Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

[Swift Griggs]

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Dave Wade wrote:
> What would you expect. Properly maintained, managed enterprise and 
> locked down Windows/7 is solid and reliable.

My ER experience was back in the Windows XP days. I have noticed 7 seems 
pretty stable if you can keep M$ from tricking you into upgrading to 
Windows 10. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/05/23/windows-10-dirty-trick-hits-windows-7-and-windows-8-users/

> In the UK it is hard to use Linux in the "Public Sector" and in the UK 
> most Hospitals are Public Sector.

Hmm, well you do make a good point. I'm not sure Linux would give better 
results, but it certainly has a better reputation for stability and that's 
been mirrored in my experiences, also. However, to be honest what I'd be 
most impressed by seeing would be either thin clients running Windows CE 
or (even better) modern terminals connected back to a 
redundant-as-all-heck mainframe or overbuilt server (think high end HP DL 
boxes) in a fully clustered or redundant system. People might complain 
that the only thing they can do on the terminals is their job, but uhm, 
isn't that why they are there?

> You can use Linux BUT you must have a support contract in place and run 
> a supported distro. Having costed this it brings the price up way beyond 
> that of a Windows desktop.

Hmm, that's not my experience, but I'm not a sales guy. IIRC, the last 
time I saw Windows Server and RHEL pricing compared side by side, it was 
either close in many cases or quite a bit cheaper on the RHEL side. I'm 
not a RHEL shill by any stretch, but just sharing what I've seen. Maybe 
you mean desktop machines? That could make sense, I suppose. 

> I can't remember getting a blue screen on Windows/7. I used to run a 200 
> server windows infrastructure. It all down to how you manage it.

Well, let me focus on that last sentence. I really couldn't agree more on 
that. I'm sure one could take something like OS/2 and, even though it's 
completely out of support, you could easily make it work if you put the 
right plans in place (spares, 3rd party support, adequate staff with good 
shift coverage and high morale). It's really hard to overstate how 
important those "other" things are, versus just the choice of OS.

> Our Linux appliances were the most unreliable servers BECAUSE we did not 
> know How to manage them.

It's a good point. I don't doubt you. 

-Swift