RE: [IUG] Rationale for "expensive" computers

["Helwig, Ruth M." <helwi1rm at cmich dot edu>]

In addition to my day job as the Systems Librarian at Central Michigan University, I am also a board member for our local district library.  I would concur with what has been said in the responses thus far.  A library needs computers with more memory, better processors, and better equipment than is needed for a home computer.  If employees are to be effective and able handle the robust software that staff use on a daily basis, they must be provided with up-to-date quality resources.  At work, I generally have three or more programs running and am working between multiple programs. At home, I typically have one program open at a time.  The computer needs of a work environment are very different from the computer needs of a work environment. 
 
 
Ruth Helwig
Systems Librarian and Education Bibliographer
Central Michigan University
Park Library 305
Mount Pleasant MI 48859
 
Phone: 989-773-9813
Fax: 989-774-2179
Email: helwi1rm at cmich dot edu

________________________________

From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org on behalf of Hoyte, Daniel
Sent: Thu 1/5/2006 4:44 PM
To: IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: RE: [IUG] Rationale for "expensive" computers



Before I answer the question, I offer a bit about my background. I spent
ten years owning a custom computer consulting business.

You definitely get what you pay for.

Most manufacturers (assemblers) utilize the same pool of component
suppliers. These suppliers provide a range of quality from "ready for
the garbage can" to "reliable".


As a rule, the more that you spend, the reliability and support will be
better. The goal is to get the best (within budget) equipment into the
hands of the staff. That usually means spending a bit more. This will
pay off in a greater amount of uptime for you staff and less aggravation
for the system administrator.

Of course, there can be exceptions...
On our 2003 upgrade cycle, we rotated in 16 new computers of a major
name in the industry. Of the 16, 15 have required that the motherboard
be replaced. One pc has had the motherboard replaced twice.

When you spend more, it does not mean that you will avoid receiving a
bad pc or, in our case, a bad run of them.

Daniel Hoyte
Library Technician (Serials/Acquisitions)
Systems Coordinator
Chapman University Law Library
hoyte at chapman dot edu
(714) 628-2508

-----Original Message-----
From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
[mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of Roger Dutcher
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:07 AM
To: INNOPAC Users Group
Subject: [IUG] Rationale for "expensive" computers

Hi All

We have a library board member who is wondering why we are paying
between $900 - $1100 per computer (we get ours from Dell) when you can
go out and get them from Wal-Mart or someplace for $500 or less.

We have noted that we get more memory, speed and better monitors for the

most part, but would like to see what others might have done.

I double checked CSDirect requirements for a computer to run Millennium
and they are the same as when we bought the system almost seven years
ago... surely the requirements have changed for more recent releases? 
We are still on  2002.3 and know that the minimum then was pretty low if

you wanted to do anything else on the computer (and III does note
that).  Are there higher minimums for newer releases?

Thanks in advance,

Roger Dutcher
Beloit (WI) Public Library


--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
list
Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac

--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list
Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
Update your subscription options: http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac




--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  application/ms-tnef
---