alone, there are over a thousand people who will have the belief that ThinkPads are horrible computers and would never buy another Lenovo product!

OK; I know that so far, it sounds like a "rant", but it's not really. Although, the "professionals" who's jobs it is to purchase those machines are clearly idiots (yes, I know that a little strong, but they are being paid for their expertise), this is a common issue among most computer users today. Most folks simply don't understand what makes a computer "feel" fast or slow. Yes, corporate (or school district) security is an issue, but you can talk memory with people all day long and the vast majority wouldn't know the difference between RAM and storage to save their life. The fact of the matter is that most any computer made within the last 3-5 years will happily run a modern OS (eg. Windows 7) and it's basic apps if given the correct amount of RAM. My "rule of thumb" is to double whatever Microsoft lists as recommended.....then double that every time they come out with a major service pack. 

 

A good example was what happened with Windows XP. It was originally designed to run on 256Mb of RAM. By the time that Service Pack 3 came out, it needed to have 2Gb to run well. So it basically went like this: 

1. Windows XP- 256Mb of RAM
2. Windows XP SP1- 512Mb of RAM
3. Windows XP SP2- 1Gb of RAM
4. Windows XP SP3- 2Gb of RAM

 

With Windows 7, I've set a 2Gb floor and have really only run 4Gb or better on our own machines. However, within the last year, another dynamic has come on the scene. The all-conquering solid state drive (SSD for short). This along with a adequate amount of RAM has become the main ingredient in making a machine feel fast. Boots happen within 15-20 seconds, programs launch instantly and files are accessed almost immediately.

  

The correct combination of these devices can make the sweet-spot of the 3 year-old notebook computer a perfect storm of functionality. Take any corporate level computer of this vintage, ranging from the Dell Latitude E6400 that I've been buying up for clients to the X61 that's destined to be my daughter's replacement for the aging X30 (yes, that's right.....a PIII-M machine). Combine these computers with 2 to 4Gb of RAM, an SSD (stirred, not shaken), add Windows 7 and anyone can have themselves a very nicely functioning notebook for around $250, or less.

Which gets me down to my last point. Our school district finally got it's wits about itself and started buying machines with adequate RAM. The L420 that was issued at the end of last year has 4Gb of  RAM on board. However, this machine is far outperformed based on "feel" day-to-day by my 3 year old X300 and the 4 year old X61 equipped with the same amount of RAM and a SSD!

The Deadly Consumer Laptop: End of the Year Rant!!!

Most of you are aware that I have a little "side-business" that's responsible for funding all my Propellerheaded purchases, which needs the cash regardless of how frugal I am. The "bread and butter" of my operation is "flipping" laptops. Over the course of the last couple of years, I've moved my product line from being ThinkPad oriented to more Dell oriented. This is due mostly to a "bang-for-the-buck" commitment to my customers. The fact of the matter is that most of them couldn't care less about the differences of the finer points in design and build quality that comprise the differential in the market price between the two. For myself and a very few of my clients, ThinkPads still rules the roost, but for 8 of 10 laptops that I do; I tend to recommend something from the Dell Latitude (business) line. They are inexpensive, easy to fine, cheap to buy and well built. 

However, this rant isn't about the business line. Over the course of the last month or so, I've been brought 3 Dell laptops with problems. One of them was an older (D620) Latitude, but those coming in are a rarity. It's the other two that are the problem. I hate Inspirons, well for that matter, I hate: Gateways (post Acer buyout) in general, all Acers regardless of how good they look....and they look pretty good these days, and HP Pavilions. These are ALL consumer grade computers. Some are cheap originally, and some can push the $1000 envelope, but they have one thing in common.....THEY ARE ALL CONSUMER GRADE!

Here's the issue. Walmart....or more specifically, the Walmart-ization of comptuers. In business speak, it's called commoditization. What that means is that a particular class of product has gotten so ubiquitous that it's no longer considered brand driven, or differentiated. What that implies is that they are all generic and therefore only subject to the market forces of pricing and feature set, which in turn drives prices down into a "death-spiral" till it gets to the lowest possible $$$. What's so bad about that? Well, if it's cereal, that's one thing, but for a complex product like a laptop (and I say that on purpose), it's a very bad thing. When the pricing is in the range of $400 as the floor and $900 as the ceiling, then you take out the transportation costs (none of these products are made locally), profit of the individual entities in the supply chain, what you have is something between $150-250 worth of parts.So, should anyone be the least bit surprised when these things break in less than two to three years? It isn't for no reason that the warranties of these things run one year.

What pushed me over the edge to post this rant is this: $400-600 is still a lot of money. Us old computer cranks can wonder out loud about how little that is compared to the days of $2000 low-end desktops and $4000 laptops.....in $1995 dollars, are few and far between. The fact of the matter is that $500 is still a lot of money. Two days ago, I picked up a Dell Inspiron M5010 from a client. It was giving a "7 beep" error code. It turns out that means the motherboard or CPU didn't past POST. It was a $900 computer two years ago. After reviewing the forums, it's pretty apparent that it's a common issue from some detaching chips which seems to manifest itself at the....you guessed it.....two year mark. The repair or a motherboard replacement would put it in the over-$150 range, and understandably she doesn't want to invest that in this machine. Last year, her daughter brought me her computer. The infamous HP Pavilion DV6000 series with the nVidia graphic chip flaw. That was a $1000 computer. So, in the space of a year, we have about $2000 flushed down the toilet! That's a lot of money for a single parent teacher with a kid in college.

I would say that; it's enough to make you buy an Apple, but not only are they way expensive, but for all the added costs, they aren't immune to across the board issues like the nVidia debacle and the ATI one before that. It's just that they tend to support their buyers better than the majority of PC manufacturers. In fact, my stance is, if you can "pay the freight", AND have a need for what they do best (digital imaging, music, etc., then by all means, go right ahead. 

Really, my solution is the old retired corporate computer answer. Here's how it breaks down in terms of dollars involved. Lets say that when buying a new computer the typical buyer spends in the median of around $750. The typical home user seems to keep their computer for around 4 to 5 years. So if you go the long route, that comes out to be $150 or so per year. I routinely sell 3 year old corporate machine for between $250-300. Even if you estimate that they'll last 3 years since they are older to start with, that puts the outlay at about $100 per year on the high side. That's a 50% differential at it's worse for a better-built machine. In real world use, I'd bet that the average user will get the same amount of use out of each machine, largely due to the less likelihood of the better built machine breaking down. At least that's been my admittedly unscientific experience. 

Spend less, get a better machine. Sounds like a no-brainer, but people find it difficult to change their perceptions and behaviors until (like my teacher friend) suffer the painful bite of the deadly consumer laptop! Sure they look nice and shiny on the shelf in that store, vs. the plain and boring business look, but "you better watch out", or you're gonna cry.