On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:32 AM, LAR wrote:

> 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.


The problem here is that huge cash investments breed inertia.  If you notice so 
many big stores/chain locations are using Point of Purchase equipment that was 
state of the art 10 years ago.

Best, R.E.F.
----
www.crydee.com

Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by 
stupidity.







Reply via email to