All this talk about mission-critical workstations which supposedly need to be super-reliable. And yet these are usually cheap mainstream PCs (maybe bundled with costly support fees though), or laptops even, instead of traditional workstation hardware.
I am getting though that this song and dance is not about actual reliability, but about keeping the hardware vendors (as much as possible) responsible for hardware reliability. Software vendors in contrast succeed to avert this kind of responsibility mostly.
Edit:
And commenters continue to leave aside that organizations which deploy 10 PCs may have different requirements vs. risks than ones which deploy 1,000s of PCs.
That's because again, you're not getting it. I'll also address your previous reply to me:
1. Others have defined production in this thread several times, so I won't beat that horse to death. You can throw out as many niche situations or examples as you want, but we're talking about a guy with his PC and apparently custom building a replacement.
2. You keep talking about the workloads he runs. And how do YOU know the workloads he runs exactly? Here is the FACT: He upgraded from a 6700 to a 7700. There is VERY little performance to be gained by doing so. Chances are that his "sluggish" performance was due not to the CPU, but other factors but if, in fact, his slow speeds ARE because of his workloads, how would a "slow" 6700 be radically improved with a 7700 exactly?
3. Yes, I know that certain cloud providers use desktop grade hard drives but again, I do not think you fully understand. You're correct that they plan and compensate for the higher failure rates, but what you're missing is that IT operations are their CORE business. It is much different for AWS to maintain a spare inventory of hundreds of desktop drives for quick replacements than it is for IT departments where IT isn't the core competency (insurance, manufacturing, etc)
4. The largest corporations also tend to buy pre-built servers from the likes of Dell and HP. Why? Because it is typically cheaper, spare parts are available everywhere, and you can get super fast service. Who wants to pay people to spend their days building servers from the ground up? Very, very few. You may have some situations where companies use white box builds for VMWare labs or test environments, but those aren't production instances either.
5. Of all companies, small businesses are the least equipped to build servers and systems from scratch. Oh, trust me, I DO know it happens but it is penny wise and pound foolish IMO. Which business is the least likely to be able to afford a user being down for 1 day? A small business or a Fortune 500 company?
6. You've mentioned hardware reliability and that's part of it, but you're overlooking the huge support advantages of using systems from a large vendor like HP or Dell. Problems with your system? There are official support forums and likely thousands or millions of folks using the same system as you who can assist on third-party forums (like AT). And in the realm of servers, you can get parts replaced in HOURS - even system boards!
7. Yes, there are often monetary advantages of sticking with one vendor. There is nothing wrong with leveraging that.
8. You're overlooking the support headaches involved when you have users who are allowed to run amok and build/overclock/maintain their own PCs. Anyone who has worked in IT for any length of time always has a niche group of self-proclaimed "computer experts" in their user base who work in other departments. You know the type - they say stupid stuff like this:
"EXPERT" #1: "What?!?!?! You pay how much for our internet connectivity? I pay $50/month at Comcast and get 100 MB speeds! I'm going to put a bug in the CEO's ear that we should get a cable modem and use Comcast to save money!"
"EXPERT" #2: "We pay HOW MUCH for these laptops? I bought an Acer at Best Buy for $350 and I can game on it! We should call Best Buy and use them as our supplier and use Acer PCs!"
"EXPERT" #3: <pulls the IT guy aside and speaks in a low, barely audible voice> "I took a computer class on Saturday mornings at the local community college, so I'm an expert and am "one of you." If you guys need any support help, just let me know, and maybe you can let me "test" some non-standard software, if you know what I mean." <winks at IT guy>
The typically clueless business PC user isn't your worst enemy in IT - it is the person who, for whatever reason, thinks he/she is a computer expert and then when they do stupid stuff and it breaks things, they literally trip over themselves running to IT to fix their problems. "What? Why, I don't have any idea how that extra RAM module got installed in my machine! You guys must have done it but all this crashing lately seems to me to be bad memory."
I digress, but I can't help but tell about a true story I encountered many years ago. Even some other IT folks are idiots who know enough to be danger. A little over a decade ago, I worked in an IT department at a large company. I had a friend there who was a programmer but constantly bragged about how he was an "expert" on computers and programming. He literally told anyone who would listen how he was the "best" and "only true" IT person because he has a degree in Computer Technology (no, I'm not joking). Anyone, a couple of memorable examples from this dumbass:
1. He needed Office installed on his test development box. The help desk was way too busy to do it and they (the help desk) called me. I said "Give him the Office CD and tell him to install it himself - he is in IT and is a self-proclaimed expert, plus anyone can install Office." They called me back like 20 minutes later: "He wants to know if we have instructions, as he says he doesn't know how to install office." WTF
2. I tend to think he thought very highly of himself partially because this was his first IT job (IIRC) and he had never really worked with anyone with a clue. He was sitting in my office one day bragging about a fixing a long-standing issue one of his programs had. Him: "Yeah, I fixed that problem - what I did was make the value a variable instead of hardwiring it in the code." He was very proud of himself and acted like he just solved world hunger. But I ask you - read his statement again - doesn't anyone with even a high school level of programming know stuff like that? I was embarrassed for him.