On Thursday 20 December 2007 18:39:56 Brian Beck wrote:
> Vasquez, Timo wrote:
> > Finally ending on my initial point, if you have older equipment 8 bit
> > software that is not supported anymore or provided by a company that
> > is long gone, it is time to consider modernizing your current
> > framework to a more robust and compatible base. It is that simple.
> > Timo
> I disagree in full. Old does not mean obsolete. As the adage goes, 'if
> it ain't broke, don't fix it'. If current technologies and systems are
> sufficient then there is no reason to force upgrades to newer,
> incompatible technologies. The Space Shuttle survives on 386 machines;
> the NYSE ran its AIX mainframes for more than 20 years - all the way up
> to this year - and they took the load just fine.
> Training users to use a new system is prohibitive; and a thorough
> testing procedure guarantees that the technology won't be
> top-of-the-line by the time a properly-done system hits production
> anyway. Upgrading a core system to a new and radically different
> technology is not a simple walk in the park and is not necessary.
> Especially when any benefits of the move are negligible at best.
> -Brian Beck
In my case, the head administrative person wanted to upgrade from Office
2000. It was a disaster. Two machines worked flawlessly, and four had
verious problems ranging from simple to complete and constant crashes.
Most all went back to Office 2000. I now have a few people on 2007. It
does seem a lot more stable, but the learning curve shouldn't be ignored.
In the mean time, friends and folks whom I've consulted with outside of
MSU have discovered OpenOffice and many are using that instead of later
Operationally, I have had the fewest problems with people using Office 2000.
I believe it to me the most stable of the bunch at the moment. 2007 might
be better, but I'll believe that when people I know have had it for a year and
generated no complaints. Office XP and 2003 generated a lot of that.