On all I concur... Their development platforms are just as bad.
I remember a PC project I worked on somewhere around the tail end of the 90's, a pretty big one at that. By the time project was complete, the development environment and platform had changed under our feet. I was so pissed because we couldn't just leave the project on the older platform, which caused us a few months delay. I just shook my head wishing I had a baseball bat so I can put it use on the head of someone at MS. WTH were these folks thinking? Last year I was called in to solve a connectivity/IDMS/DB2 problem of a home-grown VB application that connected with the mainframe DB platforms using Shadow. Turns out the ODBC driver was updated on a couple of workstations and the app stopped working. The only solution...? Recompile and rebind everything related to the app that ran on those workstations. I would like to say "don't get me started", but unfortunately, I already am... :( Calm down, Green... Calm down.... On Mon Jun 30 13:00 , 'McKown, John' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]','','','')">[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Green >> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:36 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Another difference between platforms... >> >> Back in the 80's we mainframe(rs) went from 24 bit to 31 bit, >> then towards the end of the millennium, we started migrating >> to 64 bit with the introduction of z/OS. During all this >> time I do not recall any of the applications we ran on the >> older platforms ever "going dark" because of the change. We >> all have a ton of stuff in our shop that was written decades >> ago and is still humming along just fine thank you. Then why >> is it every time Mickeysoft changes their platform, >> everything we were using must change or be left behind? >> >> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do\?command=viewArt >> icleBasic&articleId=9103238&source=NLT_ES&nlid=42 >> >> Gary Green > >Enforced obsolescense! If the old apps continued to run on the new OS, >how would MS force people to upgrade to the new application software? >There is a lot of "chatter" than MS does this deliberately to force >people to buy new versions of MS Office when they get a new OS, which is >usually forced when they get new hardware. PROFIT! > >Personally, I think it is also because Windows is designed "ad hoc" with >no real stragetic planning. I've also heard that every MS programmer >things that they can do it better and so the API changes "as needed" >with no regard to backwards compatability. > >-- >John McKown >Senior Systems Programmer >HealthMarkets >Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage >Administrative Services Group >Information Technology > >The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged >and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are >not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, >reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is >strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal >offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the >sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing >it. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO >Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
