On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Raymond E. Feist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Nick Andrews wrote: > >> Change just for the sake of change is always bad. And for production >> operations, it needs to be for a damned good reason to even consider >> it at all... > > > It was funny. I had a talk in front of the San Diego Apple Users Group > (later morphed into the Mac Users Group) and those tech heads could not be > convinced of this. They don't get the part that says, "First, we rip out > millions of dollars of existing infrastructure," needs to be offset by > "because this change will end up making us more money." Home computers were > still "neep, neep" stuff by propeller heads, and business had only just begun > to start looking to PCs in strategic locations to free up overhead from > dedicated main frames. The first people to get PCs in business were > secretaries and accounts, and the art departments got early Macs. > > Best, R.E.F. > ---- > www.crydee.com > > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by > stupidity. >
Oddly enough those people are now the LAST to get an upgraded computer. I remember in 2000 I had a pharmaceutical client whose secretary was still using a 486 (For those too young to remember, that was 4 generations removed from the then current pentium - last issued in 1989). Being in QA, my people still have that problem with developers - convincing them that their NEAT idea of how to do something or added functionality has NOTHING to do with the business purpose of the app and does NOT need to be implemented. However, making sure the print function works correctly DOES. Larry -- If you want to take the island, then burn your boats. With absolute commitment come the insights that create real victory. -Tony Robbins
