Re: What companies are still using old technology

[ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner)]

Bible John wrote:

Richard said:
> <Do an Internet
> search; many companies and governments are finally learning this lesson and
> are now shunning forced upgrades. If it won't run their present hard and
> soft ware, then forget it. They are fed up with the down time and cost to
> retrain, and with the cost of upgrading hardware. A local discussion group
> here posted a dozen or more links in several threads to stories from
> around the world regarding this>

> Are you serious? Can you send me to some websites? 

***   Go to "Google Groups" and request "hfx.general". I believe most of
those links were in various "Vista" threads. If you strike out, I can put
you in touch with one of the persons that posted a few of them. He may
still have them bookmarked.


> My old college for years 
> had used a DOS system, and then got cute and went Windows. 

***   Coincidentally, the guy I referred to above complained when his
former university did the same. He says it is a much slower, more
complicated system now,  )-:


> My old job did 
> the same, and the new system is 3-4 times as slow and often hangs up and 
> slows down the job while the DOS system (harder for novices) was much 
> faster.

***   Of course. DOS is far leaner, and is frugal with resources.


> Sadly Richard most IT experts disagree with you, and your wisdom and 
> superior knowledge may get you turned down from many of these IT jobs.

***   I  am not bucking for an IT job, so I am safe. However, some of the
seasoned ITers I run into locally, often do agree with me.


> But Richard you get turned down, because you are smarter than they, 

***   Oh, these guys are smart, but are young enough that they don't
know that the previous systems were efficient and much more stable.


> and do not follow the crowd like they do.

***   That's because I am pretty much immune to marketing. I actually try
things for myself instead of blindly following the company blurbs and
brainwashed masses.


> Imagine you getting hired to be on the IT team at some college, an then you 
> telling everyone about DOS. That might get you fired. But only because they 
> are dumb, and do not know better.

***   I doubt it would get me fired. They would be open to any system
that works and costs less. However, most have bought into the marketing
that says if it's old, it's no good, and if it's new, it has to be
better.


>   <A final example is that my company uses early 1990s AccPac software for
> DOS because it cost thousands at the time and still does exactly what is
> required. Why spend thousands more to get new software that requires a
> system that in turn needs new computers and new hardware to do exactly
> the same thing in exactly the same way?>

> Not including crashing all the time and requiring an IT force.

> John

***   We had a 1991 486 here until about 2000 when it was replaced. At
retirement, it still had MS-DOS 6.2 on it (installed in 1994, up from
PC-DOS 3.3) and was never reinstalled during its life here. I can't ever
remember that system locking up unless it was our own fault, or when
playing certain protected-mode games.

   I have that system at home now and use it for webpage work, word
processing, graphic viewing and Internet usage. The only upgrades were to
a DX4-100 processor and to DR-DOS 7.03/ It still hums along wonderfully,
but will be replaced soon with its successor, an AMD K6-500 because I
would like to have USB capability at home. The work computer will
likely move to a Pentium III at 700 - 800 Mhz.

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/