"BCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Hello Nick, > >> Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times >> I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing >> for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is >> people are *using*, not what the stores are selling. >> >> Should they stop offering brake-pads/spark-plugs/tires that work on >> 2008-model cars? No? Well why not?! It's not like the stores sell >> 2008's anymore!! >> >> It's a ridiculous line of reasoning made even more ridiculous by how >> frequently people actually try to use it. > > If I'm ever in a position to do it, I will spec the target platform for a > program as something like the 20th percentile of computers used by our > target market when the project is started. I'd get a bunch of system like > that and then mandate that any prototypes be shown to management on one of > them before it's shown on anything else and that the devs must run their > code on them regularly. > > I wouldn't have any problem with the program being able to take advantage > of something a lot newer, but it darn well better run on those old boxes. >
I wish you were a higher-up at Epic ;) They seem to have pretty much the opposite attitude, and I get so worked-up every time I see a quote from "CliffyB" or any of the others...
