Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 ... Last
[#] Wed Feb 24 2010 17:09:43 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

the other comment of theirs about not upgrading...
There is a real business reality that businesses are not in the business of keeping all their software up to date.
There are businesses that exist for whom up to date software is their reason for existing, but most businessess exist to create and product and sell it, and not burn resources on keeping their entire company's software library up to the latest patch ALL THE TIME.
It's an insane waste of time and money.
At my place, we tend to stay with things right up until their end-of-support date because to do anything else would be more expensive than not.
To everybody who hates dealing with oldish software this might sound annoying, but in reality, it's time and money, and that's what business is about.
we only switched from java 1.2 fairly recently (and that was to 5 not 6) because we HAD to upgrade our appserver and it ran on 5.

[#] Wed Feb 24 2010 21:32:09 EST from cellofellow @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't know if people don't upgrade because of monetary costs or if there's simply a very strong "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, but if it's the former, just another reason to use open source software. A good compromise are the "enterprise grade" linux distros, like RHEL or Debian for example, where there is both a frequent, low-risk update system and a "IIABDFI" attitude.

Anyway, I know one thing that drove me to try Linux was I was stuck using old Windows 98 and ME, and Linux let me use software that wasn't 5-7 years old (at the time).

Ah, well, I'm probably stating the obvious.



[#] Wed Feb 24 2010 23:51:19 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

attitude, but if it's the former, just another reason to use open
source software. A good compromise are the "enterprise grade" linux

The cost of the software is the least of the problem.
Salaries are one of the biggeest expenses a company has, and when all your people are working on something that has almost zero ROI, then it's a big waste of money.

[#] Thu Feb 25 2010 07:57:51 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Smart people perform cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the cost of staying put is higher than the cost of upgrading.

*Really* smart people know all of the subtle little things to use as inputs to their cost/benefit analysis, such as the cost of downtime/repair due to old software having security problems, lost productivity due to incompatibility with modern web apps, etc.

And it goes without saying that the smartest of the smart have taken that analysis to its logical conclusion and gotten themselves off the Microsoft platform entirely.

[#] Fri Mar 05 2010 12:08:24 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Wow.

I just found out that in order to install Exchange 2010, you have to have the "domain functional level" of Active Directory set to Windows 2003 Native or higher.

This means that if you want to use Exchange 2010, you may not have any Windows 2000 (or Windows NT) servers *anywhere* in your organization.

Way to go, Microsoft. Epic fail, as always.

[#] Tue Mar 09 2010 11:17:51 EST from BOFHMike @ My Castle Realm

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Fri Mar 05 2010 12:08:24 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored


Way to go, Microsoft. Epic fail, as always.

And you expected anything less?



[#] Tue Mar 09 2010 12:56:27 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Re: Domain compatability.

I'm a little rusty, but if I remember correctly, the big change with Windows 2003 or higher support was to allow hierarchical Windows domain names similar to the DNS naming hierarchy. Windows NT and Windows 2000 can only support flat domain names with a certain length (which I can't remember).

To be fair, MS would have had to go back and patch NT and 2000 to handle the new domain name structure. That would've been a huge investment on their part for little to no ROI. I can't blame MS on that one. It's the nature of commercially created software. Supporting old versions costs money, so at some point, they have to say "no" just to keep their expenses down.

Now if they went ahead and released the source code for NT or 2000 into the public domain, I'm sure someone would have it patched and working within a few weeks.
Domain Binder

[#] Thu Mar 18 2010 08:46:53 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

no IE9 for windows XP:

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/03/unsurprisingly-ie9-wont-be-supported-on-an-obsolete-os.ars

 

So they're finaly trying to kill it that way.



[#] Thu Mar 18 2010 08:52:44 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's been attempted before, and failed.

[#] Thu Mar 18 2010 10:35:19 EDT from Peter Pulse @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

LOL the first ever version of Windows that, after much effort, finally got pretty stable and managed to satisfy most of its users (including me).. and they want to kill it.

[#] Thu Mar 18 2010 11:09:44 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


It's the Microsoft Way.

[#] Thu Mar 18 2010 15:46:24 EDT from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I still use Windows3.1 for old DOS games :) though i could just run DOS-Box and do the same thing... obsolete now thanks to activex and IE



[#] Tue Mar 23 2010 21:02:19 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I just installed my first xp machine a few months ago. oh well, I'll just have to live without ie9

[#] Wed Mar 24 2010 02:26:13 EDT from fireball @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I never liked slowing down my dos games with windows 3.1, seemed
pointless anyway, as dos is the best operating system microsoft has ever
made... (:P)

[#] Wed Mar 24 2010 11:01:24 EDT from athos-mn @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It just all went downhill after they rid of Xenix, right. :)

Actually, I'm not too thrilled with MS right now (am I ever?). While I will admit that Exchange is pretty stable, as long as it's just a single-server installation, their migration process sucks. Exmerge just sucks sucks sucks.

[#] Wed Mar 24 2010 17:52:03 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Exchange 2010 server in multi role mode ... minimum RAM requirement is 10 GB. Talk about BLOAT!

(Even a single role server requires 4 GB!)

[#] Thu Mar 25 2010 09:48:54 EDT from athos-mn @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I never said it was small - just that, for a MS product, it's pretty stable if you leave it alone.

Right now - WTF does a printer need with ODBC???

[#] Thu Mar 25 2010 19:03:43 EDT from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

"Computers are like air conditioning: All is running fine and dandy until windows are opened."



[#] Sat Mar 27 2010 12:21:56 EDT from asdfg @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

cool.

[#] Sun Mar 28 2010 02:50:12 EDT from the8088er @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Exchange 2010 server in multi role mode ... minimum RAM requirement is


That is unbelieveable. I never thought I'd see the day that a software package required that much.

Go to page: First ... 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 ... Last