Cedric Meyerowitz wrote: > Horst > > Other smaller medical software companies with a much smaller staff numbers > than HCN, tested their software on Vista at least 6 months ago and found it > worked perfectly. I realise the programmer(s) must be more superior, which > is why with minimal effort, theirc software worked. If they could do it, > others could do it. After all, XP-pro still frequently had patches and > millions used it for mission critical work (not to mention Win95 & 98) Traditionally businesses lag several generations behind the latest version. There are lots of costs in upgrading, as previously mentioned, such as licensing, new hardware, programmers' time, users' retraining costs, testing and installing. Software in business is designed to do a job and if you keep the same operating systems and programs you don't get bit rot. For example, many of the databases in use by government departments are in MS Access version 2.0 format (http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2007/video/talks/55.ogg).
I have just successfully upgraded a machine from MS Server 2003 to MS Server 2000. This suits my purposes for a variety of reasons. The likelihood of me updating is becoming vanishingly small. Cutting edge doesn't always cut it. David _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
