More like 13 years, Ray. They all upgraded at the same time over Y2K fears, and now they can't afford another upgrade!
- Sent from my phone On Feb 28, 2012 11:57 AM, "Raymond E. Feist" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > >
