On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Maglinger, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sometimes one has to adapt to the limitation of a system, but >> when possible, it's better to adapt the system to better do the job. > > Okay... I want to use my car to go 85 mph down the highway, but I have > people telling me not to use it that way. [...etc...]
I'm not really sure what your point is. Most of your examples are sociological and have nothing to do with technology. If you're trying to suggest that people's desires sometimes exceed the capabilities of technology to deliver, I never wrote otherwise. Please observe the "when possible" in my statement quoted above. :) Your example of the safe speed of a car can serve to illustrate what I'm talking about. When the automobile first started to become popular in the US, even speeds of 30 MPH or so were unsafe. Many cars could barely make that speed, the roads were very poor, road signs and markings were rare and inconsistent, driver education was non-existent, etc. Gradually rules evolved and technology was improved, and speeds to 40 or 50 MPH became safer. But it wasn't until controlled access highways, seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc., evolved that a 65 MPH limit became realistically safe. So, to reiterate: One has to work within the limits of what's available. Reality doesn't change just because one wants it to. However, reality *does* change as we adapt and improve what's available. That's the very definition of technology -- applying science to meet desires. On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Maglinger, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > I will help them store files in a way for the business to understand, but > using > the hardware and the software that was designed for that purpose. What I (and others) are saying is: If the hardware and software design does not do what people want, then frequently that means the design is inadequate and should be improved. Look at MBS's very informative post on how ESE and Exchange are being changed. Larger data pages, per-mailbox data structures, "flattening" the database (I assume that means reducing indirection and improving locality of references) -- these are all things that adapt Exchange to better work the way people want to use it. Microsoft didn't say "that's the design, you have to live with it" (for a change ;-) ). They set out to better do what the users wanted to do. That's a good thing. I'm gonna get off my soapbox and back to work now. :-) -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
